Talk:Charleston School of Law

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

Tags[edit]

Seems like the whole things to be deleted. I will ask for that soon if no one can come up with a better plan.

  • A better plan would be to make relevant, well-documented, and neutral changes. And, explain the tags that you add to an article so that fixes can be made.

I have added more tags. One person that is clearly influenced by the school is simply undoing all the other efforts people have made. It is useless in its current, but no one wants to take the time to fix it when they know it will just be deleted.

  • Insert relevant, well-documented, neutral comments and they will be left in. I have myself included negative things in this article and documented them. But, stop throwing in things that are not documented or misleading or wrong (or all of the above). For example, the Music Farm is already correctly identified as being nearby. Why keep changing that? Besides, it is NOT next door; the City of Charleston occupies the central portion of the old depot. You are just flatly wrong about that. Likewise, what is the point of the subjective claim that the school's bar passage rate was significantly changed in 2007 after a bar examiner's error? Characterizing a 5% swing as significant is questionable, but more importantly, it is a needless argument since the article states the objective facts about the before and after numbers. And, as mentioned countless times below, there is absolutely nothing remotely misleading about the four sentences that relate to the Forensic Club. No one has even tried to offer an explanation of how someone might be misled by the discussion or what conclusion they might be misled into believing. One of the significant things about the law school is that it was the first such venture in Charleston, so the very brief discussion (which in NO WAY directly connects the school to that early venture) of the FC is appropriate to set the context. Moreover, without some discussion of what it was, the later mention of the school's highest honor (named in honor of the Forensic Club) does not make sense. And what is the point of the repeated tag saying that the article needs more citations? What fact needs citation? Put a damn tag on that specific fact so that it can be improved if you honestly feel that way (which I suspect you do not). And, if you insert a tag about something being misleading, you have an obligation to explain WHY you feel that way. For example, what is possibly misleading about the publications at the school? Clearly, someone (using multiple computers) continues waging a biased campaign against the law school for some personal reason.

One person that seems to work at the school keeps make inaaccurate edits that have made this article a joke.

  • If something needs documentation, put a "[citation needed]" tag on that point so that someone has a legitimate chance to document it. Stop putting up an unexplained banner tag saying that the whole article needs cites.
  • If something needs to be added, then please do so. But, DOCUMENT IT and present it in a NEUTRAL manner. Stop adding an unexplained banner tag saying that the whole article needs to be redone.

This is one of the most misleading and poorly written articles. It probably needs to be scrapped and reworked from the ground up. It spends WAY too much time on the FC and leaves off all of the information related to the school's scandals. Information from a 5 year old school that claims it "origins predate those of the oldest law schools" can not be trusted. There should a section just dealing with that total non-sense. Significant issues related to bar passage, employment and other ABA issues are ignored.

  • The article makes absolutely NO claims like that about the Forensic Club. Why that continues to be trotted out as an example of a weakness in the article is a mystery. As to the other issues, please note that the bar passage is already a complete section unto itself. For other topics, just add something in a neutral, WELL-DOCUMENTED manner, and no one would have a problem with it.

