Talk:Thomas Jefferson School of Law

POV?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What is this, a commercial for the school?? (Tryptofeng 01:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

It does sound a bit too much like a pitch for the school. As a former student, I can attest that this article is not terribly objective, but if I'm going to complain then perhaps I should add something.

I've added a NPOV tag to this article. Tryptofeng 17:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Last year, I totally revamped USD Law's site (I'm a USD law student) - so I'll go ahead and take a crack at TJSL's site. You're all totally correct - right now, it reads like an admissions office brochure. In fact, it was probably written by someone working for the school. But, it's easily fixed, and we'll make it conform to the standard law school entry template. BlackberryLaw 09:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Initial Revamp

Unless anyone objects, I think we can safely remove the NPOV tag from the article at this point. BlackberryLaw 17:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objetion, I have removed the NPOV tag. It would sure be great if we had more info to fill in the blanks, but the TJSL website is a wasteland, and I'm not a student there! BlackberryLaw 01:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fair use rationale for Image:TJSL.jpg

Image:TJSL.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletions of New York Times article, possible conflict of interest

A user whose account name matches one of the members of the School's Communications Staff has now twice deleted [3][4] mentions of a New York Times article that questioned claims in the School's promotional material, ignoring a question about a possible conflict of interest and requests to justify his deletions.

Please note that articles are to adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy and are not to be used as free advertising space, also have a look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

COI and Problems with HaeB edits

The COI rules explicitly state that "if you feel that there is material within an existing article which is incorrect, or not neutral in its tone, please point this out on the article's talk page."

The deleted portions included statements not supported by the NYT article. It is not accurate to characterize the piece as "questioned the truthfulness of Thomas Jefferson's claim that 92% of the class of 2009 was employed within nine months of graduation." The article discussed the structural problems of the USNews reporting system. It did not question the truthfulness of TJSL numbers, and in fact noted that TJSL numbers comply with USNews guidelines.

It is also a mischaracterization to state that "the New York Times article revealed that the school artificially boosted its employment statistics by including non-law jobs, which is perfectly acceptable under current ABA rules." The NYT article says nothing about TJSL graduates in non-law jobs, and certainly does not make the inflammatory characterization that school numbers are artificially boosted.

(As my user page makes clear, I am on the faculty at TJSL.)

Kaimipono —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

New York Times article characterizations

My previous summary was replaced by an anonymous editor, who summarized the NYT article as follows:

"In January 2011, a New York Times article highlighted Thomas Jefferson's claim that 92% of the class of 2009 was employed within nine months of graduation. The article noted that the school's employment statistics were based on a survey in which 25% of 2009 graduates did not participate. In response, Beth Kransberger, Associate Dean of Student Affairs, defended the school's claims, arguing that they did not violate American Bar Association guidelines."

The NYT article does support that claim. The NYT article states that:

"Beth Kransberger, associate dean of student affairs at Thomas Jefferson, stands by that figure, noting that it includes 25 percent of those graduates who could not be located, as well as anyone who went on to other graduate studies — all perfectly kosher under the guidelines."

Note that this is NOT a statement that 25 percent of students could not be located (as claimed by the anonymous editor).

What it does say is that, for the group of students who could not be located, 25 percent of them were counted as employed. That is a very different thing.

That result, as noted by Beth Kransberger in the NYT article, is directly out of the USNews standards, which read: "For the nine-month employment rate, 25 percent of those whose status is unknown are counted as employed." (See http://www.usnews.com/education/best-law-schools/articles/2010/04/15/the-law-school-rankings-methodology ).

I removed the erroneous characterization. (As noted earlier, I am a TJSL employee. I have declared my affiliation on the talk page, and documented in detail the reasons for my edits.)

Kaimipono (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Edits relating to U.S. News debt numbers

The same anonymous commenter who added the incorrect summary of the NYT article also included this text:

"U.S. News & World Report has also revealed that Thomas Jefferson leads the nation in at least one category: student debt. The average graduate indebtedness is $131,800, and 95% of students graduate in debt. In contrast, the average indebtedness of Yale Law School graduates is $99,989."

This appeared to be unnecessarily inflammatory, and I replaced it with:

"U.S. News & World Report has also reported that Thomas Jefferson students graduate with an average of $131,800 in student debt, and 95% of students graduate in debt. "

This appears to be a more neutral statement of the facts. As noted above, I am a TJSL employee.

