Talk:Washington University School of Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Washington University in St. Louis. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the Washington University in St. Louis WikiProject page, where you can join the project and contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary on the to do list to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

To-do list for Washington University School of Law:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do: Expand: add social life and history section Other: - Rated article as Stub-Class according to the following standard: -The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. -Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. -Any editing or additional material can be helpful.

If you are a part of the WUSTL WikiProject, you can add this template to your userpage: {{UserWUSTLproject}} to display the following userbox on your userpage: This user is a member of the Washington University in St. Louis WikiProject. This will also add you to: Category:WikiProject Washington University in St. Louis participants

If you attend or have attended Washington University, you can add this template to your userpage: {{User WUSTL}} to display the following userbox on your userpage: This user attends or attended Washington University. This will also add your page to: Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Washington University in St. Louis

[edit] Neutral theme

Corrected grammatical issues that tended to lean towards advertising of the law school. My editorial changes were neutral. Let me know if you disagree. Lynnarmstrong 04:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No disagreemnt.

Anyone wish to contribute info in the history of the law school?--Lmbstl 05:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I made several changes, most based from School's website. Disputed as unneutral. I revised the content, in order to reflect a more neutral stance. I plan to get history and social life section up within the next two weeks, but would like comments on the quality/neutraility. Aeh5a2 00:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has improved dramatically since this afternoon however it is much to complimentary to the law school, It still seemed to read like a brochure to Washington University Law. A history would be good although I don't see a need for a social live section outside of the one on the main article. I'll try to help Aeh5a2, also see a couple of other school sites like Northwestern Harvard and University of Michigan Law School to get and idea of the structure and content of the best articles on Law schools. - thank you Astuishin 03:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Astuishin - please let me know what else can be done to reduce the alleged bias in this article. I have removed all overtly complimentary statements. However, certain facts are true, and essential to the function of the page. I have mirrored this edition on several other law schools, and used very similiar language. As such, I think the dispute should be taken down.

The article is still complementary although it models that structure of Northwestern, I don't feel they are models for neutrality. The article still reads like a promotional document for the law school, as do the other ones I mentioned so I think that tag will remain. - thank you Astuishin 06:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please cite specific comments that you find complimentary. Also, please tag the other law school sites as unneutral. Tagging the WUSTL site, but not the others, creates an inference that this site is somehow more complimentray and/or less reliable. As per your previous comment, this is not the case.

Well first off phrases like "renowned international, foreign and comparative law scholars" and "The Judicial Clerkship externship course offers students a structured, hands-on exposure", are numerous but they are unsourced, does a specific legal scholar state this? and if so can it be cited? These statements seem to be straight off a university brochure. The future expansion section seems to me to be excessive and needs to be removed because construction is a common occurrence at universities however if there is support it should remain. It could be mentioned in a section that discusses the law school campus. Also a part of what contributes to a article lack of neutrality is what is omitted obviously, from I gather the various law broads(autoadmit) have attempted to trash WU law's record perhaps the article should mention this, however I am not a student of law so I'm naturally unfamiliar with what is importance of these various broads. Also Harvard Law is tagged for lack of neutrality so I don't think I'm unique in tagging this article. I might add that this is a enormous improvement over the stub that was present in the past. - thank you Astuishin 05:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed those comments and others. I agree, they were too complimentary. I have been editing this quite a bit, so those things did not jump out at me. Please reconsider the neutrality tag in light of these changes. As for the further expansion, I don't agree that this reflects an inherent bias. First, it is not my fault that other sites have not been fully updated to keep up with current events. Second, a lot of people find construction annoying, and would look at this fact as a negative. Third, it does state a fact about the school, in neutral terms, and as such, it should not be subject to challenge. Finally, if you have information about the school being trashed, then update the article. I have not heard anything about that alleged "trashing." I thought the genius of Wikipedia was that it allows for an incremental change by interested and knowledgeable (although, not necessarily experts) people. I'm sure some other person will happily update the article as necessary. Until that time, don't infer some bias on my behalf.

Well considering that most of the content that was originally submitted to this article was from the university's website, it makes sense that it would be complimentary and hard to remove. However there still is work to be done, lets just take the first paragraph:

Historically, the Washington University School of Law has been considered one of the country's most reputable law schools. In the recent past, objective rankings have usually placed its admissions selectivity, faculty scholarship, and career placement among the top twenty law schools nationwide.

First what is meant by the word "historically" this certainly can not be from the past decade, for in 1999 the Law school was ranked outside of the top 25, which really disqualifies it as a national law school. Next the word "objective"; this statement cannot be referring to USnews after every law school dean in the country, obliviously including WU law's, denounced USnews it can hardly be called objective. Also is the law school really selective, I believe the admissions rate was 25% in 2006, compared to Northwestern's 15%, and Yale which is in the single digits. Obviously these statements do not take a comprehensive view of the facts, and there're not unique as there are others. Now on the construction section, buildings are being built on every top university campus, unless the building somehow breaks a milestone for height or for size I do not feel one should included. One sentence the construction process One sentence such the one on Harvard's campus section will do. Also The picture posted seems to be a violation of fair use, since you did not write a article specifically about the building in question. And on the trashing from autoadmit, I apologizing for inferring that you were a student of law, my only qualms about placing the autoadmit information would be that it was not a notable critic of a law schools. - thank you Astuishin 22:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, you object to: Historically, the Washington University School of Law has been considered one of the country's most reputable law schools. In the recent past, objective rankings have usually placed its admissions selectivity, faculty scholarship, and career placement among the top twenty law schools nationwide.

but you would not object to:

The Washington University School of Law is one of the country's most reputable law schools. In the recent past, objective rankings have usually placed its admissions selectivity, faculty scholarship, and career placement among the top twenty law schools nationwide.