Give me a break! How about at least identifying the statements which require additional documentation before throwing up some nonsense tags on the article. If you are going to post a warning tag on an article you have a certain responsbility for at least laying out your case in the discussion of the article. Otherwise, there is no way to even try to develop an agreement about how to fix whatever problem is seen.--ProfReader (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the information about some kind of relationship to a defunct club in very misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.39.17.2 (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is nothing misleading about the content of the article as stated. The section in dispute very clearly explains that the law school has no historical ties to the Forensic Club. Not only does it say that the FC ended in 1828, it also reinforces that no law school existed in Charleston until 2003. Moreover, the use of the FC as the name of an honor bestowed by the law school clarifies the relationship perfectly. No one would say that a law school's "Inn of Court" suggests that the host school is claiming ties to centuries-old England. The article very clearly states that the FC is a newly created honor - not a continuation of the original organization. No one could possibly be confused by it.--ProfReader (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The schools was not started to further the goals of a club that lasted for 2 years 150 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.109.183.19 (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the same person that cites the school's info in re FC does not believe the school's own claim that it is the "oldest" - I do not think CSOL is a reliable source for any information as a result of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.39.17.2 (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions lack any claim of neutrality. Stop vandalizing the content. At least try to document the nonsense you are adding. For example, what possible basis is there for saying that several other schools declined publishing the Fed Courts Law Rev? When you throw in obvious vandalism like references to otters, you lose all credibility. And, I agree that he CSOL is not the oldest law school. Why is that even being discussed since there is no reference to that (other than the ones you keep inserting)?--ProfReader (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are they serious that they are claiming they are the oldest law school in the US? Unreal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.148.230.0 (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm taking out the stuff about the school being the oldest in the US. It seems that everyone agrees that it is not the oldest school in the US. A Wikipedia article about the school is not a forum for debating extrinsic points. Unless someone is prepared to document that it IS the oldest school in the US, then that fact should be left out of the article. There is no need to insert denials of facts which are not being asserted in the article.--ProfReader (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. The school (and ONLY the school) claims: CSOL's/FC's "origins predate the formation of the oldest law school in the country" and it is "essentially [] the South's earliest law school." http://www.charlestonlaw.edu/about.htm They are literally claiming that CSOL is the oldest lawschool in country. FC never really existed and its connection if any to CSOL is remote at best. Any inclusion of FC information is totally misleading. These are the oldest law schools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_school_in_the_United_States#Oldest_active_law_schools The school was incorporated in 2004.unsigned comment added by 66.147.52.169 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree it is not the oldest law school in America (although some do claim that). If that claim were being made, I would remove it myself, but it is not. That claim is not made anywhere in this article. What is that relevant to? As to the existence of the FC, it most certainly did exist. Its existence is documented in the historical files of the South Carolina Statehouse which granted it a charter. Its existence is also documented in newspaper accounts of the time. Check out the hyperlinked article about the FC itself and the sources cited. In fact, the USC Law Review (under its earlier name) ran an interesting article about the FC back in the 1950s. I get the impression that a lot of the stuff posted about the CSOL is not being added in an effort to improve the article, but is an effort to make an extrinsic attack on the school for things that the poster disapproves of elsewhere.--ProfReader (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Forensics Club lead is pure marketing by the business and needs to be erased. Multiple people have tried to fix it and it keeps getting instantly reverted by someone who works there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.102.45.172 (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the basis for the claim that the FC is "pure marketing"?
  • What specific statement(s) do you object to?
  • As explained below, the FC is mentioned as part of the history of legal education in Charleston. Do you doubt that that is historically true?--ProfReader (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute comes down to a few posters who seem hellbent on inserting all sorts of crazy talk that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. A lot of what has been inserted into his article is false, including both those things which are clearly meant to be vandalism (e.g., that the otter is the school mascot) and those things that are not (e.g., that federal loans are not available to students at the CSOL). I have tried to weed out the nonsense, but I agree that some of the negative information should stay in. For instance, I added the link about Kosko's losing his judgeship, the long acceditation discussion, and the actual statistics about bar passage. Those are true, but neutrally stated. What irritates me is the constant effort to take these things (and many others) and push them as slurs.

As to the Forensic Club, it is important to note that the linked discussion is factually true and well-documented. The only contention seems not to be the neutrality of the discussion, but its truth. Some posters would like to totally discount any motive of the Founders other than money for starting the school. They strip out any reference to anything else and recast all of the terms in unflattering ways.

I am the first to agree that the Founders were not motivated solely by reconstituting the Forensic Club, but it is equally false to claim that money was the only motive. Ed Westbrook, Ralph McCullough, and Alex Sanders are very wealthy men who did not need the school to pad their wallets. Alex Sanders already had a great reputation in this state, and Kosko and Carr were already federal judges. They did not need this school for personal benefit.

Moreover, the article does not say that the school IS the Forensic Club. Rather, the article states that these men wanted to reestablish a law school in Charleston. On that point, the discussion of the Forensic Club gives context to that effort. AND, the fact of the matter is that the descendents of the organizers of the Forensic Club expressly gave their blessing to the new effort and granted the right to continue the name of the organization. Period. The article does not say more than that.

I agree that the CSOL is not the oldest law school in the South. The Forensic Club is not the oldest either (although some have said so), but notice that that claim has not been made in this article.

