This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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).
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.
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 involved Berknyc81 ( talk) 02:26, 11 September 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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.
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)
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)
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:
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)
-- 108.46.178.48 ( talk) 17:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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).
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.
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 involved Berknyc81 ( talk) 02:26, 11 September 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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.
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)
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)
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:
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)
-- 108.46.178.48 ( talk) 17:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)