Talk:Law school in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jantkiew.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postgraduate employment[edit]

There has apparently been an organized effort to vandalize this wikipedia page executed by members of the anti-law school blog Law School Transparency and the blogger Paul Campos.

Per Wikipedia policy, blogs by LST, Mr. Campos and Mr. Tamanaha are not reliable sources of information. In addition, many of the claims asserted in recent wikipedia edits are factually inaccurate and constitute [attacks], also in violation of wikipedia policy.

If this vandalism continues after this warning, this will be escalated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.60.10 (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, someone at Fordham University believes that authors of peer-reviewed publications on the subject of post-graduate employment prospect of law students are not reliable sources. I wonder who that might be FOARP (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the proposed merger...[edit]

I went on vacation for a while, so I don't know who the hell proposed a merger with faculty of law, but I think it's a terrible idea. In the U.S., we have a national consensus that the sheer difficulty of learning common law requires a certain amount of intelligence and maturity not found among most undergraduates. This is why we turned law departments into law schools, and severed them from the undergraduate colleges which had frequently been their prior home. This is also why we require that people have to get a bachelor's degree first.

The point is that because law is a graduate program in the U.S., it is dramatically different than the undergraduate programss offered in most other countries. Therefore, it is unique and notable enough to require a separate article of its own, and should not be conjoined with faculty of law to form one giant mess. --Coolcaesar 03:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now this article is getting worse and worse and worse. I may have to do some heavy editing or simply revert back to the last good version (probably somewhere in early August). --Coolcaesar 12:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I compiled the following information about degrees offered by law schools in the United States & thought some of it might be appropriate for the law school article:

The Juris Doctor (J.D.), like the Doctor of Medicine (M.D.), is a first-professional doctorate. The Doctor of Jurisprudence (J.S.D.), Doctor of Judicial Science (S.J.D.), and Doctor of Comparative Law (D.C.L.), are research and academic-based doctorate level degrees. In the U.S. the Legum Doctor (LL.D.) is only awarded as an honorary degree.
Academic degrees for non-lawyers are available at the baccalaureate and masters level. A common baccalaureate level degree is a Bachelor of Science in Legal Studies (B.S.). Academic masters degrees in legal studies are available, such as the Master of Studies (M.S.), and the Master of Professional Studies (M.P.S.).
Foreign lawyers seeking to practice in the U.S., or American lawyers wishing to learn more about a particular area of study, often obtain a Juris Master (J.M.), Master of Laws (LL.M.), Master of Comparative Law (M.C.L.), or a Master of Jurisprudence (M.J.).

I confirmed the title & acronym for most of these degrees at the ABA Post-J.D. Programs page.

U.S. centrism[edit]

I have moved this article and started legal education (which requires a vast amount of improvement). Trying to cover a global topic in an article which is mainly about the U.S leads to things being pulled in two directions, and unsurprisingly the balance was poor. CalJW 11:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, are there no law schools outside US?[edit]

Somebody please tell me why does Law School direct to Law School in United States! I believe this redirection takes the cake! Priyatu 11:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law schools (especially the concept of stand-alone independent law schools) are primarily an American institution. Everywhere else, lawyers are trained in law faculties, which are university departments. --Coolcaesar 18:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily so. There are several "Law Schools" in Canada, India, and Australia. Though the "law school" concept may have originated from the US but it has been widely adopted in many parts of the world. --PullUpYourSocks 22:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "not necessarily so" and "several 'law schools'" really merits the high tone of US Centrism. If it was an article on film and it went to a Hollywood page, I'd understand. Otherwise, legal education is something we've wrought upon a world where apprentice positions mostly teach/prepare aspiring attorneys/lawyers/solictors/barristers.


"law school" probably should be a disambiguation page because different people would search for that phrase looking for different things, e.g., Juris Doctor, L.L.B., Legal education, Faculty of Law, Education of Lawyers in the United States, etc.

