Talk:University of Silicon Valley Law School

message: I am skeptical about the current status of USVLS because of the following:
* The number 408-842-8887 number listed on this webpage: http://www.svulaw.com/students_page.htm is "not in service".
* The City of San Jose does not list a University of Silicon Valley as a business. Search for "University" on http://www.csjfinance.org/bizlic/bizlic.asp?Search=business_name came up with "Silicon Valley University" only.
* The California Secretary of State (http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx) gives the following information for "University of Silicon Valley, Inc." -- "Entity Number: C2493853; Date Filed: 01/17/2003; Status: SUSPENDED; Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA; Entity Address: 1762 TECHNOLOGY DR STE 227; Entity City, State, Zip: SAN JOSE CA 95110; Agent for Service of Process: NATIONAL REGISTERED AGENTS, INC.; Agent Address: 2875 MICHELLE DR STE 100; Agent City, State, Zip: IRVINE CA 92606"
*Various of their pages, for example: http://www.svulaw.com/students_page.htm have a logo for the California BPPVE, the abbreviation for the old California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education.  However, the new California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education website does not list USVLS on their San Jose city listing. See: https://app.dca.ca.gov/bppe/view-voc-names.asp?city=SAN+JOSE&Submit=Search .
With this in mind, the only verification we have about USVLS is from the single Committee of Bar Examiners source (reference 3).  Without any particular knowledge on the issue, I'm thinking that the CBE still lists USVLS because they have a certain number of years of valid registration.  And once students pass the Baby Bar, those students can probably continue on in law studies in other schools. In combing through bar exam results, I do not see any successful candidates for the general bar.  There might be some for the Baby Bar, but some more looking is required.  Thoughts on the issue of WP:V or WP:FALSE or what should be done? --S. Rich (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest listing of registered fixed facility unaccredited law schools from the Committee of Bar Examiners (11/15/2010) no longer lists USVLS. http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zQMaH_Vepxo%3d&tabid=2192 .  I'm putting the article up for deletion. --S. Rich (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I'm the one who put in the "distinguish" template, I can't follow my own advice.  The problem is that the State Bar has University of Silicon Valley Law School on their listing as "Silicon Valley University Law School" in Gilroy, CA, and gives the USVLS website on the listing. There is a separate entity called Silicon Valley University, but they are not in Gilroy and they do not have a law school. (I've edited the nav template to list University of Silicon Valley LS instead of the piped "Silicon Valley University LS".) I'll figure the rest of this out on Monday!--S. Rich (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

text: USVLS is indeed defunct and the CBE will be removing its' listing in the near future. I have edited the article to reflect "past tense" status for historical purposes, and will edit it out of categories and templates.  Once the CBE drops it from their website, I'll either submit for AFD or estabilsh a redirect to the defunct schools article. --S. Rich (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

text: This IP editor has misread the comments above and, more importantly, does not understand the purpose of this talk page.  I did not say the link was "not in service" -- I said the phone number listed on that particular page was not in service.  (I do not know if it is working now, but nothing stops anyone from testing to see.)  The information on the article page is as accurate and up to date as I can determine, so I stand by it. And when I've made mistakes here or in the article, I have acknowledged them and corrected them.  If further corrections are available, IP editor and others are most welcome to make those changes. That is what WP is all about.  IP editor does not seem to understand that the information on this discussion page is posted for purposes of improving the article.  --S. Rich (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still in business? 

message: ** The following above is partly conjecture or incorrect, see the comment below...
In the times of uncertainty I understand the need for skepticism.  But to answer the comments previously posted is simply the school has relocated and no longer in San Jose California, but in close proximity to the former location.  The campus is approximately 5-6 miles north and the Administrative Office has always been located in Gilroy.  The telephone number has also changed.  Classes are currently held at the Fremont Tech Center near Hwy 880, bordering Milpitas.  The university has changed it official name and has abandoned the name Silicon Valley University due to a conflict with another school of a similar name.  The school operates as an evening’s only part time law program.  It conforms to the requirements as set forth by the State Bar of California and also offers one of the lowest tuition rates of any fixed facility law school in the bay area.  All law schools in the state are required to teach the basic core curriculum as set forth by the State Bar of California and anyone attempting to become a legal practitioner who is looking for an alternative to a correspondence, online or a larger more expensive law school may find this school to be of benefit.  I’ve found that reasonably prices fixed facility law schools with lower rates of tuition are somewhat less common to find.  Schools that attempt to keep costs down for their students in a time when the cost of education is becoming increasingly more expensive is a good thing and should be applauded.  Bar passage rates should also be viewed by prospective law students as only a guide at best.  As with any statistical data it should not be the only determining factor in deciding what school to attend.  In fact, many schools maintain a high bar pass rate by selectively admitting only high undergraduate GPA students or Honor Roll students and through a process of elimination disqualifying those students that may bring down the schools bar passage rate.  In rare instances a student of lesser promise may be admitted with some prestige value, like a member of a well knows or prominent family and possibly an offer of a large contribution to the schools coffers.  FYI, a school with a high bar passage rate has no barring on whether or not you can pass the exam too.  Simply put, if you have a high undergraduate GPA and show promise with good performance in your final exams you will most likely be accepted and can do well at any law school you choose.  Any top tear law school that feels you pose a threat of bringing down it’s bar pass rate will be disinclined to accept you, so smaller less known law schools are an alternative for some.  Do not confuse the ability to pass the bar exam with a lack of intelligence, many fail the bar who know the law quite well.  Traditionally what you will learn in law school vs. what you need to learn to pass the bar exam is another skill set altogether, that’s why so many Bar Review courses exist and provide law students the skills and training to pass the bar exam.  When shopping for a law school you also need to find a learning environment that is comfortable for you, because you will be attending for 3-4 years.  So, call them, visit them and good luck! [added by 184.232.253.130 on 00:19, 15 April 2011 14:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, this law school is still in business 

