Talk:Loyola Law School/Archive 1

Request for Wiki third-opinion

For "Loyola2L" dispute resolution, see Wikipedia:Third opinion.

Summary of objections

Summary of objections to "Loyola2L" manipulation of content, by EditorEsquire

The Wiki page for any educational institution is supposed to contain verifiable and unbiased information. It is not meant to be used as a platform to denigrate a school. The same goes for any Wiki page. Yet one editor has sought to add "Loyola2L" to the "Notable alumni" section of Loyola Law School.

Loyola 2L is a noteworthy legal blogger. If you google "Loyola 2L" you will find thousands of pages by or about Loyola 2L. I want to note that the edit war over Loyola 2L is waged by three IPs in favor of adding Loyola 2L vs. one IP in favor of deleting it. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Loyola 2L does not "denigrate" or "abuse" Loyola. Loyola 2L is apparently a blogger name used by a group of Loyola Law school students, who use the internet to inform others of the difficulties they are having finding a job. I appreciate their desire to honestly share their experiences and I don't see any way to square that with the characterizations like "denigrate" or "abuse." --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Loyola2L is apparently a username belonging to one or more people who hold themselves out as having some affiliation with the school (an assertion which is completely unverifiable), and with this apparent sock puppet seek to denigrate the school. Now, a Wiki editor is trying to use Wiki as another platform to spread these biased missives -- under the cover of saying that because any anonymous person can claim to be a student of the school and then defame it for their own motives (most notably, to elevate competing law schools),

I don't know if you work for Loyola Law School, but Wikipedia is not a tool by which you can elevate your school over others. Wikipedia is here to present complete information. If graduates of your law school indeed have such poor career prospects, that a group of bloggers would post literally thousands of messages bemoaning their financial difficulties, then it is noteworthy information. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki must also be a forum in which to do so. That assertion fails several of Wiki's cornerstone policies. Wiki is not -- and never was intended to be -- a forum for abuse.

By your definition anyone who writes about the country's poor economy abuses the country. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) This fails Wiki's non-bias policy. The "Loyola2L" posts alleging "poor" career prospects are opionated bias. Career prospects are already incorporated within the US News rankings, which is prominently displayed and linked on the page. Loyola2L-related posts anywhere -- including Wikipedia -- are meant solely to denigrate the school.

How are you in a position to judge the honesty of Loyola 2L's posts? Loyola 2L are a group of actual Loyola students struggling to find jobs. You, based on your IP, are in Virginia. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(2) For these reasons, the post also fails the accuracy policy. First, the relative employment rates reported by US News show that the assertion of "poor" career prospects is factually wrong.

This is just a lie, and I'm troubled by your lack of respect for the truth. I just researched Loyola's US News statistics and they show, among other things, a 40% unemployment rate at graduation. In comparison, UCLA's unemployment rate at graduation is just 3%. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Second, Loyola2L by definition cannot be an alumni because he/she cannot be verified as such, and the username itself is made to suggest a current student. But again, any number of different people could register this username on any number of blogs -- regardless of who they are or what their affiliation, if any, is with the school.

I seriously doubt anyone would pretend to be a Loyola Law School student, and post thousands of messages bemoaning the market value of the degree, solely as a game. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(3) This is also not noteworthy. Just because I post a blog somewhere does not elevate it to the level of being worthy of putting onto a Wiki page.

This is another lie. Loyola 2L is a noteworthy legal blogger as described above. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(4) This posting squarely violates Wiki's verifiability policy. No one can ever verify whether Loyola2L is or ever was a student -- let alone a single person or instead multiple people using the same username -- or a sock puppet. The fact remains that the identify of the people under this username can never be determined as fact and is completely unverifiable. Moreover, the law school market in Los Angeles is very competitive. Loyola2L could very well be affiliated one of the several competiting law schools, seeking to denigrate the school for his/her/their own motives, and now expanding that campaign onto Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorEsquire (talk • contribs) 10:22-10:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.29.214 (talk • contribs) 10:29-10:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is moot because the article doesn't purport to verify L2L's statements. The article only reports L2L's existence as a noteworthy blogger. Regarding your redundant assertions, see above. --Updatethis12 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Diffs from article history

History of "Loyola2L" dispute (as of 9 June 2007 5:30 am Eastern Time

(cur) (last) 09:22, 9 June 2007 EditorEsquire (Talk | contribs) (22,012 bytes) (I am submitting to dispute resolution. I made a majority of this content, and am not going to sit by and watch you hijack it to denigrate the school for your own motives)

(cur) (last) 09:20, 9 June 2007 EditorEsquire (Talk | contribs) (22,011 bytes)

(cur) (last) 06:33, 9 June 2007 Updatethis12 (Talk | contribs) (22,216 bytes) (My interest is an informative article. I edited the entry to make clear we don't support the blogger's views. You've now had three different IPs add the L2L reference. Please stop deleting it.)