RickReinckens 03:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a disambiguation is needed. However, "law schools" outside the US are hardly the same thing, it's like comparing a BA program in business with an MBA program. Bobak 16:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. --Coolcaesar 01:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly the same thing? In what way? You are aware that US is not the only country that requires an undergraduate degree to enter law school?--PullUpYourSocks 13:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But nearly all American law school programs require full-time study (and the few that don't are unaccredited). In my research for the rewrite of the Lawyer article, I've noticed that many Latin American "law schools" are actually part-time programs. Also, law schools are used as the basis in Latin American countries for a huge range of careers (direct out of law school), while the vast majority of American lawyers actually do practice law for several years before looking at the possibility of taking their career in non-law directions. --Coolcaesar 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Granted I can't speak for Latin American Law Schools but I can assure you that there are other countries with law schools that are as formal as the US. For example, law schools in Canada are almost identical to the US ones and have been around over a hundred years. Also, I don't see why "law school" cannot be defined by (say) its Latin America meaning along with the american meaning. Just because it is a less formal institution doesn't mean it's not worthy of defintion. --PullUpYourSocks 14:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of American Legal Education[edit]

It is shocking this page has not contained the many criticisms of American legal education.

Professional Degree vs. Graduate Degree[edit]

I made the change in reference to American law schools. In the US, the law degree is considered a "professional degree" along with the MD, MBA, MFA, DVM, DDS, etc. The defining line is that these students don't tend to go on to be academicians. The other, more snarky way of putting it is "Professional degrees are glorified vocational institutes" --which as a proud American law school graduate I smile and concur. -- Bobak 19:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur.  :-) The only point to having law schools affiliated with general research universities is the prestige and access to the resources of the larger institution. --Coolcaesar 20:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Is this even true anymore?[edit]

This article claims that most courses in first year law school courses span a year. It certainly doesn't at my school, and my understanding was that year long courses are on their way out or a thing of the past. The line in question is:

"In the First Year, most courses span a year."

Also, I find the text about the Socratic method going out of fashion to be fairly weak and possibly biased, since many people are critical of the Socratic method itself, and pleased that it is going out of fashion. The article doesn't seem to present this side of the issue.

Have to agree with the above. There were no year-long courses in my law school either (unless you count the three semester legal skills program). However, the Socratic method was used quite extensively. bd2412 T 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hit and miss. My program's writing/research class is a yearlong class, but they split the rest up. I think the trend is towards 1-semester classes. Bjsiders 12:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My school had a yearlong Lawyering Skills course where a grade was given only at the end of the year. However, all six other courses were one semester in length. Isn't that the typical arrangement? --Coolcaesar 16:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I had a program similar to Bjsiders.-Lciaccio (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better Source for Info About Admissions[edit]

I do not like the link to lawschoolnumbers.com. Why don't we link the article to the actual numbers that are reported to LSAC, namely http://officialguide.lsac.org/search/cgi-bin/results.asp?PageNo=

A vast majority of law schools provide grids that reflect the ACTUAL stats from the previous year. lawschoolnumbers only includes a self-selected group of applicants. Also, the numbers at lawschoolnumbers may over or under inflate admissions. For instance, lawschoolnumbers members may need higher than average credentials for law school A, but lower than credentials for law school B. Even lawschoolnumbers links you to the LSAC site! Accordingly, I will take the liberty and make a change.

(Moved comment by anonymous poster)[edit]

Someone's rant is in the section on criticisms. It should be NPOV'd.

The section in question has a bunch of Couric citations, they need to be expanded to quotable/sourcable individuals. I also question that assertion near the end, that the evaluation method doesn't match the practice. Do employers care about your learning arc if you can't perform under pressure in ambiguous situations? More importantly, do the people you represent care about your topical strengths and weaknesses if you can't win a case? Do you get allowances for being sick at the trial? Does the judge grant you special exceptions to procedure and rules of evidence if your cat died last night? It seems to me that taking an exam in which the scoring is subject to the whims and interpretations of a professor who you've had all semester to study and get to know (and, most likely, whose past exams are available for analysis) is pretty similar to the one shot opportunity you get to convince the judge or jury. The whole thing smells like original research, and all the Couric sources suggest to me that the author is simply stating his or her opinion by proxy through nameless "critics." If we can find some reputable sources that echo these points, let's source this section. If not ... I'm having trouble with keeping it in. There's some good points in there but they can be pulled out and merged with existing material in the Criticism section. Bjsiders 19:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerkship material should be moved out[edit]

The material on federal, state, and Supreme Court clerkships should be moved out of this article and into the Law clerk article. Any objections? bd2412 T 22:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

criticisms section[edit]

Some bitter female law student has inserted a rant, and while ideas from that rant may be worthwhile, it is a rant and is inappropriate for this meduim. I suggest it be changed to better reflect wikipedia's ethos.

