Talk:Ave Maria School of Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"This was an extremely rapid accomplishment which only took 5 years." -- "extremely rapid" is a bit POV-ey. Also "Ave Maria consistently receives acolades and rave reviews from area attorneys and judges." is unsourced & I am removing it. --Byset 06:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the language about the potential move being controversial was removed. It's still controversial. Also, if you add "such a move is unlikely" you need to give a source, I don't know where you're getting that information from. --Byset 04:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accreditation

To undo an edit to an entry because it is "factually flawed" requires a little more substantiation than an editor's statement of such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.229.99 (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge suggestion

Absolutely. People need to know what is going on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.228.93.106 (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

An article at Timeline of Controversy at Ave Maria School of Law appears to be essentially unencyclopedic, as it discusses issues surrounding the topic of this article. I spoke with an administrator a while back about what to do with the other article, and he suggested merging some of that information over here; an editor at that time seemed to be planning that move, but then has gone inactive, but another just posted onto the talk page of the timeline article saying that it should be left alone. I thought I'd generate some discussion on the topic and see what a wider consideration would be. The information in the other article seems to be well sourced and could likely be effectively added here. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to merge the Timeline of Controversy at Ave Maria School of Law article and the main article on Ave Maria School of Law. Sure it's true that some people have their knickers in a knot over the possibility that the Law School could be relocated,(and they obviously see Wikipedia as political tool) but this hardly ranks among the important things to know about the school. It changes nothing about the history of the school, its unique mission, or its relative success. If the school moves, then this "controversy" will be a paragraph in the history of the school. If it doesn't, then the material in the article doesn't matter. P. Granger

I've removed the merge tag, as preference on the controversy page is for it to remain where it is, and a rewrite has begun. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This article reads like an add for the school. I am editing it to neutralize uncited commentary which has been added to facts to qualify them in a light that is skewed to cast the school in a more favorable light. The idea that the school is ranked low because it is new is opinion and is unfounded. I cite as an example the William S. Boyd School of Law at UNLV. Founded in 1997, the school was ranked 82nd (that is second tier) by the US News and World Report in 2004 — a mere seven years after its founding (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Mar-31-Sat-2007/news/13503650.html). At seven years after it's founding, Ave Maria remains fourth tier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.0.137.79 (talk • contribs).

You're certainly right about UNLV, and the qualification I added was overly broad. That said, some qualification on the US News ranking seems apropos since it is considered by quite a few to be unscientific (including by the UNLV representative in article that you cited!); cf. the articles listed over at US News and World Report and the ABA's opinion. Perhaps the best way to handle it neutrally is to appropriately reduce the weight of the ranking with something like "In USNWR's controversial[some reliably sourced footnote] rankings, Ave Maria was listed as a fourth tier school." I have restored (with a citation) the other note that seems uncontroversial and does not appear to me to be hype. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the phrase, "— the shortest possible time frame," gives the impression that the school has done something exceptional yet fails (as does the cited source) to explain its meaning. The school was founded in 2000, received provisional accreditation in 2002 and full accreditation in 2005. Is it that it received provisional accreditation in two years? Full in five years? Full from the start of provisional in three? Is this "time frame" defined by the standards of a regulating body? Or is it a practical one that describes (in an inherently subjective fashion) the time to put together the infrastructure for the school? One might assume that the most likely time frame we are referring to is from founding to full accreditation. But, with this interpretation it is difficult to explain the time to accreditation of Florida International University which first opened for classes in August of 2002 [1] and received full accreditation in December of 2006 [2]. That is four years and four months and is shorter than "— the shortest possible time frame." Thus, with the most logical interpretation of the phrase, the phrase is either untrue or FIU School of Law has done the impossible.

The ABA standards for accreditation give no minimum time frame for receiving provisional approval and state:

Standard 103. FULL APPROVAL

(a) A law school is granted full approval if it establishes that it is in full compliance

with the Standards and it has been provisionally approved for not fewer than two years. [3]

It would seem that if the standards give a minimum time frame from provisional accreditation to full, and not from founding to full or founding to provisional, then the most reasonable interpretation of the "time frame" in the phrase would be from provisional to full. The minimum in this case would be two years and the phrase would be untrue.

The following is opinion: there is no place for that phrase in the wiki article; it is minimally relevant, unclear, may be untrue, and may be biased (as what is cited to support the phrase is from the school's website and appears to have used the school's dean as its source of information). I suggest this phrase be deleted from the article. 68.0.137.79 07:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)68.0.137.79 00:28 MST 30 May 2007

Fair enough. I have deleted the phrase and citation until it can be better substantiated. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This need to point out the controversial nature of the rankings appears to stem from this neutrality discussion. First off, the cited material has no specificity to law school rankings and appears to refer to the rankings of undergraduate institutions. The word law appears not once in either article. But this is irrelevant. The issue at hand is that there are thousands of law schools and almost as many wiki articles on law schools. Should this disclaimer be added to all of the articles? When it is found only in the articles of fourth tier schools does it not push a non-neutral point-of view? And given the above argument it seems that the poster may have a propensity to push wording that is favorable to the school. Perhaps if the school were one that actively and publicly pursued devaluation or abolition of the rankings then it might have a place in the article along with the school's notoriety for such. The proper place for the fact that the rankings are controversial is not in each of the thousands of articles on law schools, but where it is in the U.S. News & World Report page and in the whole pages devoted to the controversy (Law school rankings in the United StatesCriticism of college and university rankings (North America) Criticism of college and university rankings (2007 United States)). If a person is unfamiliar with the rankings and does not know they are controversial, it is up to them to click on the links to learn. The purpose of the article is to inform about this particular law school, not to inform about a controversial yet ubiquitous law school ranking system. That information is beyond the scope of the article and seems to be added in order to save face for the school after a cogent argument that clearly showed the article's previous wording was non-neutral. I think that having the link to the us news page is sufficient and does not undermine the article's NPOV and have made the change. This is an issue that is in serious need of merging and should not be scattered about especially in this way.76.175.211.30 03:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well argued. I agree. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The controversy is obviously fundamental to the existence and future of the law school. A separate Wiki article is redundant Hahbie 21:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)