message: The edits I just reverted are suspect in a few respects.  One, they introduced false information (viz. changes to the bar pass rates). Two, they introduced info which is unverified (and perhaps cannot be verified).  E.g., while the school may have once been approved by the old BPPVE, that state approving entity is "defunct" and was replaced by another agency.  The school, though, still has the BPPVE logo on its website.  But it is not now approved by the successor agency.  Three: re the ABA non-approval, the reference provided lists schools "approved" by the ABA and USVLS is not on the list; saying it is not accredited is a small point, but the reference uses the term "approved."  (Indeed, it is not a CBE approved school.)  Four: the changed material regarding registration is problematic as well. It seems to suggest that students can attend classes and receive a J.D. degree.  But please note the school's cooperate status is suspended by the CA Sec of State; it no longer has a valid "Doing Business As" (FBN) registration with the County Clerk; and, it is not a licensed business in the City of San Jose.  So, does it have legal authority to hold second year classes for the single student who has passed the Baby Bar?  I doubt it.  And I doubt that students from other schools have signed up for second year classes.  I would hope that the State Bar Committee of Bar Examiners would look into this and make proper corrections on its' listing of schools.--S. Rich (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: IP edits of 27 April 

message: The links for USVLS seem to be dead.  I got a "FORBIDDEN You don't have permission to access / on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request." for each article reference.  The State Bar of California Committee of Bar Examiners has not changed the listing of law schools on their website since November, but that may change in July as LaVerne SOL looses its ABA provisional approval.  As every indication is that USVLS is defunct, I shall monitor the CBE website and nominate AFD when I learn more.--S. Rich (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: USVLS is indeed defunct and the CBE will be removing its' listing in the near future. I have edited the article to reflect "past tense" status for historical purposes, and will edit it out of categories and templates.  Once the CBE drops it from their website, I'll either submit for AFD or estabilsh a redirect to the defunct schools article. --S. Rich (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

text: This IP editor has misread the comments above and, more importantly, does not understand the purpose of this talk page.  I did not say the link was "not in service" -- I said the phone number listed on that particular page was not in service.  (I do not know if it is working now, but nothing stops anyone from testing to see.)  The information on the article page is as accurate and up to date as I can determine, so I stand by it. And when I've made mistakes here or in the article, I have acknowledged them and corrected them.  If further corrections are available, IP editor and others are most welcome to make those changes. That is what WP is all about.  IP editor does not seem to understand that the information on this discussion page is posted for purposes of improving the article.  --S. Rich (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead links

message: The comments from S. Rich seem to be bias and sporadically true, several comments posted here are defiantly flat out wrong!
The post claims above that http://www.svulaw.com/students_page.htm is "not in service" yet I've clicked on the Hyperlink next to the posted comment and it does go to their website.  He claims links are dead or he cannot access them, or that the school is no longer in business, but that is also untrue.  The comments seem to be only briefly corrected by S. Rich who makes a short reference to the one mistake made in a brief portion of the last post.  But, this does not make up for the inappropriate and callus comments made about the school, its existence.  Doesn't S. Rich realize that they could harm the school to prospective students who may read this misinformation?  Obvious this person is not opposed to disseminating harmful slanderous comments, or checks all of their facts before posting.  Posting misinformation is inappropriate and could be viewed as libel.  I suggest a formal apology may be appropriate; otherwise I will contact the law school to inform them of the harmful posts!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.194.35.74 (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This IP editor has misread the comments above and, more importantly, does not understand the purpose of this talk page.  I did not say the link was "not in service" -- I said the phone number listed on that particular page was not in service.  (I do not know if it is working now, but nothing stops anyone from testing to see.)  The information on the article page is as accurate and up to date as I can determine, so I stand by it. And when I've made mistakes here or in the article, I have acknowledged them and corrected them.  If further corrections are available, IP editor and others are most welcome to make those changes. That is what WP is all about.  IP editor does not seem to understand that the information on this discussion page is posted for purposes of improving the article.  --S. Rich (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from S. Rich