Talk:Bucerius Law School

How do I grab the GDFL from the German article?

I saw this free image on the German article and I'd like to use it --is there an easy way to transfer it to the English wikipedia? --Bobak 00:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Download and reupload to commons. I have done that. Kusma (討論) 00:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Stub

I attend this school. You call the article a stub - I think it's quite long for a really tiny university like Bucerius. What else would you want to know? --85.176.0.164 22:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not true. It is yet the finest school for law in Germany... so I think it deserves some damn good treatment.

Comment: So, why is this called a stub? See:

The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
- A particularly useful picture or graphic
- Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
- A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
- Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article

— WP:GER/A

This article don't have sections or subheadings. And a major problem there are no reliable, independent sources. Add them and this article will be start class or better. The image and the logo is not a "serious element of gathered material" IMHO. Greetings. Sebastian scha. (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Partner schools

Is it really necessary having this bandwagon list of universities in the article? It's both unaesthetic and against WP:NPOV since only the most notable schools are listed. Out of 87, there's also a lot of no-names. 188.99.186.112 (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you can go ahead and delete it. --Gnom (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Done 188.99.178.246 (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I took out the London School of Economics as a partner university as this is wrong (source: http://www.law-school.de/partneruniversitaeten.html). I think the representative number of partner universities listed in the article is fine, especially as this is also common in other wiki-texts on universities and provides valuable information for people interested in the university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.14.22.175 (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bucerius Law School. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512191619/http://www.law-school.de/fileadmin/user_upload/medien/BLS-Publikationen/re.vision_2010.pdf to http://www.law-school.de/fileadmin/user_upload/medien/BLS-Publikationen/re.vision_2010.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bucerius Law School. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100221025141/http://www.law-school.de/rankings.html?&L=1 to http://www.law-school.de/rankings.html?&L=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028073645/http://bewerberportal.law-school.de/bewerbung-auswahlverfahren/wie-bewerben.html to http://bewerberportal.law-school.de/bewerbung-auswahlverfahren/wie-bewerben.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100221025141/http://www.law-school.de/rankings.html?&L=1 to http://www.law-school.de/rankings.html?&L=1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://master.law-school.de/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

This article should be written in a more neutral way. --Delfield (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of this article does not appear to be neutral and partially reads like an ad/lacks NPOV. I consider a rework to be appropriate, does anybody disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted two edits for lacking citations, please add those before adding the content FortunateSons (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

(Technical) COI disclosure

I have what a strict reading could plausibly describe as a non-financial conflict of interest in regards to this article. While I believe that my editing (both talk page and article) is not affected by it, I have voluntarily chosen to provide this disclaimer in addition to the one on my user page. FortunateSons (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

CN tags

Hello @Gnom, thank you for your interest in this article. Unfortunately, your edit summary does not match the content of your edit: multiple tags were removed without replacement. Could you please either restore the tag or find a source? FortunateSons (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I am happy to put an individual link to the respective sub-page of the BLS website for each and every sentence in the article, but can we maybe limit that to the key statements in the article? Gnom (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

We should check is some of those are due at all, but yes, we shouldn’t have entirely unsourced paragraphs or subheadings. Not every sentence of course, but we also shouldn’t have unverified content in the article, particularly considering that (based on their name) at least one of the contributors is likely to have a strong connection to the school. link FortunateSons (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I just added three more references to the website. For transparency: I am also an alumn of this institution. Gnom (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the transparency. I don’t consider being an alumni to be a COI per se, and I’m confident an experienced editor such as yourself can avoid the common pitfalls of COI editing. :) FortunateSons (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

This article suffers from numerous NPOV violations and is at times written like a marketing piece, exhibiting all the symptoms, e.g.:

• Bias towards recent information subject to frequent change (fluctuations; see WP:RECENTISM)
• Bias towards inclusion of information that is irrelevant for an encyclopedic article

See also: WP:PROMOTION.

As a remedy, I propose cutting all the fluff and all the parts for which no citations can be found, reducing it to the stub that it was before the fluff was added to it. TucanHolmes (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @TucanHolmes, per the above thread, which raised similar issues that were subsequently regarded as resolved, would you mind being a bit more specific about the individual phrases that you see as problematic, so that they can be addressed? Thank you, Gnom (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Where do I even begin? At first, the weasel words:

• Admissions to Bucerius are competitive, with an estimated acceptance rate of 12%. – This gives the reader no information, other than an unsubstantiated claim of competitiveness and a relative (estimated!) acceptance rate which may sound impressive but isn't if one considers that only 116 students are admitted (and since it is estimated, we don't know what the error on that estimation was). Why is this in there? Why doesn't the article just tell the reader that the estimated (by whom?) acceptance rate is 12%. This is vague, next-to-meaningless information once you think about it for two seconds – a classic example of marketing fluff, if there ever is one.

