![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As my login name implies, I am a graduate of Taft. However, the edits I made were largely clercial/factual in nature without my personal views/opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taftgrad ( talk • contribs) 00:47, 13 July 2010
(copied from SV's talk page)
Dear SV, the policy protection states
Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others.
You have fully protected the article, thus disabling my ability to improve it. It seems your protection may be contrary to the protection policy. I advocate you block the WP:SPAs and unprotect the article. Basket of Puppies 22:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
In an effort to clarify the issue, I am opening this discussion on the accreditation status of this school. I am of the opinion that this school is an unaccredited law school based on the fact that the only law school accreditation organization in the United States is the American Bar Association. They simply do not list this school under the list of accredited law schools. Furthermore, their documentation states that they do not accredit online or distance law schools. Regarding the DETC accreditation, that only accredit the college as a distance education school, but they specifically do not accredit the law degrees. This is very similar to the situation of the Southern New England School of Law which has regional accreditation but the ABA has not accredited their law degrees. The graduates are unable to sit for the bar outside of their region. I look forward to replies and dissenting opinions. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 19:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I am still uncertain why this article remains fully protected and the SPAs are not blocked, as this is exactly what policy requires. Basket of Puppies 21:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC). Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others.
BoP, et al--Let's get rid of "Notable People" and add "Alumni". Notable People is a vague term and is not relevant to the entry. Any person listed should be verified as alumni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.65.122 ( talk) 06:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
From WP:
Noted people — This section is not for a list of famous alumni, but rather a description of notable academic staff and alumni presented in paragraph form. Summarize the number of affiliates and alumni who have won major scholarships (Rhodes, Fulbright, etc.), major awards (Nobel, Oscar, Pulitzer, etc.), served as heads of government or other major political office, or otherwise held elite or notable distinctions (astronauts, professional athletes, CEOs, etc.). Individuals who do not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline should not be included.
How is the nut-job attorney "notable" under this definition (i.e., "...served as heads of government or other major political office, or otherwise held elite or notable distinctions (astronauts, professional athletes, CEOs, etc.").?
Her name is obviously posted to make the school look bad--get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.24.38 ( talk) 21:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The historic pass rate listed is 31% based on a count of 56 passers out of 180 first time takers. Recommend that IP user give us a count of the repeat taker passers IOT give us a "70%" pass rate. -- S. Rich ( talk) 22:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
IP editor is attempting to add in the repeaters to the pass rate, but that is, I'm afraid, a WP:CHERRY analysis. The State Bar stats do not tell us that only 180 different grads took the bar during 1997-2010 time frame. That is, there could be any number of repeaters from the years prior to 1997 who came on in to successfully take the bar. Those people would increase the overall pass rate based on the false assumption that only 180 different grads had taken the bar either as first timers or repeaters. Since we do not have WP:V as to those people, the only clean way to report a pass rate is with the numbers for the first timers. But also suppose we took the pass rate for the non-successful/successful repeaters and reported on that? E.g., we gave the 31% out of the 180 first timers figure and a xx% for the xxx number repeat test attempts? (Notice I do not assume that the number of repeat test attempts equals the number of repeat test takers.) That might be a verifiable figure from the State Bar WP:RS; however, do we really need this level of detail? -- S. Rich ( talk) 05:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems as though the original author is a bit unaware of accreditation practices and professional licensure in California. There are a number of issues with this article. I figured a list is the best way to go about this.