See my comment above. The rant smells like original research disguised with Couric cites. I'll rewrite it this afternoon. Bjsiders 13:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have condensed the criticisms articulated about the single-exam system. I think some of them are personal criticisms offered via the anonymous proxy of unnamed critics by the author, which puts them in the category of original research. Some are easily rebutted, others are fairly valid points. Some rebuttals:

  • The single-exam approach does not mirror the ethical philosophy nor the practice of law.

See below:

  • The essay exams are subject to the whims, interpretations and mood of the grading professor.

So are the decisions of judges and juries, which means it DOES mirror the practice of law.

ANSWER: The vast majority of law is not practiced in front of judges and juries, and whims and the mood of a judge/juror is not supposed to play a role in their decisions. They are supposed to be "blind" like lady justice. This counter-argument is akin to saying, "Since there is no such thing as an unobjective person, we should not be concerned with objectivity and blind justice." --DavidShankBone 19:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Students have no opportunity to demonstrate the arc of growth and learning.

You don't have that chance in court either. So it DOES mirror the practice of law.

ANSWER: Again, the majority of law is not practiced in court. If law school is meant to complete mirror the practice of law, then why even have a graduate program in law, when the United States is one of the only countries to do so? Why not just make it an undergraduate degree and push everyone out to learn instead of paying exorbitant costs to do what can be accomplished in an apprenticeship. --DavidShankBone 19:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • students have no opportunity to demonstrate topical strengths (and weaknesses).

Again, same with court.

ANSWER: Again, same with the above two answers. --DavidShankBone 19:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no allowance for illness or personal trauma, either of which could severely impact performance.

Again, same with court.

  • Students have little opportunity to consider a complex legal question in depth.

This one is a valid point. In real practice you have some time to do extensive research and tackle a complex legal question, pore over past decisions, etc. However, my understanding is that the types of questions on a typical 1L final are not all that complex. Tricky, but not groundbreakingly complex.

ANSWER: "Your understanding?" Have you never been? Then why are you commenting on things you do not know about? They are incredibly complex. --DavidShankBone 19:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exams are often closed-book, which does not mirror how law is practiced.

Also a valid point, although I'm told that even in an open-book exam, if you're referencing the casebook to do your exam, you're going to do poorly.

ANSWER: Again, your lack of experience - there are more than textbooks to reference. In fact, few people reference the text. Go to law school and find out. --DavidShankBone 19:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Too much pressure is concentrated on students at the end of the semester.

How is this any different from the LSAT, a single examination in a single afternoon that could determine not just one grade for one class, but which schools you can even attend, or possibly whether or not you can attend law school at all? In fairness, the LSAT and admission procedures are often criticized for this very reason. However, no matter how prepared you are, no matter how great and impressive your arc of growth and learning is, if you don't perform when it matters, you're going to lose cases for your clients. Maybe you get a do-over on the next case but that client could suffer a loss that changes his entire life forever. You can destroy people's lives in the practice of law by simply being off your game one day.

I understand that many attorneys never see a single day in court (I certainly don't plan to spend much time there) and don't experience this kind of pressure, but to say that the real practice of law is not mirrored by the evaluation techniques is a bit of sophistry.

