Talk:Boston University School of Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Merge[edit]

Vote: Definitely merge these two. --Gopple 04:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I did the merge, which effectively was a redirect of the other page Boston university school of law to here. The two pages were almost exactly the same, except this page had slightly more information. Strange parallel fork. --Deville (Talk) 03:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

BC editing??[edit]

The ip (136.167.97.39) has been doing quite a bit of editing. This IP resolves to "rafsmac.bc.edu". I've noticed some incorrect data on the page. Think, perhaps, our rival BC is messing with our image? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.34.22.168 (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Just becuase someone goes to BC, doesn't mean they are intentionally putting up incorrect information about BU. However, we can all keep track of the information being posted about the school. 05:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

New building needed??[edit]

The end of the history section says "The law school is in need of a new new building, as the law library is not large enough to house the law students. . ."

This seems to me to be a non-sequitur as the space available to the Law Library could be increased by several means other than building a new building for the Law School.

Since I've no direct experience of the Law School, I'll wait for comments for a day or so before I change this section to indicate merely that the Law Library maintains an Annex for most of its circulating materials in the basement of Mugar Library, the main University Library.

Pzavon 02:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We do need a new building. The admin has been talking for years about it and supposedly their might be plans on the table soon. I think the statement is adequate.

I do not. Needing an entire new building has nothing in particular to do with the size of the library. If LAW needs a new building and the administration has talked about that, then reference an administration statement on the subject. As it is, you have a statement of opinion without a source, and a claimed reason that lacks logical connection. Pzavon 02:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's your sign: http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2004/03/02/silence_speaks_to_bus_lack_of_accountability/ HTH.

That article is mostly about fund raising accountability. It does explain that a new building is needed for the Law School, but does not even hint that the need follows from a lack of space for the library. I'm making the change I mentioned above. Pzavon 01:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A new Law Tower is in fact on the way, and will be constructed on the current site of the defunct (thanks to FitRec) Sargent Gym. I don't have any citable sources for this bold statement, and as such I cannot and will not add it to the article, but suffice to say that the credibility of the source has been settled to my personal satisfaction.
Until we can find someone going on the record to corroborate this, there's no reason to bring it up (certainly not for the lame reason of "the library's too small" - the facility as a whole is ugly and inadequate). -Pjorg 04:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually think the need for a new building should go in the article. Pzavon, the reason the library is a problem is that many law students do most of their studying in the library. The library is connected to the building, which is 18 (?) stories tall. Due to the unfortunte crowding of that area of BU, there really is no way to expand the library. While the library issue is serious, the bigger problem is that the building is hideous, cramped, and really not suitable. (I realize that many schools would like new buildings--but at BU Law, as we're now branded, it's a source of identity.)-- Dan (who will probably register before long so he's not just an IP address). 71.232.158.231 00:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is a way to expand the Law Library, if anyone wanted to allocate the resources. They could, for example, expand it to additional floors of the Law building, displacing classroom and office space to "somewhere else.". They could add a low-rise and likely ugly addition or annex on the north or east sides of the building. I am sure there are other possibilities. It is a matter of priorities.
And I agree with Pjorg - until someone goes on record (in print or in some other referencable format) a new building is editorial speculation and not appropriate for this article. Pzavon 02:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Opinions[edit]

Personal opinions should not be included on wiki articles. Try to keep personal opinions to a minimum. Thanks. (Cis-12)(June 27, 2006)

I would say if you want to put prestige as a factor, there is a law school ranking released that ranks school's prestige. This reputational ranking should be used when indicating reputation and prestige, as it is the only form of such a ranking. If you want to just note the USNWR ranking, that seems more objective. (cornelljd)(June 28, 2006)

Ranking oscillation[edit]

Will you folks PLEASE agree on whether the Law School is #24 or #24 in the US News and World Report listng? It feels like this minor matter has been edited back and forth for several months. Pzavon 16:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This altering of this article[edit]

It looks like some jealous BC Law School students have been trying to sabotage this wiki article. For starters, Boston University Law School is ranked 22nd on US News Report, NOT 24. Second, some BC Law School students are clearly trying to make THEIR school appear to be superior to Boston University Law School when it's just the opposite (e.g., the "Brody" prestige rankings have been presented to make it as those BC is much more prestigious to BU Law School). If you go to the BC Law School wiki page, it's also evident that those SAME BC posters have been trying to make it as though BC Law School is only "marginally" less prestigious than Harvard and Yale.

Well, I dont think that our school is anymore prestigous than BC. However, I think that these pages should be as neutral as possible.

BC certainly isn't any better than BU and is arguably worst than BU. However, in terms of prestige, both BC and BU are about equal and both are obviously behind Harvard and Yale. However, I absolutely refuse to believe that BC Law School gets more respect than BU's.

I've ran the IP checks on some of the editors, and there were a couple whose IP addresses were traced back to Boston College directly.