1. Taft Law School is registered and recognized by the California State Bar's Committee of Bar Examiners (who determine what is and is not a legitimate Juris Doctor degree, and therefore who can sit to test and receive a bar license) though it is considered unaccredited ONLY by the ABA and State Accreditation agencies, HOWEVER Taft Law School is nationally accredited by the U.S. Department of Education as a post-secondary education institution that grants juris doctor degrees in law by virtue of the Distance Education Accrediting Commission and the Taft University System. The Taft University System has been continuously accredited since 2003. This means that an L2-3 (meaning Law Student, Year 2 or 3) from Taft can legally practice law like a Law Student from UCLA can (under the supervision of a professor) and that graduates are eligible to become licensed attorneys in California (the license in California doesn't give you the ability to practice law in other states) like any ABA accredited law school. The only difference is that because of the unconventional format of learning, Taft graduates must spend 4-years in law school instead of 3 years, and must complete at least 864 hours of instruction each year in order to maintain eligibility to sit for the Bar. The FYLSX (First-Year Law Student Exam) administered by the CalBar, has nothing to do with any of this, per se, because it is technically a default test that most ABA-accredited students are exempt from. California State Bar - List of Recognized California Law Schools & DEAC Taft Law School Accreditation Disclosure
2. Everyone has to take the FYLSX, not just Taft Students. The baby bar has to be taken (unless exemptions apply) by every First-Year Law student in the State of California who is in an 'unaccredited-registered school', who is 'reading law' (where you don't go to law school at all, you simply study under the guidance of a judge or attorney), or who hadn't received an associates degree, at minimum, before attending law school of any kind. The reason behind this is that after your first year, you are permitted to engage in the limited practice of law under the supervision of a professor or other licensed attorney (in misdemeanor and limited-classification civil suits as well as some forms of arbitration and any felony criminal appeals). To protect the public from malpractice of well-intentioned students, the baby-bar is administered before this privilege is bestowed upon the lawyer-to-be. That statement in the article clearly sets forth that the FYLSX is somehow a forced requirement due to Taft's abnormal status as an 'accredited but not accredited' law school. But technically, its a requirement for all L1 students, just most meet the exemption of studying accredited and have a bachelor's degree under their belt. Nonetheless, that is the only aspect of the conclusory statement made in the article that's even remotely accurate. That you are going to have to take the FYLSX after your first-year... Hence the name... California State Bar - FYLSX
3. Regardless of what law school you went to, a california license isn't going to get you into court in any other state in the United States. This is because California is one of the only states that does not have reciprocity of its license to practice law with any of the other states in the country. Not because "Taft just sucks eggs" which is what I feel like the author wanted to write based on their lack of encyclopedic tone. Even though I am not a graduate of Taft nor do I know one, I'm fairly certain that these misrepresentations would have a significant impact on their prospective students and borders on the edge of disregarding NPOV or even just diligence and proper reading of reliable source material.
Thus, I propose that we neutralize the tone, and make changes in conformity with the reasoning supra. What's everyone's thoughts on that? Luxnir ( talk) 12:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As my login name implies, I am a graduate of Taft. However, the edits I made were largely clercial/factual in nature without my personal views/opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taftgrad ( talk • contribs) 00:47, 13 July 2010
(copied from SV's talk page)
Dear SV, the policy protection states
Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others.
You have fully protected the article, thus disabling my ability to improve it. It seems your protection may be contrary to the protection policy. I advocate you block the WP:SPAs and unprotect the article. Basket of Puppies 22:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
In an effort to clarify the issue, I am opening this discussion on the accreditation status of this school. I am of the opinion that this school is an unaccredited law school based on the fact that the only law school accreditation organization in the United States is the American Bar Association. They simply do not list this school under the list of accredited law schools. Furthermore, their documentation states that they do not accredit online or distance law schools. Regarding the DETC accreditation, that only accredit the college as a distance education school, but they specifically do not accredit the law degrees. This is very similar to the situation of the Southern New England School of Law which has regional accreditation but the ABA has not accredited their law degrees. The graduates are unable to sit for the bar outside of their region. I look forward to replies and dissenting opinions. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 19:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I am still uncertain why this article remains fully protected and the SPAs are not blocked, as this is exactly what policy requires. Basket of Puppies 21:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC). Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others.
BoP, et al--Let's get rid of "Notable People" and add "Alumni". Notable People is a vague term and is not relevant to the entry. Any person listed should be verified as alumni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.65.122 ( talk) 06:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
From WP:
Noted people — This section is not for a list of famous alumni, but rather a description of notable academic staff and alumni presented in paragraph form. Summarize the number of affiliates and alumni who have won major scholarships (Rhodes, Fulbright, etc.), major awards (Nobel, Oscar, Pulitzer, etc.), served as heads of government or other major political office, or otherwise held elite or notable distinctions (astronauts, professional athletes, CEOs, etc.). Individuals who do not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline should not be included.
How is the nut-job attorney "notable" under this definition (i.e., "...served as heads of government or other major political office, or otherwise held elite or notable distinctions (astronauts, professional athletes, CEOs, etc.").?