Inappropriate statements in Wikivoice:

• In the article, Hofert omits the fact that all students at Bucerius can finance their studies through a multi-generation student funding scheme regardless of their financial capacity and future income. This scheme allows students to repay their fees after completion of their studies. The rate of repayment is set at 9 % of the graduates' income and only applies as long as the annual income exceeds EUR 30,000. After 10 years of payments, all debts are cancelled. – This should honestly be scrapped. The referenced article mentions Bucerius as one example among many, and only in passing, in the context of alumni getting jobs at big law firms. I mean, just read the preceding sentence: In an article published in Spiegel in 2014, columnist Svenja Hofert alleges that education at private universities, such as Bucerius Law School [!], is inaccessible to many people due to its high price and leads to an unfair career advantage.. This has nothing to do with Bucerius in particular, and is inappropriately placed in the "Rankings and reputation" section. The Spiegel article didn't have a high impact (or alternatively this Wikipedia article doesn't mention it), and is basically just some person's opinion. The fact that somebody included this barely relevant article as a reference to follow it up with an overly detailed description of the multi-generation student funding scheme, appears suspect to me ("multi-generation student funding scheme"... is that a word people use? It's basically just a student loan – why not call it that, or at least surround the proper name of the scheme with quotation marks?).
• Financial aid includes scholarships, student loans and a special "study first, pay later". This is a multi-generation student funding scheme that ensures affordability concerns do not prevent "the best and most highly qualified students" [quot. marks mine; why not just "qualified students"?] from attending Bucerius. It allows any students to attend for free with an agreement that they pay the university back a fixed percentage of their salary for a period of time after graduation, provided they meet certain minimal earnings requirements. Moreover, many students are recipients of external scholarships. [what percentage? which? how many? without context, this is basically just: "Some students were at some point able to get scholarships. Okay." This is normal in Germany, and happens at any school.] – This just reads like somebody copied it straight from their promotional material. It is also explained twice in the article. Why?

Second, the information that is prone to become outdated as time inexorably marches on:

• All applicants must have English proficiency supported by a minimum score of 95 on the TOEFL, which is equivalent to that required of many American LL.M. programs. — Why the "equivalent to that required of many American LL.M. programs [insert citation here]". There is no source, other than the institution's own web presence. This is close to WP:OR.
• In 2024, 8.41% of students were merit scholars of the German National Academic Foundation (Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes). This figure was the highest percentage of any institution of higher education in Germany. Why is this in the Admission section, of all places. This has nothing to do with Admission – since it can't be a requirement for admission. This is something that happens after students are admitted. If anything, it should belong in a "Student life / Student body" section, which doesn't exist.

The section "LL.B. and Staatsexamen program" is basically unsourced, or at least, could use a few more sources.

The entire "Location and facilities" section. Come on, read it. Just, read it (emphasis mine):

Bucerius Law School is located in the city center, near Hamburg's trade exhibition center and the park Planten un Blomen. Housed in a historic building that used to serve as the horticulture and botany buildings for the University of Hamburg, Bucerius features a full-service Mensa, or cafeteria, offering a variety of hot meals daily. A new library building with a capacity of 450 workspaces was added to the eastern side of the main building in 2007. The library comprises 76,000 books and 2,355 periodicals in printed and electronic form; it is not open to the public. There are several computer labs, a napping room, a theater and an on-campus and bilingual (German/English) kindergarten. Important events, such as major soccer matches can be watched on a full screen in the lecture hall. There is a gym on campus, which students are free to use once an initial registration fee of 50 Euro has been paid [why do we mention the specific registration fee number? Just say "registration fee"]. Showers are available both inside the gym and in the main building. [why? This doesn't matter. It might change anytime.] On its top floor, Bucerius Law School has 22 separate rooms for students who wish to study in small groups. [just say 'group rooms' or something like that] — This no longer sounds like it was copied from the brochure. This is just a shortened summary, straight from the brochure. It is unencyclopedic writing, at the least.

Let us consider the article's structure. The sections are, in order:

• Origins and structure
• Programs of study
• Admission
• Ranking and reputation
• LL.B. and Staatsexamen program
• LL.M./MLB program
• Extracurricular activities
• Location and facilities
• Alumni

Am I the only one who finds this to be a bit... promotional, like a brochure? Not structured like an encyclopedic article?

It is basically:

• What is this?
• What can I study there?
• How do I get in?
• Do others say it's good?
• Study line 1, detail
• Study line 2, detail
• Fun
• Where will I study?
• What will my network be afterwards?

Compare this with the article for, say, Stanford University (some entries omitted):

• History
• Land
• Administration and organization
• Academics
  • Admission
  • Teaching and learning
  • Reputation and rankings
• Discoveries and innovations
• Student life
  • Student body
  • Student groups
• Notable people

So, how would a more encyclopedic article about Bucerius be structured? My suggestion:

• History
• Academics
  • Admission
  • Programs of study
    • LL.B. and Staatsexamen
    • LL.M./MLB program
  • Location and facilities
  • Reputation and rankings
• Student life
  • Student body
  • Extracurricular activities
  • Alumni

There might be other examples which I've missed. The above is a non-exhaustive summary. I believe a structural adjustment plus a medium rewrite would fix the issue. TucanHolmes (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)