Can something be done in response to this, or is it merely an observation? Pzavon 02:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of it. The two pages have the exact same facts in regard to their school's rankings. However, whoever is continuously changing the 22 to 24 on this page should be blocked.User: Terrier08 11:15, 7 August 2006

Trying to keep the BUSL page consistent by making sure no one changes the US News Rankings from 22nd and the Brody Associates from 29. Even I wouldnt list the pecialty rankings, as it well known that these are made to provided more substance for teh magazine and do not accurately indicate what schools are better than others in special programs. (Are we better than Harvard at Tax work? Probably not.)User: Terrier08 11:15, 28 August 2006

Just b/c a school has a better "brand name", doesn't necessarily indicate that it provides a high quality education. There are tons of Harvard Law grads out there who turn out to be very lousy attorneys. The only reason they were able to get high paying jobs right of the gate is b/c they went to Harvard, not b/c they were good attorneys. Although this is the exception rather than the norm, I have read about some law firms out there who claim that they'd rather take the bottom 10% of Harvard Law's class than the top 10% of a lesser name school. It's a very shortsighted view in my opinion and some would justify hiring bottom-tier Harvard Law grads by arguing that graduating from Harvard Law means you competed with the best (even if you end up being one of the worst law students there), but I do admit that those practices exist.
With that said, it could very well be that Boston University Law School offers some educational qualities that Harvard Law doesn't have. Too often, Harvard Law relies solely on its brand name to the detriment of its educational quality. While Harvard rests on its laurels, other schools have an incentive to provide unique educational opportunities that Harvard and other big name lw schools wouldn't provide. So in essence, I think it's important to list the rankings of specialty programs. It's not necessarily boasting that BU is better than xxx in something, but if we make such a big deal of US News's overall law school rankings, why not mention some of the speciality rankings as well? Teknosoul02 16:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the assorted rankings should be reinstated on the page as they are important to prospective students as well as current students. As for the specialty rankings from US News, I don't know that they were included to make it seem as though BU Law is "better than Harvard", but specialty rankings are also important to prospective students and are citeable, not a matter of POV. If other school pages choose to omit them, that's fine - and up to them. User: CraniumBoy 14:46, 29 August 2006

Rankings--even by the most widely accepted sources--are inherently subjective. Listing the rankings from each source (for specialties, too) is acceptable so long as the reader can then go to the ranking site and look at the criteria/methodology. Thus, using the word "prestigious" when listing or explaining school ranking is not only unnecessary but the meaning of the word in this context could easily be misconstrued. If the word must be used, it should be used in quotes as it is used on the Brody web site.

Brody is run entirely by Harvard Law graduates. I question whether their rankings of something as nebulous as "prestige" can be used to rank schoools. Here is an excerpt from the Brody web site: These “prestige rankings” were compiled by Brody counselors based upon their experiences at schools and counseling applicants, spending time at law firms, and reviewing a number of primary and secondary sources. The purpose of the rankings is not to indicate which law school is best for you, or even which one would provide you with the best education, but rather to convey to you our feel about which law schools are the most prestigious: i.e. which schools garner the most respect, in a general sense, from employers, lawyers, and the American public.

We realize the myriad flaws inherent in any such ranking system, but we believe that too often applicants operate in a vacuum concerning the relative reputations of schools. This vacuum is inevitably filled by local prejudices, broad ranking systems with more serious flaws, and other minor circumstances. With our rankings in hand, we hope applicants can go to schools knowing generally how they stack up against each other in terms of prestige. Other factors such as weather, specific programs, “vibe”, resources, etc. they can (and should) discover for themselves or with personalized guidance.

Law schools that did not make our list inevitably defy the type of nationwide analysis done here, and should be judged by local standards and specific major/program details.

And finally, while we add the caveat that any set of rankings such as this must necessarily be quite subjective, in our opinion the demands of a law school applicant should align closely—perhaps more so than with any other type of graduate school—with the prestige of the schools being considered.

You can discuss this on the rankings thread that discusses the issue of rankings generally. The consensus is that if you include one type of rankings (which is questionable why you would, considering they are all flawed in some way) then you should include all rankings. It may be best to remove all rankings. But again, you should look to the discussion on the subject. this comment added 20 April 2007 by 24.34.88.253

Proposal for Notable alumni section[edit]

The section on notable alumni is too long and full of too many distracting blue and red links. How about making a separate article for notable alumni and give a link that forwards to that new article? Below that link could be a reduced list of notable alumni consisting of "firsts" and those of national importance as opposed to regional or state importance. It might open an argument over who to keep on the short list, but a link to the article with the full list would mitigate such strife.EECavazos 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I drafted the notable alumni article and summarized this article's section on notable alumni. The summary could probably get cut by another third.EECavazos 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the following standard for keeping notable alumni in this article's summary. The person have national importance either through political office or being a notable "first."EECavazos 22:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the following standard for leaving someone out of the notable alumni section. Their importance or impact is limited to regional level like a governor or senator for New England or although they are a "first" such accomplishment is in a limited field like in the city level. Also, if they are corollary contributors to some important event, then they should be kept out such as their name is not mentioned in the wikipedia article to which they are linked.EECavazos 22:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rankings[edit]

I moved the rankings mention from the opening paragraph to the rankings section for two reasons. First, BU Law is good enough not to need mentioning the rankings in the first place. Second, the rankings section already exists and so the rankings should go there rather than in the introduction. Otherwise we'll either have a redundancy or we'll have an empty or non-existent rankings section.EECavazos 02:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Direction[edit]

In order to make the article classy we should expand on some sections while keeping others somewhat muted.

  • Section that need expansion include History and Publications. *Notable alumni summary probably shouldn't be expanded and possibly should be decreased further.
  • Rankings should be kept small because flashing rank around is like using Homer's make-up shotgun because it pretty much says "cheap," euphemastically speaking.
  • Maybe we can mix the History section with some of the non-summary Notable alumni section to paint a picture of BU Law's past?

EECavazos 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

First things first, all the more so since the article is an encyclopedic entry for a major law school: The tone is largely promotional, and large pieces of this have been copied from the school's website. Looks like these issues go back a long way, but a major copy edit is in order to avert legal concerns, then to make this neutral in tone. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Boston University 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)