All that being said, if we can find reputable sources articulating these criticisms with a bit more clarity, I'm all for including them with those sources cited. I have no particular interest in doing this legwork, I'll give it about a week to see if anybody comes up with anything, and if nobody does, I'm going to remove most of these. Bjsiders 14:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with all the above, especially with Bjsiders's last three paragraphs. It was only when I was preparing for the bar exam that I truly began to understand why the law school exam process and the bar exam are so harsh (in California no one gets extra time on the bar exam for power outages, computer crashes, flooding, earthquakes, fires, heart attacks, and so on). The reason for making the prelude (and first few years) of a lawyer's career depend on a relatively small number of huge exams is that (for litigators) the rest of their career will depend upon the outcome of a relatively small number of hearings, trials, and appeals — although most of their time will be spent in preparation for those things. But the client never cares about how much time went into your elaborate appellate brief or closing argument. All they care about is winning. --Coolcaesar 20:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"In real practice you have some time to do extensive research and tackle a complex legal question, pore over past decisions, etc." Ha ha ha ha ha ... wait till you get into practice, juggling six or seven cases with negotiations, depositions, etc... when an actual legal question comes up, you'll be lucky if you have as much time to address as you get on a law school exam - oh how I miss the peace and quiet of the exam room, where I could ponder just a few questions for hours, without constant interruption! BD2412T 14:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with a lot of these points is that they assume everyone is going off to be litigators, and many of the skills talked about are things that can be learned in classes that cater to those wanting to practice in that area of law. There really is little comparison between law school exams and the bar or the LSAT. Theoretically, the bar is supposed to test what you learn in law school. In a one exam per class (at the end of the semester, where it is graded on a curve) how is one supposed to know how well they are learning the material with no effective gauge? One never really knows because they do not know what classmates wrote on their own exams. I also find it amusing that people who have not gone through law school are lodging these criticisms of law school exams, the likes of which are almost universally seen as inaccurate, yet still followed. --DavidShankBone 20:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger: this article with Legal Ed in the US[edit]

Someone has suggested merging this article with Legal education in the United States.

  • Strongly Disagree: while this is not as strong a reason as why we shouldn't merge in Admission to the bar in the United States, I still feel that "law school" is to focused on the actual school. Examples of Legal Education in the US that do not involve Law School:
  1. Court clerkships
  2. Legal internships at private law schools (also called "summer associates" or "law clerks")
  3. Mandated Continuing Legal Education for all practicing lawyers
  4. I know for a fact that California still permits students to "apprentice" their way into taking the CalBar (very few try, and very few pass, but it's still allowed).
For these reasons I cannot agree to merging these articles because they are significantly different topics to lawyers and those interested in legal education. --Bobak 21:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest law schools[edit]

Can someone expand this page with a section on the oldest law schools in the US? I have had no luck in finding that information. Thank you! Mattnt 15:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to construct as much as I know, but I am missing the fourth oldest. I know PSU-Dickinson is fifth, and the rest I looked up on websites of the law schools as well as wikipedia. NYU is 1835, perhaps there is a defunct law school that is fourth? Any help would be appreciated. Kilroy55 Nevermind, I found my answer. Maryland is the fourth oldest law school. But it is interesting to note that Louis D. Brandeis School of Law of the University of Louisville attempts to claim they are the fifth oldest, according to [[1]], but they explain this away by saying "the fifth oldest law in the country in continuous operation." Dickinson folks should call them out on this.

A serious problem is the deprofessionalization period in the 19th century when the legal profession nearly collapsed and American legal education essentially went to hell. That was the era, for example, when Harvard Law School narrowly avoided a shutdown by inviting Joseph Story to come play dean for a while. The reason for this craziness was that there was a general anti-elitist sentiment that any man could do any job if he set his mind to it, so barriers to entry were legislatively demolished in many American professions. This was the same kind of sentiment that fueled anarchists and communists in the 19th century, because they really believed that all men were equal if given half a chance.
To clarify, this was an era before modern psychiatry was discovered, so people did not understand that there are a lot of mental illnesses which have an inheritable biological aspect, and in even the best environment, people with certain illnesses will not be able to become productive members of society. I'm referring to people with personality and psychotic disorders in particular. Plus there are mentally retarded people for whom it is a triumph to dress themselves in the morning. And so on.
Anyway, I was just reading about the deprofessionalization era in a book by Roscoe Pound about the history of American lawyers at the public library (which I am planning to add citations for to Lawyer eventually). So a lot of law schools have weird gaps in their history as a result of the Jacksonian Era. I think that's what you're seeing.--Coolcaesar 04:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of California Hastings College of the Law established 1878 (California's First Law School) is not the 11th oldest law school. GW enrolled class in 1865. Please only put the law schools in their actual order.