Kaimipono (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In looking at this reference: [5] it is clear that the vast majority of students from every sort of school graduate with 6-figure student debts. (I believe that medical school students typically enter their practice with quarter million dollar debts.) With this in mind, pointing out that TJLS grads have an average of x dollars debt is not useful to readers in that this is typical for every school. If we leave this particular information in this particular article, we are presenting a skewed picture. The WP:UNIGUIDE does not call for discussions of debt and one of the FA's listed in UNIGUIDE (UCR, which I attended) does not mention graduates debt levels. Out it goes! --S. Rich (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)21:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an article section (which is actually a set of dead links and failed verifications) regarding law school student debts here: Law_school_in_the_United_States#Post_Graduate_Employment. That is the better place to provide relevant information. --S. Rich (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

An IP user (76.168.205.230) has reverted my effort to delete the career prospects/debt data from the article. While the user says the material s/he restored is in fact WP:RS this editor has cherry picked numbers from the source to add to the edit. Specifically, the $99,000 debt for Yale grads. If IP user is NPOV, why this number or this school? Why not TSU, which has a 100% student debt ratio, but whose students leave with $20,000 in debt? The answer is simple -- this IP editor wants to poke a finger in the eye of TJSL. As stated in my discussion above, this data regarding debt and career prospects is not part of the WP:UNIGUIDE and serves as WP:BOOSTER at the expense of one particular school. Rather than let 3RR kick in, I invite other editors to comment and/or remove the material.--S. Rich (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with S. Rich. The reference to student debt is in a section labeled "career prospects." Average student debt is a separate issue that is not usually referenced with respect to law schools because it is virtually meaningless. Debt level at graduation depends on a wide variety of factors, only one of which -- tuition -- is in the control of the law school. The reference to average debt may be read to suggest (wrongly) that TJSL's tuition is unusually high. In fact, TJSL has the 3rd lowest tuition among ABA law schools in California and a comparable scholarhsip policy to similarly situated schools. The reason for the high debt level is that TJSL affirmatively seeks to expand access to legal education by pursuing perspective students from groups -- such as the first in their families to attend law school -- who typically have lower levels of individual and family resources. I have tried to correct the false impression created by the reference to average debt by explaining these issues, but the editor who posted the debt information has deleted my explanation as OR or puffery, including instead another misleading reference to the NY Times article. I am an employee of the school. I am hopeful that a neutral party will weigh in and delete misleading information or explain why it should be retained without appropriate explanation. SSemeraro (talk) 9 March 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

References

puffery tag

I'm removing the third party source tag and replacing it with a puffery tag. While the material from TJSL itself provides much of the information, it basically meets the criteria for SPS. E.g.:

• 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 source;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Cleanup will fix the self-serving factor. --S. Rich (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Bar Pass Rates w/ ref

The bar pass rate now in the infobox is referenced to California Bar Exam numbers for the most recent general bar examination results. In fact, I have added the pass rate from the same source for the same exam to all California law school infoboxes, giving readers a uniform number for comparisons (should they so desire). Using the most recent number will avoid the problem of WP:CHERRY that some users might want to pick in order to WP:BOOSTER their favorite school.--S. Rich (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Diamond Graduate Law School LLM Online Program be merged into Thomas Jefferson School of Law. I think that the content in the Diamond Grad article can easily be explained in the context of TJLS, and the TJLS article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Diamond Grad will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. (In fact, the material is already added to TJLS.) S. Rich (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, as the program is a Thomas Jefferson School of Law program. The exclusivity of it being the only accredited online ABA program is better explained in the context of the school it is associated with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archangel0585 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Support per the above. Lagrange613 (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the only thing needed is to create a redirect. --S. Rich (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Bar Pass Rate -- updates

Per this notice from the California State Bar -- CSB News -- the "More detailed statistics, including passing rates by individual law schools, will be made available in approximately four to six weeks and published on the State Bar’s website at http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/." This notice came out May 18. Efforts to calculate the 2/2012 pass rate for TJLS are derived from a look-see at the individual results recently released. Such calculations are original research and are not acceptable. IP editors and others, please be patient. The 60% achievement by those TJLS students will be recognized, but only after the Bar gives us the reliable source.--S. Rich (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Editor Saunders.cj has sent me the following message: "We have every right to update our bar pass rate to the latest numbers. We don't think it's right for you to keep reverting to our old numbers." In response, I think two issues are at play. One, Saunders does not know about the guidance/rule of WP:OWN and 2. there is WP:COI. --S. Rich (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Editor Saunders has provided a source for the 60% figure. While it is "self published", we can use it because it meets the 5 criteria for WP:SELFSOURCE acceptability. The number in the infobox (48%) should remain as is. That number is set up by the infobox criteria, which calls for ABA data when comparing ABA schools. Once TJLS gets the ABA to update the profile, we can change that number.--S. Rich (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Repeatedly deleted section

A large block of text, most of it sourced, has been repeatedly removed. On the third removal, we are given an explanation: "Highly skewed towards RECENT EVENTS. Contains BIASED information. SPAM-- promotes attorney law practice. FALSE--reference to a wall street journal article that is not cited and unverifiable. WRONG SECTION."