(cur) (last) 01:50, 9 June 2007 EditorEsquire (Talk | contribs) (22,011 bytes) ((1) There is no way to identify if this blogger attended the school, and thus is unverifiable; (2) This is clearly meant to denigrate the school and is biased. Identify your interest in this post.)

(cur) (last) 00:15, 7 June 2007 Updatethis12 (Talk | contribs) (22,216 bytes) (I added "supposedly" to 70.162.147.66's edit, so the article doesn't endorse L2L's views. However, L2L is a known blogger and supposed Loyola alum. Why not unbiasedly report his/her existence)

(cur) (last) 23:08, 4 June 2007 70.162.147.66 (Talk) (22,205 bytes) (→Notable alumni)

(cur) (last) 23:32, 1 June 2007 68.175.29.209 (Talk) (22,189 bytes) (I did not suggest you were that bogger. His blogs and reference here is biased. If you object, submit it to Wiki resolution. I will register as a username to object n that case.)

(cur) (last) 14:00, 1 June 2007 Updatethis12 (Talk | contribs) (22,188 bytes) (First of all, I am not Loyola 2L. Second, can you please not start a huge fight over this? Loyola 2L is well known legal blogger and I think it's biased to exclude the reference. Pls add it somewhere.)

(cur) (last) 08:21, 1 June 2007 68.175.29.209 (Talk) (22,011 bytes) (Also, the user is not only abusing the bias policy to denigrate a school, but moreover attempted to self-make himself/herself as notewothy (in part by this page))

(cur) (last) 08:18, 1 June 2007 68.175.29.209 (Talk) (22,010 bytes) (I appreciate your comment. The content violates the non-bias policy, this is not the function of a "notable" alumni section, and the post refers to an unidentified pseudonyn who is not even an alumni)

(cur) (last) 03:52, 1 June 2007 Updatethis12 (Talk | contribs) (22,186 bytes) (→Notable alumni - I think Loyola 2L is worth mentioning somewhere in the article. I'm not saying we should present his/her views as fact, but perhaps just mention him somewhere?)

(cur) (last) 02:07, 1 June 2007 68.175.29.209 (Talk) (22,010 bytes) (Loyola2L is an unidentified purported alumni posting subjective and slanted content contrary to Wiki policies) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorEsquire (talk • contribs) 09:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Response

Dear administrators,

Loyola 2L is the name of a group of well known legal bloggers, who write about the difficulties they are having finding a job. As proof of their noteworthiness I submit that you can simply google the term "Loyola 2L" and read the thousands of pages by or about these bloggers.

These bloggers are popular because of their honesty, and their zealous desire to warn people about the wisdom of a low ranked law degree. Loyola 2L is not the only person with this message. Other sites include temporaryattorney.blogspot.com, jdunderground,com, nycinsurrancelaw.googlepages.com and so on.

Recently, two law professors wrote a paper on this subject. They were concerned that misrepresentations about a law degree's market value hurt the credibility of legal education. Here is an excerpt: "Obviously, the numbers do not add up. University of Iowa sociologist Michael Sauder, who has interviewed more than 120 law professors and administrators for his rankings research, heard examples of alumni taxi drivers who are “employed” for the purposes of U.S. News rankings. We have collected many other examples. Such practices only serve to mislead students into purchasing an expensive legal education. In the process, legal education is losing its credibility." http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?hubtype=Inside&id=1180688730005 .