Somewhere a law school is lying. PSU-Dickinson says they are the fifth oldest, Cincy says they are the Fourth, but somewhere the dates are not working out.

Why isnt washington and lee on the list? its website even says it was founded in 1849

All is right now, no one was lying except Maryland. Maryland law reports to US News and world Reports that their law school was founded in 1870.

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/schoolarchives/index.asp The university of Maryland law school may have had its inception in 1816, it didn't last long. The law school didn't start full operation as a law school until 1870. Hints why the law library has an article on the first 50 years from 1869 to 1919. We should use the 1870 date.

First of all, please do not use run-on sentences ("Hints why the law library has an article on the first 50 years from 1869 to 1919") when having a discussion on Wikipedia, especially on law schools. It undermines your authority and makes your logic difficult to follow. Having said that, I have to respectfully disagree. Unless you show me any evidence of why the law school cannot be considered a law school until 1870. The school was established in 1816 and the first classes started in 1823. The criterion we are using is the establishment of a law school, which clearly was in 1816 and not in 1870 as you claim. I have decided to use the 1816 date, since there are records in the library that also point to this date, proving that the school was established way before 1870. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.250.75 (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "Hints why the law library has an article on the first 50 years from 1869 to 1919" is a fragment rather than a run-on sentence. Either way, what is important is for everyone to assume good faith regarding comments made in relation to this and other Wikipedia articles. If reliable sources say the University of Maryland School of Law was established in 1816, that date should be used. However, if the school closed for a time, that should be noted as well like it is with the other schools on the list. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I see we have a pompous individual entering the discussion. First, as stated earlier, it is a fragment, not a run on. If I remember correctly, I wrote the "offending line" 2 years ago not realizing some one would have a tantrum. I also was unaware that I should create several drafts running them through spell check. Would you also like proper Bluebook citation as well? Either way, I really don't care if I manage to construct complete sentences while writing on a discussion board for wikipedia. Please, go back to your 1L classroom. Or perhaps pre-law? Second, there are several sources that contradict the idea that a law school was established in 1816. First, US News and World Reports reports the law school as starting in 1870. US News gets their information from the institutions themselves. Second, Maryland's own library website, as indicated above, has the date as 1869. What I think we need to know was whether or not it was a law school in 1816 or a local attorney who brought people together and then it became a law school at some time in the future. As discussed earlier, it is very difficult to put accurate dates on when law schools were founded. For instance, William & Mary is typically given credit for starting first, but the the school of law was not a traditional school as we would recognize it today. There is enough of a dispute here to where dispute resolution could be used. Or, this particular list could be thrown out all together considering the accuracy of several dates is in question. 68.63.145.112 (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the list[edit]