Her name is obviously posted to make the school look bad--get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.24.38 ( talk) 21:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The historic pass rate listed is 31% based on a count of 56 passers out of 180 first time takers. Recommend that IP user give us a count of the repeat taker passers IOT give us a "70%" pass rate. -- S. Rich ( talk) 22:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
IP editor is attempting to add in the repeaters to the pass rate, but that is, I'm afraid, a WP:CHERRY analysis. The State Bar stats do not tell us that only 180 different grads took the bar during 1997-2010 time frame. That is, there could be any number of repeaters from the years prior to 1997 who came on in to successfully take the bar. Those people would increase the overall pass rate based on the false assumption that only 180 different grads had taken the bar either as first timers or repeaters. Since we do not have WP:V as to those people, the only clean way to report a pass rate is with the numbers for the first timers. But also suppose we took the pass rate for the non-successful/successful repeaters and reported on that? E.g., we gave the 31% out of the 180 first timers figure and a xx% for the xxx number repeat test attempts? (Notice I do not assume that the number of repeat test attempts equals the number of repeat test takers.) That might be a verifiable figure from the State Bar WP:RS; however, do we really need this level of detail? -- S. Rich ( talk) 05:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems as though the original author is a bit unaware of accreditation practices and professional licensure in California. There are a number of issues with this article. I figured a list is the best way to go about this.
1. Taft Law School is registered and recognized by the California State Bar's Committee of Bar Examiners (who determine what is and is not a legitimate Juris Doctor degree, and therefore who can sit to test and receive a bar license) though it is considered unaccredited ONLY by the ABA and State Accreditation agencies, HOWEVER Taft Law School is nationally accredited by the U.S. Department of Education as a post-secondary education institution that grants juris doctor degrees in law by virtue of the Distance Education Accrediting Commission and the Taft University System. The Taft University System has been continuously accredited since 2003. This means that an L2-3 (meaning Law Student, Year 2 or 3) from Taft can legally practice law like a Law Student from UCLA can (under the supervision of a professor) and that graduates are eligible to become licensed attorneys in California (the license in California doesn't give you the ability to practice law in other states) like any ABA accredited law school. The only difference is that because of the unconventional format of learning, Taft graduates must spend 4-years in law school instead of 3 years, and must complete at least 864 hours of instruction each year in order to maintain eligibility to sit for the Bar. The FYLSX (First-Year Law Student Exam) administered by the CalBar, has nothing to do with any of this, per se, because it is technically a default test that most ABA-accredited students are exempt from. California State Bar - List of Recognized California Law Schools & DEAC Taft Law School Accreditation Disclosure
2. Everyone has to take the FYLSX, not just Taft Students. The baby bar has to be taken (unless exemptions apply) by every First-Year Law student in the State of California who is in an 'unaccredited-registered school', who is 'reading law' (where you don't go to law school at all, you simply study under the guidance of a judge or attorney), or who hadn't received an associates degree, at minimum, before attending law school of any kind. The reason behind this is that after your first year, you are permitted to engage in the limited practice of law under the supervision of a professor or other licensed attorney (in misdemeanor and limited-classification civil suits as well as some forms of arbitration and any felony criminal appeals). To protect the public from malpractice of well-intentioned students, the baby-bar is administered before this privilege is bestowed upon the lawyer-to-be. That statement in the article clearly sets forth that the FYLSX is somehow a forced requirement due to Taft's abnormal status as an 'accredited but not accredited' law school. But technically, its a requirement for all L1 students, just most meet the exemption of studying accredited and have a bachelor's degree under their belt. Nonetheless, that is the only aspect of the conclusory statement made in the article that's even remotely accurate. That you are going to have to take the FYLSX after your first-year... Hence the name... California State Bar - FYLSX
3. Regardless of what law school you went to, a california license isn't going to get you into court in any other state in the United States. This is because California is one of the only states that does not have reciprocity of its license to practice law with any of the other states in the country. Not because "Taft just sucks eggs" which is what I feel like the author wanted to write based on their lack of encyclopedic tone. Even though I am not a graduate of Taft nor do I know one, I'm fairly certain that these misrepresentations would have a significant impact on their prospective students and borders on the edge of disregarding NPOV or even just diligence and proper reading of reliable source material.
Thus, I propose that we neutralize the tone, and make changes in conformity with the reasoning supra. What's everyone's thoughts on that? Luxnir ( talk) 12:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)