Unfortunately, EditorEsquire presented a terribly misrepresentative statement on Loyola 2L, the issue and its importance. Based on that representation, you understandably deleted the Loyola2L entry and the Loyola2L page. I ask you to restore these entries and wait for the discussion to reach maturity. I have no doubt that given time, EditorEsquire will be fully refuted. It should be noted that EditorEsquire is only one IP, in Virginia, and that he was in an edit war with three different IPs. Kindly submitted for your approval. --Updatethis12 18:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom the Temp's blog, http://temporaryattorney.blogspot.com, which mentions Loyola LA, discusses the poor job prospects that many of these unemployed graduates face. Tom the Temp's blog was recently mentioned in an article written by New York Times best selling author and social critic Barbara Ehrenreich. Ehrenreich describes how lower tiered graduates of schools like Loyola LA report working 12 hours a day, six days a week, in crowded basements with inadequate sanitary facilities. In an American Lawyer article, a legal temp at a major firm reports being “corralled in a windowless basement room littered with dead cockroaches,” where six out of seven exits were blocked." Big Los Angeles firms have many of these "temp" legal positions that many Loyola LA graduates are forced to work in. Loyola LA uses these positions to puff up their graduate placement statistics, when in reality they are jobs from hell. Ehrenreich's article was published in the Nation and Chicago Sun Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.110.164 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Loyola2L has been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, in fact tonight they were referencing him in the comments section of an article, even though he did not leave any comments on that particular entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.59.108 (talk) 03:01, June 14, 2007 (UTC)

From WP:V: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control; that is, when it isn't really a blog. Posts left on these columns by readers may never be used as sources." [emphasis mine]. Anomie 04:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

My opinion: If this were an external link, it would clearly fall under WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided item 11. For inclusion under "notable alumni" it should probably meet WP:N, which as far as I can tell it does not. The linked article is clearly a candidate for deletion under CSD A7. Anomie 13:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The absence of reliable independent verification is another crucial nail in its coffin. Just leave it out and if anyone adds it again, there are ways to deal with that if and when it happens. Adrian M. H. 14:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins, please don't be guided solely by EditorEsquire's terribly unrepresentative description. He is one IP, and if you view the edit history you'll see there were three IPs in support of adding the Loyola 2L reference. Please allow some time for everyone to comment on this dispute. As Anomie and Adrian M.H. formed their conclusions before listening to the other side, I don't think they are still neutral and I think their opinions should be deleted. --Updatethis12 17:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [The word "Gentlemen" in this post changed to "Admins" in 18:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC) edit by 75.17.183.127. Entire comment removed in 19:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC) edit by 75.19.110.40 (restored by NPOV editor).]

Updatethis12: FYI, I am not an admin. My opinion wasn't based on what EditorEsquire said. Instead, I looked at the text under dispute, and the article linked from that text, and found absolutely nothing to indicate notability. If you want to get support for adding Loyola 2L to the list of alumni, you have to do two things:

1. Find reliable independent references for the blog's notability. Note that these must pertain to Loyola 2L particularly, and not to whatever views Loyola 2L may express in their blog.
2. Find a reliable independent reference that asserts Loyola 2L is actually a graduate of Loyola Law School.

If you can do this to the point where you can write a good article to resurrect your article Loyola 2L, you should be able to get support from other editors. OTOH, it seems that you are more concerned with Loyola 2L's views than Loyola 2L itself; if that is the case, perhaps you should give this up and instead write a well-sourced criticism section for the article. If you do decide to go this route, be sure to follow WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and related policies or you will likely be reverted again.

Also FYI, see WP:GOOGLE. 3000 results isn't that many for someone who communicates publicly via the Internet; I get 1100 when looking up my real name (which doesn't count anything referencing me by pseudonym) and I haven't done anything near worthy of a Wikipedia article. Also, the first page of results seems to be full of posts by and replies to Loyola 2L rather than the critical commentary you imply. Anomie 19:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I decided to check out the blog of Loyola 2L, and I can't even find it! Even the links from the deleted Wikipedia article ([1][2][3][4], still in Google's cache for the moment) don't reference Loyola 2L's blog, they reference Loyola 2L's comments to posts on The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog. Does Loyola 2L even have a blog, or is it just a name someone or some group uses when posting their "warning" messages in the comments of various law-related blogs? If the latter, I personally wouldn't even go so far as to describe them as a blogger. Anomie 22:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Updatethis12: I just reverted an IP user for reverting your previous comment, and now you're doing it. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable. Also, I believe you are mischaracterizing the informal WP:3O process, and I note all parties have left extensive edit summaries in the article history regarding this issue. Anomie 19:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to reset third opinions

I would like to request a new set of third opinions. Two editors, anomie and Adrian M.H. provided an opinion before listening to both sides, as is shown by the timestamp of their opinion.

