Talk:University of Virginia School of Law

message: Right now, the article contains this text:  "The Law School is unique among its peer public university law schools in that it receives no funding from public coffers aside from incidentals such as grounds maintenance. Thus, the Law School depends upon the largesse of private donors, its substantial endowment, and its ability to command tuition payments similar to those of elite private institutions."
It appears that Michigan has already privatized, in some sense, and that California is considering a similar path.   Indeed, it appears that the University of Michigan's law school receives only 2.5% of its budget from the state. While U-Va claims that it receives "no state funding,"  in fact, it is clear that the law school is receiving some financial benefits from the main university (and, hence, at least indirectly, from the state).  ("we established a “tax” ... of ten percent of the tuition revenues, which ... is an indirect cost rate that is well below what we accountants could demonstrate ought to be charged").
While it may be the case that Virginia's specific organization is unique, the quasi-private nature is not, especially as it appears likely that all three of the top ten law schools could have similar budgets in the very near future.
Accordingly, I am going to delete "is unique ... in that it".
Cka3n 21:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unique amongst its peers? 

message: 1.  Without further explanation, relatively unique among its peer schools does not allay the concerns addressed above.  Relative to what?  Unique how?  As I noted previously, the funding arrangement is certainly as unique as every institution's budget is (i.e., every budget is different), but that is not notable.  As U-Va's funding seems to be very similar to its peer schools, claiming to be unique or even relatively unique appears to be promotional.
2.  Using the pronoun "it" to start two consecutive sentences to refer to two different subjects is awkward.
3.  The "dual purpose" language for the VLW has no source, and I could not find no similar claim on the paper's website.
Cka3n 17:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not unique, then I'd agree on removal of that sentence.  It's not like UVA Law doesn't have other notable facts to fall back on. -Taco325i 18:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  If I get the time (or if someone else has it now), it would be great to update the notable alums to include more of the business people from the law school.  There is a list of them on the uva law webpage that would be a great starter. Cka3n 18:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The VLW description is based not on promotion by the VLW itself, but is instead a factual description of the paper.  It differs markedly from some other law school papers in that it combines both purposes.  I am putting it back.  If you think the language represents a problem because you question its truthfulness or validity, mark it as needing a citation.  This is the proper procedure from WP:citation unless it is unusually harmful. Jkatzen 19:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert explanations as per history 

message: :Image:Uva2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Uva2.gif

message: Somehow the following survived on the main page of the article for about two weeks:
:The claim that the University of Virginia has been solidified as a Top 14 school, rather than a Top 10 school, is debatable. Checking U.S. News & World Report Rankings for the last 19 years (1991-2009) reveals that UVa has only once been ranked outside the Top 10 (when it was ranked 14th), with three years ranked as high as 7. Their mean ranking over those 19 years is 9.1 with a median average of 8.
A NPOV survey of this data would be helpful and would add to the article's quality; the phrasing above is argumentative and doesn't belong in the article. -Tjarrett 01:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankings 

message: The 23:54, 10 December 2012‎ 149.101.1.119 version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand a stub.--Wing (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation into Chinese Wikipedia 

message: These two statistics seem very similar,  aren't they referring to the same thing? It's really confusing to see them mentioned separately in two successive sentences. 82.27.198.43 (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems unclear if that second number was referring to UVA or Columbia's employment numbers. I just updated to current (2022) employment stats, so should no longer be ambiguous. Kalethan (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  92.6% or 92.64%?