I've arbitrarily left only the 10 oldest schools on the list, the rest are here. Really, do we need a crufty list that, when I trimmed it, was up to 67 schools??? If anybody cares about founding dates, the List of law schools in the United States article now has them. Wl219 10:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. (11) Louis D. Brandeis School of Law (University of Louisville) established 1846
  2. Tulane University School of Law established in 1847
  3. Cumberland School of Law established in 1847
  4. Washington and Lee School of Law established 1849
  5. University of Pennsylvania Law School established 1850
  6. Albany Law School established 1851
  7. Columbia Law School established 1858
  8. University of Georgia School of Law established 1859
  9. University of Michigan Law School established 1859
  10. The George Washington University Law School established 1865
  11. Washington University School of Law established 1867
  12. University of South Carolina School of Law established 1867
  13. University of Wisconsin Law School established 1868
  14. Notre Dame Law School established 1869
  15. Georgetown University Law Center established 1870
  16. University of Maryland School of Law established 1870
  17. University of Richmond School of Law established 1870
  18. University of Alabama School of Law established 1872
  19. University of Missouri established 1872
  20. Vanderbilt University Law School [2] established 1874
  21. West Virginia University College of Law established 1878
  22. University of California, Hastings College of the Law established 1878
  23. Valparaiso University School of Law established 1879
  24. Willamette University College of Law established 1883
  25. University of Texas School of Law established 1883
  26. University of Oregon School of Law established 1884
  27. Boston University School of Law established 1872
  28. Mercer University School of Law established 1873
  29. Chicago-Kent College of Law established 1888
  30. University of Washington School of Law established 1889
  31. New York Law School established 1891
  32. Case Western Reserve University School of Law established 1892
  33. University of Colorado School of Law established 1892
  34. Stanford Law School established 1893
  35. University of California, Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law established 1894
  36. Indiana University School of Law established 1895
  37. Temple University Beasley School of Law established 1895
  38. DePaul University College of Law established 1897
  39. Northeastern University School of Law established 1898
  40. John Marshall Law School established 1899
  41. Stetson University College of Law established 1900
  42. Brooklyn Law School established 1901
  43. Duke University School of Law established 1904
  44. Louisiana State University School of Law established 1906
  45. Loyola University Chicago School of Law established 1909
  46. New England School of Law established 1908
  47. Southwestern Law School established 1911
  48. Nashville School of Law established 1911
  49. Lewis & Clark Law School established 1915
  50. Birmingham School of Law established 1915
  51. Emory University School of Law established 1916
  52. Western New England College School of Law established 1919
  53. University of Connecticut School of Law established 1921
  54. South Texas College of Law established 1923
  55. Rutgers School of Law - Camden established 1926
  56. Wayne State University Law School established 1927
  57. (67) Villanova University School of Law established 1953

Law review/legal journals[edit]

I propose merging the subsection on "legal journals" into "law review," as the law review WP article discusses both. Also, the "prestige" of law review vs. "legal journals" is better explained in the law review article, I think. Wl219 07:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information about GPA curves[edit]

This is the second place this disagreement has occurred, please see article on Stanford Law School. User 69.215.136.98 believes that GPA curves for law schools are relevant to include on wikipedia. Though I personally disagree, I see no real problem with this. However, this appears to be a strangely singular attack on Stanford Law School. 69.215.136.98 claims Stanford has the highest mean in the country, but I have not seen this cited anywhere and is contrary to what I've heard individually. The wording reverted here is especially obvious in indicating his believe that Stanford grade inflates, but for some reason he is not listing any other schools as engaging in the practice. With a blip here or there, it is my understanding that as a school's ranking or general quality goes up, so does its mean GPA. I think it's unfair to single out Stanford for this practice. Please, thoughts? I'm hoping I'm not being overly defensive but I really think it has to be more thorough than this. As is I think it's a thinly-veiled attack at Stanford for what is far from unique behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.212.48 (talk • contribs) on 28 December 2006.

historically inadequate[edit]

{{histinfo}}

This article badly needs a lot of historical background! For instance, the way that law was taught prior to the creation of separate professional "law schools" ... --lquilter 18:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added some history. Cheers! bd2412 T 08:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State Law School Accreditation[edit]

I removed a section about Illinois schools being included in state accredited law schools. Every law school in Illinois, as far as I know, is fully ABA accredited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.194.130.70 (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Which undergrad degrees are typically held?[edit]

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)[reply]

They'll take any undergraduate degree although the most common ones are political science, philosophy, English, and history, if I recall correctly. Some universities offer an undergraduate Legal Studies degree like UC Berkeley but those degrees are very controversial and most law schools frown upon them. There is a widespread consensus in the U.S. that studying the common law, especially American law, requires a level of cognitive and emotional maturity (that is, the maturity of most college-educated Americans around ages 22-26) which most undergraduates simply don't have (when they enter college between ages 17-19). --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any liberal arts degree will do. It doesn't really matter. My degree was in economics, as was my father's and sister's (both attorneys too).--Davidwiz (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a growing number of science and engineering majors going to law schools as well. These people are usually eligible to sit for the USPTO registration examination (a/k/a the "patent bar"). --Eastlaw (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there has been a mighty debate among legal educators (spanning over a hundred years now) about whether law schools should follow the example of medical schools and some other graduate programs and require potential law students to take specific undergraduate courses in areas such as philosophy, government, and the humanities. I'll see if I can find citations to these discussions. bd2412 T 08:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest law schools[edit]