Some of this is a bit hard to fathom.

"Highly skewed towards RECENT EVENTS"? Yes, it is a relatively recent event (filed last year). That does not mean we omit it entirely. Rather, it should not dominate the article. It doesn't.

"Contains BIASED information"? It contains biased claims on BOTH sides, properly attributed to the sides making the claims. That is how we handle a lawsuit. It is clearly side A disagreeing with side B. That's what a lawsuit is.

"SPAM-- promotes attorney law practice."? Er, you wanna run that by me again?

"FALSE--reference to a wall street journal article that is not cited and unverifiable." I've added the WSJ source. It was not "FALSE", it needed a cite. Now it is cited.

"WRONG SECTION." If you think it belongs in another section, MOVE it.

If you are having problems with particular elements, explain why: address them one at a time. Throwing around multiple claims hoping one will stick is not helpful. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested New Section: Center for Solo Practitioners

I believe the following text may be appropriate as an edit. If there is a problem with this, please let me know. (COI note: I am a TJSL employee.)

(Begin Section) Center for Solo Practitioners

Since Fall 2012, TJSL has operated a lawyer incubator program called the Center for Solo Practitioners. The incubator provides space and support for selected alumni who are going into solo practice. It is also intended to help serve under-represented communities. [CITE:http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Mar/29/law-incubators-help-new-attorneys/ ].

At the 2013 annual meeting of the American Bar Association, the Center for Solo Practitioners was honored with an ABA award in recognition of "successful implementation of a project or program specifically targeted to solo and small-firm lawyers."[CITE: http://www.abanow.org/2013/07/small-business-law-center-at-thomas-jefferson-school-of-law-to-receive-aba-solo-and-small-firm-project-award/ ].

(End Section)

Kaimipono (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've gotten no objections, and so I'm putting this in now. If there are any concerns, please let me know.Kaimipono (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Alaburda suit, etc.

I've spent a little bit of time trying to find a status update on the case. I haven't found much on that front: several cases against other schools have been dismissed and, as of December 2012, this particular case was in discovery. Obviously, if anyone can point to reliable sources with more, we need it.

While looking through Above the Law (cited elsewhere in the article), I ran across a few tidbits:

• "The Law Schools With the Highest Unemployment Rates" - TJSL tops the list
• "California Bar Exam Results By Law School: Open Thread " - TJSL is last

(Both of these link to reliable sources we can cite. While we obviously cannot say A + B = C, both of these items would seem to be relevant to the claims/concerns raised by the case in question and meaningful data on a law school. Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm obviously an interested party, but I believe that any open speculation about the legal merits of ongoing litigation would violate a variety of Wikipedia policies -- in particular WP:NOR, WP:SYN, and WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Kaimipono (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we tie the information together (WP:SYN is what I was referring to in "A + B = C"). I am suggesting that the two pieces of data are relevant to an article about a law school. Sticking to what the sources say, TJSL has the highest unemployment rate of the ABA schools nationwide and the lowest bar pass rate of ABA in California. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following your question, Summer. As a general matter, I would think that bar pass rates, employment, and other statistics are the kind of thing that is relevant on a Wikipedia page, yes. There's already a significant amount of discussion in the Wikipedia article about these.

I had read your question as suggesting that they would be relevant in the Alaburda section in particular. If that's what your suggesting, I'm not sure I follow the argument (TJSL's 2013 bar pass rates show or do-not-show that TJSL lied or did-not-lie to applicants in 2007?), and if there is an argument there, I think it's definitely WP:SYN.

(I can't talk specifics about Alaburda itself. As a general matter, I'd just note that speculating about the status of ongoing litigation is usually a bad idea and is definitely against Wikipedia policy.

On general questions of how long lawsuits last, what discovery looks like, how one can check for case updates, what might be happening in litigation, and what one should or should not assume from months-long stretches without any public announcement, I'll defer to S.Rich.) Kaimipono (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

To repeat: I am not suggesting we incorporate any conclusions anyone here draws about the case based on the numbers.