Moreover, as to your comment concerning the disrepute of the USNews rankings, I'm not sure you understand the word "objective." While many have disagreed as to the methodology of the report, few can argue it is subjective and/or biased. Moreover, I provided a second source that places the law school at a similiar ranking. Does this ranking not corroborate the USNews ranking?

Also, a top thirty school is still "of the country's most reputable law schools." As there are 190 law schools, being in the top 30 would be "one of the most reputable" (relatively speaking). Moreover, a 25% acceptance rate is selective, as most schools accept over 50%. In another sense, the sear's tower post could say it is one of the tallest buildings in the world (here, a 25% selectivity). You would certainly not quarrel with that comparison. But using your logic expressed here, such a statement would be unneutral because there are other taller buildings (here, Yale at less than 10%). Or try the statement that Oprah is rich. It is certainly true, but compared to Bill Gates her wealth is relatively modest. Clearly, no school but Yale/HLS/SLS can boast single digit selection rates (even those schools at times tip above 10%). Moreover, I didn't selection the criteria for the USNews ranking, but those criteria are set, and led to the current ranking.

Also, as for faculty scholarship and career placement, see the Leiter rankings. These are two of the three criteria for that ranking.

You are challenging the composition of this article with a preconceived thought of bias. I am sorry that I went to the source for most of this information. I guess I should have gone elsewhere?

Also, I read the autoadmit "trash" and you completely mischaracterized those posts. First, the Dean did NOT disparage the rankings. Second, the author of that email (which is discredited as truthful in subsequent posts) is no longer the Dean. Third, there is no "trashing." Your characterization was incorrect.

[edit] Neutral Theme Continued

Concerning the statements that I objection to, I believe I stated quite clearly " there're not unique as there are others" for which all statements with bias including the one you mentioned should be removed, I was just taking that section as an example. Second concerning rankings, once again I don't feel that the article is taking a comprehensive view of the facts. Leiter's ranking also say that only a little over a dozen national law schools check his site, and he doesn't include WU. USNews is quite bias in its methodology most obviously, against public schools, and law schools that are not on the coast such as WU and Texas. That is one the complaint's of the Deans; By the way the repudiation by the law school deans of USnews is not a autoadmit phenomenon it is wildly known; read through Leiter's blog I'm sure you'll find it.

All a ask before the article includes such glowing remarks is that you should, 1) take comprehensive look at the rankings, and 2) have at least more that a magazine and a blog. Concerning admissions, selectivity in the all of the T-14 Law Schools is high with no school having under a 15% acceptance rate; that's ten points lower than WU, to make the statement the WU is a selective school is obliviously neutral, but to assume that WU's selectivity is a part of its excellence is what think at least needs to be sourced. Concerning autoadmit, I see you have not spent an adequate amount of time on the boards enter: WUSTL in the Law board search engine and sift through the content that appears. I am sure you will then understand my thinking, and the use of the word "trashed". Seeing as you did not object to my proposal to the remove most of the Further expansion section from the article I will go ahead and do that. - thank you Astuishin 02:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes you suggested. This thing is as neutral as water. As for the law board trashing, I am not going to do all the research to post some moronic comments that are themselves uncited and blatantly unneutral.

Astuishin, why were the student organizations removed? 128.252.251.43 19:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Astuishin, you seem to be suggesting that the US News rankings aren't helpful because they're biased against schools like Wash U, yet you contest adjectives such as "selective" being applied to Wash U based on those rankings. It seems that Wash U, under your criticisms of the US News, is probably a better school than it rankings suggest. I also disagree that the term "selective" is a "glowing" remark. "We reject 75% of the people who apply here." That seems sufficient to qualify as "selective." Is there some standard for selectivity in legal education? Would you be ok with, "With an admission rate of 25%, Wash U is about twice as selective as the average law school? Bjsiders 05:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well thats my fault Bjsiders, I didn't realizes that WU was so selective in comparison to other law schools. I was rather caught up with autoadmit conventional wisdom, (obliviously bias against WU) and I was trying to be objective. Now I really don't have any objection the statements at all.- thank you Astuishin 08:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Student Organizations

Astuishin, why were the student organizations removed? 128.252.251.43 19:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Astuishin, I will continue to add those student organizations. I have seen several other law schools that include their student organizations (see Saint Louis University School of Law). As for that being an "ad," what the heck are you talking about? Do you apply any standard other than your own random, uncorroborated, and unjustifiable ad hoc process? Information regarding student organization is legitimate, as it informs the reader about the school and the law school community. Your censorship is neither wanted nor productive. Aeh5a2 04:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First off don't write rants, I rarely read them. Secondly I don't object to the list of student organizations in theory just in their presentation, numerous links to websites is unneeded and more importantly against wikipedia policy(WP:LINKS). The organizations should be either linked to their national affiliates which have articles in wikipedia or removed such as seen in Cornell Law. Since there seems to be an inability to distinguish between a quality article and a poorly written article one on your part, I shall be forced to clean up your edits instead. - thank you Astuishin 07:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)