I think it's a stretch to call William and Mary the oldest based on the lone undergraduate law professor that they had from 1779 on. Not sure when the real program got established, but that is not a conventional "law school" by any standard. bd2412 T 08:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charleston Law School[edit]

I have removed the Charleston Law School from the list of oldest active law schools, as it clearly does not belong there. Its public relations materials state: "The Charleston School of Law is rooted in tradition. In fact, its origins predate the formation of the oldest law school in the country." [3] However, this is not a statement that the schools itself predates anything at all. Hawaii's origins predate the American Revolution, but that doesn't make it the oldest state. bd2412 T 05:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some vandals who keep attacking the Charleston School of Law's article. No one actually claims that it is the oldest school in the country, but the vandals insist on inserting that claim just so that they can turn right around and attack it. The poster of this comment is one of them.--ProfReader (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curriculum[edit]

There are several reasons noted for why top law schools decline to teach doctrine as extensively as other law schools and instead focus on theory and analysis. The list is highly incomplete. All of the reasons focus on the academically-oriented nature of top schools, but that is one small part of the story.

Other reasons should be added because it is an important distinction between law schools and a big reason why higher ranked law schools are higher ranked.

Some to get started: top law schools don’t teach doctrine as much because they perhaps have less faith in doctrine as being useful. Being able to do the analysis is far more useful to legal professionals. The law changes all the time and being able to adapt to those changes and understand them is much more important than knowing what the law is at any given time. Moreover, even the clearest doctrine is a tenuous concept, so understanding how to do the analysis is useful for attacking a doctrine that on its face seems against you.

There are more reasons out there too; I just thought the section was misleading because of how limited it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.205.107 (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Anderson source[edit]

It's cited for five propositions but appears nowhere in the references. Great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.90.111 (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Vitiello as a source -- is RS[edit]

He qualifies as WP:RS. While the particular material is WP:SPS, Vitiello is a professor at an ABA school (McGeorge) [4] and has published texts with West Publishing. See: OCLC 800041220 for just one. Thus he is a "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The particular deleted material needs to be reconciled with what his particular article says, and cleaned up for citation format. --S. Rich (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You neglected to include the sentence that follows in WP:SELFPUB: "Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." Further, note carefully that the phrase you quoted says "may" and not "must." This material may be reliable but it's not worth including until it's published by someone else.
I am guessing that this is a draft or a work-in-progress of an article that will be or has been submitted to a law journal; my understanding of the law discipline is that it's very common to publicly release drafts and works-in-progress. It might also be a pre-print. Whatever the case, until it's peer-reviewed and accepted it shouldn't be added to any article as anything more than a single carefully written and attributed sentence at most. ElKevbo (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mole-hill. The supported sentence is about how exams in law school are conducted and graded. (Law school classes often include debates about controversial topics and blind grading of exams serves/helps to assure that attribution does not influence the outcomes of either the debates or grades.) This is very basic info, but needed to explain the procedure. (The sentences in the article could be written better, but the question before us is one of RS.) Regarding Vitiello's "article", no peer-review of that info is needed to establish RS. (What sort of review/acceptance could there be -- parsing data or what?) We do not need something that comes from a scholarly journal. A newspaper or magazine story would suffice!--S. Rich (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a newspaper or magazine story would suffice. But we don't have that. All we have here is what appears to be a draft or work-in-progress self-published document. If it's such basic info then surely it can be found somewhere where it's actually been published, right? ElKevbo (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vitiello is RS. The material meets the criteria as above. You are seeking to add criteria to the guidance with your characterizations of draft/work in progress/pre-print. Analysis: SPS=yes, but not dispositive; topic of the article=yes; established expert=yes; relevant field=yes; previously published (not necessarily this particular article or info)=yes; by reliable 3rd party publisher=yes. No other criteria is presented; and certainly not peer-reviewing or acceptance. The contributing editor met his/her WP:BURDEN. Removing Vitiello's stuff for lack of RS is not appropriate.--S. Rich (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. We're not addressing WP:RS but WP:DUE. An entire paragraph devoted to one self-published document? ElKevbo (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh back at you. You removed the reference based on RS. The SPS argument is debunked. Not enough material in the paragraph? Expand it.--S. Rich (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