The article (and the Forensic Club section which was tagged in particular) are certainly neutrally stated. I even rewrote a sentence or two to make clear that the original Forensic Club did not last very long and did not assume the form of a modern law school. But, the people who keep attacking this page are dedicated to not just a neutral discussion, but a wholesale slur-campaign.--ProfReader (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General[edit]

I agree on deletion of the whole topic. This has just turned into a page to promote this business. Why is any of this even noteworthy. They claim the be the oldest law school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.30.124.254 (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs to be deleted. Any information that is added that is anything other than what you find on the school's homepage is instantly deleted by the school. It serves no purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.147.52.169 (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • What gets deleted is the baseless nonsense that vandals insist on inserting. For example, someone loves inserting claims that the CSOL was somehow involved in getting a section of the July 2007 bar exam dropped. In fact, there is absolutely no basis for that (evidentiary OR logical) whatsoever. If anyone was improperly involved, it was the father of a USC law school student. Nevertheless, that allegation keeps popping up without any citation to a reliable source (and FITSNews is not a reliable source per Wikipedia standards). Save the editorial vandalism and contribute meaningul, objective, relevant information. And, how about some discussion on this Discussion page if you really think something deserves a mention instead of forging ahead and vandalizing the article first? Also, note that there are lots of things on this page which are not proud achievements: a low bar pass rate, Judge Kosko's no longer being a judge, and the accreditation process are examples. But, they are fairly and neutrally stated and actually documented.--ProfReader (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is getting paid to delete all of this information? This page has gone from insightful and meaningful to being the CSOL home page over and over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.10.129 (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who is getting paid to vandalize this page with a bunch of undocumented, irrelevant nonsense? If you want to adhere to Wikipedia standards and insert negative information, so be it. For example, if you feel that a reference to the school being a for-profit model is important, then add that in the first line - "a for-profit, private law school . . . ." What is objectionable is the over-the-top nonsense that keeps popping up here. Make it relevant to the topic at hand and document it with a reliable source (which is not some personal attack blog, incidentally). I don't mind negative information about the school. Hell, I was the one who added the basic information about the whole accreditation process. But, it was neutrally stated. For example, I just added a link to a newspaper account of Judge Kosko's not being renewed as a federal magistrate judge. Negative? Yes. Neutral? That too.--ProfReader (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the 2009 barrister's ball controversy and the bar scores. I believe there should be some discussion about whether or not these should be included in the wikipedia article. Maybe they should simply be linked to in the external links? 129.252.70.44 (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is hardly an appropriate forum for unsubstantiated accusations of this kind. Rumor is best left to blogs and message boards, as they provide a means for a (theoretically) meaningful debate about the veracity of such accusations. A section on the controversy would also be atypical of the content generally posted on a school's Wikipedia page. In January, a Harvard 3L working for the DA's office was arrested after a drunken tirade in which he promised to "lie and cheat" to ruin the careers of the officers detaining him. Most would likely agree that this incident would be deserving of more attention than would the Barrister's Ball controversy, but you won't find an account of it on Harvard's Wikipedia page because it simply doesn't belong there. What you will find on Harvard's page, however, is a balanced and reasoned criticism of the institution as a whole. If you want to attack the Charleston School of Law, do so with factual statements made in a neutral tone. For example, last week I changed the following: "The customers [?] of the business [?] continued to have dismissal [sic - dismal?] pass rates in the February 2009 Bar exam where only 53.7% of the people that paid to learn the law from the for-profit school [?] passed the exam" to "In the February 2009 Bar exam, 53.7% of takers passed the exam." This neutral statement of fact is a legitimate basis from which to draw an opinion and represents the type of content one would expect to find on a school's Wikipedia page. The same cannot be said of rumors about a few drunk kids. While I appreciate your willingness to discuss the legitimacy of a section on the controversy rather than engage in an endless edit war, such content is simply not appropriate for this forum.

Ssarratt (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to add the BB issues. Please remove non-sense re Forensic's Club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.102.116 (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Reader keeps on insisting that the first dean was ousted by the board. That is not true. Dean Gershon tendered his resignation in April 2007, but the board would not accept his resignation until November of that year, when it became clear that he no longer wished to serve because of the board's interference. Saying that he was removed is an insult to him, and his leadership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlestonlawprof (talk • contribs) 20:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • CharlestonLawProf is an apologist for the Founders. They certainly did remove the first dean. He was unaware of his removal until the very day it was announced to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.164.42 (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSOL, LLC Edit Efforts[edit]

Very clear someone has been hired to "edit" this page for the school.

