Talk:Nashville School of Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Tennessee Portal Nashville School of Law is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Watch Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Template Usage]
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

	Portal This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Nashville may be able to help!
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents 1 Putnam Pit? 2 Criticisms, Revisited 2.1 Merge subtopics? 2.2 Regarding 28 September incident 2.3 Witzlaw Recent Criticisms Update

[edit] Putnam Pit?

I agree that it would be good to get some proper citations for criticisms of the school, but is the "Putnam Pit" web site of sufficient reliability for an encyclopedic reference? Based on the rest of the site, and on a Wired interview with its founder cited by the web site itself (http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/feature/1998/10/15feature.html), I have some doubts. Tlesher 19:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He's a pretty legit e-journalist. He was single-handedly responsible for bringing down the Putnam County Sheriff over a number of spending issues. He's definitely not the NY Times, but I think it's important to include some of the alternative opinions of the school.

Good job cleaning up the criticisms section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamschoenblum (talk • contribs)

[edit] Criticisms, Revisited

I have the following thoughts regarding this section, which is the basis of another major rewrite of this portion of the article. This rewrite contains both additions and deletions to the content. I cited all additions. Where deletions have occurred, I reproduced the deleted text below and cited the reason behind its deletion. Again, to be plain about this, the objective is not to suppress valid criticisms, but rather, I contend these edits add balance in sections where it may have been lacking.

The major factors behind the rewrite:

1. A Google search for NSL-related articles show that few criticisms that are specific to this school actually exist. Most of what I've found can best be characterized as applying to any school not recognized by the American Bar Association. I have no quarrel with retaining such criticisms, but I think it is only fair that they be characterized accordingly.

2. Some additional factors or concerns are applicable any non-ABA school, and I have included them.

3. The specific deletions were as follows:

a. In the employment context, very few of NSL's students go on to jobs with law firms within the state. It is also widely suspected that NSL's self-reported employment statistics are inflated and grossly misleading. For example, NSL statistics include graduates who are currently working as paralegals, runners, and support staff as "employed in the legal field". The bulk of NSL students who eventually pass the bar go on to work in lower paying government jobs or as divorce, bankruptcy, or personal injury sole practitioners. ^{[citation needed]}

Response: This was already flagged for several months as having no citation. I personally have not been able to find any. Perhaps this was a statement made in a discussion forum somewhere? In the absence of a cite, what we're seeing is an opinion that's being printed as a fact, and I have issue with that.

b. The median LSAT score of the 2006 entering class was barely in the 30th percentile of the national average.^[1]. (http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/scale.htm)

Response: Upon reference to the cited table, this statement is plainly false. If, as reported, the Fall 2006 median LSAT is 148, that corresponds to almost 40%, rather than 30%. I'm not adverse to exploring this further, I'm just not able to do so immediately.

c. These unaccredited schools typically accept non-traditional students whose grades and/or LSAT score are too low to enter an accredited school. (This statement allegedly part of the Nashville City Paper article.)

Response: I read the entire article, and it failed to give this statement, as written above. At most, the article discussed only the fact that many students at NSL are non-traditional--not necessarily in the context of grades or LSAT's, but rather, in terms of having families to feed and/or day jobs. Witzlaw 21:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • The NSL website lists different figures than the ones in the article. For instance, the NSL website says 100% of the 2006 graduates are employed, 94% in the legal field, 6% in the non-legal field. In addition, the bar exam pass rate listed on the NSL website was in the 90% range from 1996-2006 and 79% in 2006. The only other school I know of in the state with these kinds of records is University of Memphis School of Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.202.98 (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge subtopics?

Just by way of suggestion, I think the "Criticisms" section may be less of a lightning rod if were simply merged into the preceding section ("Accreditation and bar passage data"). I say this because none of the criticisms I read--even the ones I dispute above--are outside the scope of that section. They all speak either to the consequences of non-accreditation, the consequences of lower bar passage rates, or both. Even the ad hominem about "law firms not desiring to hire NSL graduates because they are somehow inferior" seems to speak to the consequences of non-accreditation. Witzlaw 18:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding 28 September incident

One or two other notes, in response to a incident earlier today that was described by Durova as an "edit war." It is my understanding that no one owns any specific section of this article, whether it speaks favorably of the school or not. Consistent with Wikipedia's policy of viewpoint neutrality, I personally have no issue with others modifying any article section, whether critical or otherwise, so long as the facts can be cited or verified in some way. I understand, further, that bald assertions or ad hominems, without citation, do not qualify. I still assert that two of the three statements, referenced above, would fail to meet Wikipedia's standards in this regard.

More directly, I also take issue with the proposition that NSL students or alumni cannot modify the "Criticisms" section without violating viewpoint neutrality. I think that as long as reasons for insertions or deletions can be cited appropriately or otherwise reasonably documented, there should not be a problem. As for the last rewrite, I believe I added as many facts as I had taken out, and on that basis alone, there is no reasonable ground for any accusation that I sought to suppress criticism.

The foregoing two paragraphs may be moved to Witzlaw's talk page if that is a more appropriate place for such comments. But I wanted it to be seen here first. Witzlaw 18:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Witzlaw Recent Criticisms Update

I just wanted to voice my approval for the ADD of the paragraph today rather than the deletion or revision of prior paragraphs. It all appears to be fair and accurate to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.45.165 (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

For clarification purposes, it is my position that adding the fourth paragraph without editing the others does not mean that the balance of the section is undisputed. Rather, I would reserve those edits for further discussion, for the reasons stated above. --Witzlaw 02:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)