I am suggesting that we incorporate better data. Currently, the article states:

• ABA first time bar pass rate: 54.7%. (actually, as of July 2012, this was 68%)

TJSL announced a 60% a first time bar pass rate (for the February 2012 California bar exam)

July 2012 first time taker pass rate for TJSL was 52% for the California bar exam.

That clearly presents TJSL as significantly above average for Feb 2012 and just below average for July. (Based on the actual figure for July 2012, TJSL was clearly well below average.) However, this is taking the ABA rate from one source and comparing it against numbers from the school for something else.

I our terms, this is synthesis.

Instead, I propose using reliable secondary sources (which we prefer) to present the comparisons they make (avoiding the synthesis):

• "Out of the 202 ABA-accredited law schools, TJSL graduates had the highest rate of unemployment 9 months after graduation."

"Of the 21 ABA-accredited California law schools, TJSL had the lowest pass rate on the California bar exam." - SummerPhD (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, that makes sense. I misunderstood. I'm all for the use of the best stats available. Updating the general info page with the most current stats seems like a good idea to me. I had thought you were asking about including those stats in _Alaburda_ discussion. Sorry for the confusion. Kaimipono (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Potential POV concerns with language and omissions in the piece

Disclosure: I'm an interested party.

I believe that certain words, phrasings, and omissions may reflect WP:POV concerns. My concerns are as follows. Because of my status as an interested party, I'd like to hear back on these in case I've misjudged them.

1. WP:CHERRY issues with "However, 25% of 2009 graduates who did not participate in the survey were counted as employed."

As noted in the NYT article, TJSL was following ABA-established guidelines. This is an ABA rule, not a TJSL issue. The existing sentence should be replaced with something like "(Under ABA rules, 25% of graduates who do not participate in employment surveys are counted as employed.)"

2. Significant WP:CHERRY issues with the misleading selective presentation of news stories about transparency. In fact, in 2012 the National Jurist ranked TJSL as one of the top 15 law schools in the country in transparency, and gave the school an "A" in transparency. (See http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/cypress/nationaljurist0312/index.php#/20 . Free reg required; I can't find a version that isn't behind a wall.) And also in 2012, Law School Transparency reported that TJSL was one of only 23% of law schools which received a perfect score for transparency. (See http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/documents/Winter2012/Winter_2012_Index_Report.pdf and the data appendix; see ABA article about the report at http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/about_half_of_law_schools_post_incomplete_job_and_scholarship_data_group_sa/ ).

If there's an active discussion on the page suggesting that TJSL lies about our numbers, then it would seem relevant that both LST and the National Jurist found exactly the opposite.

3. Significant WP:Weasel Words and WP:MOSQUOTE concerns with the WSJ citation about Karen Grant. The WSJ did not "reported on October 24, 2012 that falsified documents were intentional," it reported that one filing in the case made that claim. "Her allegations came in a sworn declaration" overstates the importance or credibility of the source -- they're _all_ sworn statements. Also, the citation to language from the Grant statement, without the response, is problematic.

I tried briefly to line-edit these, and it was just a mess. I'd suggest restarting. Maybe along these lines?

In 2012, plaintiffs filed a statement from former TJSL employee Karen Grant, that the school had directed her to falsify employment information during 2006 and 2007. (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/10/24/law-school-falsified-jobs-data-ex-employee-says/) TJSL and Dean Hasl stated that Ms. Grant's claims were false, and that "TJSL policy has always been to report accurate employment data." (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/10/26/law-school-responds-to-allegations-it-falsified-jobs-stats/).

Suggestions welcome.

4. Finally, the entire section "2012 Post-graduation employment" is a disaster. First, the title is _wrong_ -- the WSJ piece is about 2011 employment. Second, it's redundant. The WSJ story should be condensed to a sentence or two and folded in to the earlier discussion on the same topic (the US News story). Also, WP:SAY issues with Dean Hasl "retorted." Also, the link unnecessarily goes to a firewall.

I suggest replacing the link with http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304458604577486623469958142.html and the text with "The Wall Street Journal also ran a story in June 2012 listing TJSL as one of the 'bottom five' schools for 2011 graduate employment," and appending to the earlier paragraph with US News story on the same topic.

Kaimipono (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There's been no objection, so I made these changes. I also fixed a few typos and cleaned up the abbreviations. (TJSL is correct, TJLS is not.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaimipono (talk • contribs) 02:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Class action status?

What's going on with the lawsuit? Please update with WP:RS. – S. Rich (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Per news reports the jury decided against her. Accordingly, the lawsuit was not significant (other than to be burdensome to TJSL). As WP is NOTNEWS, I've removed the subsection on the lawsuit. – S. Rich (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)