This is in violation of Wikipedia rules regarding third opinions. These rules are described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Providing_third_opinions . Specifically the requirement that no opinion be given without "Read[ing] the arguments of the disputants" and "Do not provide third opinions recklessly."

Imagine the absurdity of a courtroom where the judge makes a decision after listening to just one side and spends the rest of the trial defending their decision against the other side. Anomie formed her opinion before listening to both sides of the dispute. She is no longer neutral.

For these reasons I think the third opinions should be reset. It's unfortunate that Anomie and Adrian M.H. will not simply delete their opinions. Wikipedia has thousands of editors willing to provide unbiased opinions who could take their place. --Updatethis12 19:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [Compare "I'm going to reset the third opinions" edits at 19:25 and 19:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC) by 75.4.244.10.]

That's the appropriate way to do things, instead of just deleting comments! Go ahead and add your new request to the bottom of WP:3O to attract a new third opinion. Anomie 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You've already tainted the third opinion process as I described above. In the future, please follow the rules and wait to hear both sides before forming a conclusion. Please also consider your opinion so it's not impulsive and reckless. --Updatethis12 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Updatethis12, I request that you assume good faith and consider the fact that I – and Anomie, no doubt – did the necessary detective work prior to providing our opinions. That means checking the article history, talk page history, user talk history, IP history and relevant external links. OK? You have thus far failed to assume good faith and have made unwarranted and misjudged criticisms of two editors of good standing based on what I can only attribute to paranoia or a resentment of protocol. Our opinions are rooted in the key policies and guidelines that all editors should follow. Any attempt to refactor or delete comments from any talk page will be answered with the appropriate warnings. That the opinions offered by other experienced editors do not tally with your own is not a valid reason to behave like this, and it fails to respect 3O protocol and Wikipedia's conduct guidelines. You have every right to discuss your dispute, as long as it is done in a civil and reasoned manner. Adrian M. H. 22:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't even have the patience to wait a few hours for a response. Impatience is recklessness. Having jumped to a conclusion, you are now forced to defend it, regardless of the response. Rather than delete your opinions and let unbiased 3rd parties resolve the dispute, you insist on continuing to shamelessly taint the process. --Updatethis12 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not customary to sit around waiting when a 3O request is posted, and we certainly do not need to wait for your attempt at justification in order to assess such an incredibly simple little dispute! The history reveals all that one needs to know to see that the material was in clear violation of WP:V and, by extension, WP:RS. And once again, comments are not deleted unless they constitute vandalism or unmitigated personal attacks. Read the policy. Adrian M. H. 22:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The rules clearly state you're supposed to wait to hear both sides before providing an opinion, and you're supposed to provide a thoughtful, not reckless, opinion. I quoted the text above. You read one side and impulsively posted the first thought that came into your mind. Having come to your conclusion, you have no choice but to defend it, regardless of what I write. As if ruining the first request for opinion wasn't enough, you have now ruined the second request. --Updatethis12 22:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You have already been asked to improve your attitude. I will not ask you again. Making inaccurate bad faith assumptions and being uncivil only makes your case weaker. Adrian M. H. 22:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately everything is on record. I don't understand why you couldn't simply let a neutral third party opine in this second request. You already stated your opinion, before even hearing the other side of the dispute, in the first request. Why did you need to post four times in the second request? --Updatethis12 22:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Because discussion should be arranged in descending chronological order; that is another part of the talk page guidelines. Adrian M. H. 23:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The purpose the second request was to let a neutral third party opine on the dispute, not to let you repost the same procedurally improper opinion you posted in the first request. Please delete all of your posts in the second request. --Updatethis12 23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

IF someone decides to wade into this mess and give another opinion, they'll probably create a new subsection for it anyway. Here, I'll even create the new subsection for you, please don't despoil it by posting in it yourself. Anomie 23:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"this mess." It wouldn't be a mess if you would simply delete your procedurally improper opinions and let neutral parties opine. There are thousands of editors on Wikipedia. Why are you two so insistent on mucking up this request? It's now beyond a farce. --Updatethis12 23:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Second third-opinion

This section is for the use of whoever fulfills Updatethis12's request for a new third opinion. See the sections above for details of the dispute.