I just spent way to much time looking at what you CSOL people keep deleting. You can put whatever you want on your page, but Wiki is not the place for this propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.39.17.2 (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the "Forensics Club" the first section? What does that have to do with the school? Is there any evidence that it ever existed? Who keeps adding this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.10.129 (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSOL has apparently hired someone to scrub (almost vandalize) the page. Missing and deleted information includes the 2007 bar exam scandal, 2009 class formal assault, employment statistics, Forensics Club "connection" and for-profit nature.

USC has apparently hired someone to vandalize this page. For example, she continues trying to post accusations that a CSOL student's father was responsible for having the July 2007 bar exam results modified, even though the actual person responsible was probably Rep. Harrison, whose daughter attended USC. Rep. Harrison oversees the Judiciary Committee (and therefore has considerable sway over the Supreme Court) and contacted the bar examiner to talk about the bar exam results of his daughter. She also tries to post flatly false information and defamatory materials made in violation of Wikipedia standards. Most notably, she fails to link to any sort of reliable source (that is, published materials (newspapers, magazines, books, etc.) or attributable, first-hand accounts (official website)).

I think it is now pretty clear a new 2007 bar exam scandal page needs to be set-up. The CSOL Editors keep deleting this story. I will find the cite and list of "passers" later this week and drop a link from here.

CSOL "Dream Team" continues to spam with the "Forensics Club."

Forensic Club[edit]

I vote for deletion too.

This section needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.102.45.172 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebobdy has set-up a page for this so-called "club"? We need some editing..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.133.46.248 (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Is this some kind of joke? How many for-profit law schools are out there now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.133.46.248 (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still trying to find any objective source (other than the CSOL business website) that this "Club" or connection to the school exists. If you look at the original "scroll" the have put out on their it looks like it was made from a computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.32.127 (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone verify that this is the "first law school in the South"? What other private business in Carolina makes these claims? Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.243.118 (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that claim made? What are you quoting?--ProfReader (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the CSOL is not the oldest law school in the South. Neither is the Forensic Club. The oldest law school in the South was formed in Virginia in 1779. But, the existence of the Forensic Club is a matter of historical fact. And, while the Founders were certainly not motivated exclusively by restarting that effort, the people behind the Forensic Club blessed the effort. The reference to the existence of the F.C. deserves to stay merely to give context to the founding of a new law school in Charleston, SC.--ProfReader (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the reference to "isolated" lectures. Is there any source for that? --ProfReader (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grand reversal[edit]

In regards to this edit, these changes were too big and, judging from the article history, too controversial to be made without even something as basic as an edit summary. Besides, editors have reversed the changes with valid comments. Such matters must be taken up on the talk page first. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US News Ranking section[edit]

Someone added a comment which suggested that the Charleston School of Law would have otherwise been in the bottom tier but that US News and World Reports changed the naming of things. That is wildly misleading. If you go to the editor's own link and click on the button next to the school, US News & World Reports specifically states that there was not enough information to rank the school. There is a very different message for low-ranking schools. When you click next to those schools, the message says that the school WAS ranked but that the number was not published. The fact is that US News & World Reports does not calculate ratings for schools that are still undergoing the ABA accreditation process.

Clearinghouse data[edit]

If you want to include unfavorable (but true) info, so be it. But, you need to step up to the plate on some editing. First, this is not a blog about the evils of law school. Stick to the facts. Information about nondischargeability of loans is not relevant to this article. That is only tied in in the very loose sense that it might be something someone wanted to know in deciding to attend law school, but that is not the point of this article. Move it somewhere else.

Second, the line about the info being supplied from the school is weak. Your cite is to a NY Times article, but the NY Times article is about US News' data, not necessarily the data used by Transparency. Transparency admittedly USES some of the info from US News, but it is not clear that the portion they use is the unconfirmed portion the NY Times article mentioned. Or that there is not some other source also.

Third, if you are going to edit Wiki articles, you need to learn how to format footnotes. Check out the user guides or pattern the cites to those that are already in the article. Just a URL is not up to Wiki standards.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charleston School of Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Charleston School of Law. 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) 11:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Charleston School of Law. 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) 15:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charleston_School_of_Law&oldid=1146311951"