Talk:Law school

message: 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)
thread_title:  There is a lot of garbage in this article in violation of WikiProject:Countering systemic bias 

message: 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)
replies: text: People (and the books they write) give all kinds of advice from "philosophy will give you the reasoning skills that law school wants" to "Don't believe the philosophy myth".  Umm, as for statistics... I have never seen a breakdown of that in Princeton review or on any law school website. gren グレン 14:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which undergrad degrees are typically held? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Just spotted another major deficiency in the legal education articles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please have a look at this link. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
replies: text: The information you want to restore is particular to US law schools. As this article is about law schools in general, we cannot fill it with such info. The info for prospective students is certainly available in the US law school article and in articles about individual law schools. For more info, see WP:BIAS and WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Global perspective. – S. Rich (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Law School Transparency

message: 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:
:Questionable sources
:Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.
:Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. . . . They simply publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of reliable journals. If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant citation index.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.178.48 (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to trim the U.S. section, it's probably fine to cut the entire paragraph on IBR.  See response above re: Global importance of the U.S.  However, information about outcomes after legal education is important.  If anything, the sections on other countries should be expanded with information on outcomes in those countries.  Note that WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias calls for including more information about omitted topics when appropriate, not deleting relevant information when some sections of an article are underdeveloped "Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles)" 
--108.46.178.48 (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: At the same time WP:TERSE calls for us to be good writers. Adding US specific info does not serve to globalize anything. And we are not "omitting" anything once we add information to the proper place. In this regard, the US law school article is the place for it. – S. Rich (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:TERSE  refers to a tight prose style, not to content.  It is not a grounds for deletion of substantive material.  The section in question includes a large amount of relevant information in very few words.   Compare the U.S. section to the Canadian section or the Indian section.  The U.S. section uses fewer words and conveys more information.  But if you think you can improve style without changing the content, go for it.--108.46.178.48 (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada does not have its own article, so we should expect more info. India can be/should be trimmed. WP:OSE does not excuse lousy writing here. – S. Rich (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to  WP:OSE "Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. Therefore, just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists [or does not] does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it. . . . In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article."  In other words, pointing to the lack of a separate article on Canada or the existence of a separate article on the U.S. is not a convincing argument, and we need to focus on the content within this article.  I think the writing is clear.  If you'd like to improve the prose style, you can do that without changing content, but you haven't put forward any arguments for deleting the content.  I've removed the IBR discussion, but left the rest.  I think this is a reasonable compromise.--108.46.178.48 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Income Based Repayment

message: 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)
replies: text: No. We only use plurals for article names if the subject of the article is actually named that way (e.g., The Birds (film)). --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether article name can be in plural 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Notability of law school Deans