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 longer than 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 supposed to be a blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.189.16 (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edited Controversy section to match generic "law school" search results and removed irrelevant and derogatory ad hominemBerknyc81 (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Value of a Law Degree[edit]

An editor removed references to an article called "The Economic Value of a Law Degree" on the grounds that draft articles should not be cited in wikipedia. This not the correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy on reliable sources in this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources

Under Wikipedia policy, posting to SSRN constitutes publication. The article is authored by two well regarded, university based empirical researchers, and it has been widely covered in the national press.

http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2013/07/the-economic-value-of-law-degree-week-1-summary.html

Therefore, inclusion in Wikipedia is appropriate under Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.187.213 (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please include some of the national coverage in the article. As it stands, it's just a self-published source and readers have no reason to trust that it's anything more than an unreviewed draft article that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.
And next time, please add those sources first or at least open discussion in Talk before immediately jumping into an edit war. This is some handy advice that you should take to heart. ElKevbo (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Information on national coverage has been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.178.48 (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sections 7 (post-law school employment) and 10.1 (employment statistics and salary information) Consolidation[edit]

It seems to me that section 7 on post-law school employment and section 10.1 on employment statistics and salary information should probably be consolidated as they sufficiently overlap in subject matter (including many citations to the same sources). I propose consolidating both under the latter heading because, as the citations in the article already show pretty well, and has been noted elsewhere,[1] the subject is a matter still under debate in the legal community.Sneekypat (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would split those out into a separate article on Post-law school employment in the United States, since employment after finishing law school is only tertiary to what an encyclopedia article on law school should primarily be about, which is the history, development, operation, curriculum, and function of law schools. Also, the information currently in the article on this topic is narrowly focused on a specific, recent period, and is not reflective of the historic course of post-law school employment. A more complete historical record could better be developed in a separate article. bd2412 T 23:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally fine with that. I agree that legal employment is a peripheral subject that is big enough to merit its own article, especially when you include the history. In point of fact, my main reason for wanting to consolidate the two sections is that the legal employment topic seems to be playing an outsized role in the current article and, given the contentiousness of the ongoing debate, potentially hindering the main article's credibility/impartiality. Sneekypat (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Caron, Paul. "The Temperature Rises In Law School Crisis Debate". TaxProf Blog.

Reverted Edit Regarding "Economic Value of a Law Degree"[edit]

There seems to be some dispute as to how the finding of the Economic Value of a Law Degree source, and it's derivative sources (i.e., articles discussing it and relying on it) should be described. I changed the sentence "More recent press coverage by some higher education reporters has noted that peer reviewed studies and comprehensive data suggests that law graduates are still typically better off financially than they would be had they not attended law school, notwithstanding challenges facing recent graduates." to read "More recent press coverage by some higher education reporters has noted that peer reviewed studies and comprehensive data suggests that law graduates are still typically better off financially than they would be had they not attended a post-college graduate program, notwithstanding challenges facing recent graduates." (Emphasis mine). I did so because the study compared lifetime earnings of JD holders to lifetime earnings of those who obtained only a college degree and calculated a premium for the JD holders over the college degree holders. The study explicitly did not compare the lifetime earnings of JD holders to holders of all other degrees, such as medical degrees, doctoral degrees, or masters degrees. See 43 J. of Leg. Studies at 256 ("Below we report both OLS and quantile regression coefficients. To estimate the law degree earnings premium, we compare law degree holders to bachelor’s degree holders who are similar to law degree holders on many observable dimensions that predict earnings. We defer to later research the differences in earnings associated with law degrees compared with alternate graduate degrees." (emphasis mine)).

Another editor has reverted the change (in addition to moving a section currently under discussion for a different move on a different section of this talk page). I believe that the original language is potentially confusing as to the study's finding and seek consensus on how the description should be phrased. Sneekypat (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Oldest active law schools" section[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks that the "oldest active law schools" section doesn't belong here? It's totally unsourced (as it would pretty much have to be), and it doesn't really serve a purpose in the article. I think we should delete it. agtx 22:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Law school in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Law school in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Law_school_in_the_United_States&oldid=1207988902"