I came here via the third opinion site. I have no connection to Loyola or any other law school. Listing an annonymous blogger as a notable alum seems inappropriate to me. First we have no way to verify that the person is indeed an alum of Loyola. Second, the blog would need to have gotten enough coverage in the mainstream press to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That does not seem to be the case here. In general, blogsphere notariaty is not enough. --agr 01:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinions et al.

Third Opinions are an informal way of dispute resolution. There are no set rules for Third Opinions - just some guidelines because we, those who provide the Third Opinions, found them handy to abide to.

The very fact that User:Updatethis12 is writing of "procedurally improper opinions", and of a "violation of Wikipedia rules regarding third opinions" shows that Third Opinion is not the right facet of dispute resolution sought here. Go to WP:RfC, WP:MC or processes like that.

Leave Third Opinion informal. Besides this, I agree with the previous Third Opinions. And I am not providing this recklessly, you can be sure of that.

--User:Krator (t c) 23:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Providing_third_opinions lists rules for third opinions, if the admins have no intention of following them. Wikipedia needs better dispute resolution methods. This is an awful mess. I don't even know why 63.113 . . . and I bothered to write responses.

Apparently the only law on wikipedia is the law of the jungle. --Updatethis12 23:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have several more formal dispute resolution methods, including the two Krator linked to. Wikipedia:Third opinion is just what its name implies: an informal method of requesting a third opinion on an issue when two people can't agree. Anomie 23:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not wasting any more of my time on this nonsense. Enjoy ruling over your internet feifdoms. In the hustle and bustle I almost forgot how irrelevant this site is, and how pathetic it is to waste an afternoon arguing with the types of people who run wikipedia. --Updatethis12 23:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No one rules Wikipedia. "Imagination rules the world." - Napoleon

User:Krator (t c) 00:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Close the opinion request?

Now that it's done with, should we close the opinion request and delete it from talk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Picassodog (talk • contribs) 00:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an opinion request if it's not on Wikipedia:Third opinion. I would suggest preserving this section as-is, as the awkwardness of this whole setup is critical to understanding my note above, and a later reader might interpret it differently if this is deleted. --User:Krator (t c) 00:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than delete, archive the whole mess at some later date. Don't do it yet, in case any of the anons involved decide to comments or something. Anomie 00:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The sooner this trainwreck is wiped clean from Wikipedia the better. Updatethis12 conceded the dispute, so it might be time to delete it. --Picassodog 02:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also a participant in the Third opinion project. Unlike the attacks on them, the third opinions offered here have been in harmony with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

It is not good practice to delete pertinent discussions. Such deletions will be reverted by conscientious editors. If in doubt about this, read the Talk page guidelines. — Athaenara ✉ 02:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should close it too. This whole discussion gives Loyola 2L airtime. --75.17.18.250 06:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Career prospects section

There are two problems with the content of the Loyola Law School#Career prospects section:

1. U.S. News & World Report college rankings are deprecated: see U.S. News & World Report#Criticism of college rankings and College and university rankings#Criticism (North America). I did, however, format that reference as per WP:CITE for the "Academics" section, because it does support the statement that the magazine ranked Loyola in 66th place.
2. The reference which was provided has none of the figures which had been added. The reference for those figures can be checked only with a paid subscription. See links normally to be avoided, specifically sites requiring registration.

I did not remove them but added {{verify source}} tags to each. — Athaenara ✉ 05:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You can see the numbers by purchasing a print copy or logging into with a U.S. News account. The formatting was better the original way. Please stop fiddling with things that don't need your touch. --Dudestop1 20:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the employment after graduation statistic and replaced it with the much more reliable (and what will be used starting this year by U.S. News and World Report for rankings) 9 months after graduation number. The employment after graduation number is inherently bias, because many students do not seek employment while they are studying for the bar. For a much more reliable and fair statistic, the 9 month after graduation number should be used here as it is being used by U.S. News and World Report starting this year.Snowboarder2713 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Loyola is not in downtown

Although the downtown skyscrapers tower over Loyola, the school is technically west of Highway 110 in Pico-Union! Looks like Loyola partisans are trying to skip over the fact the school is surrounded by the Pico-Union ghetto and looks like a fortress with the high fences and walls, and the fact that the only regular non-emergency entrance/exit to the campus is through the entrance to the parking garage (and the security office happens to be right there). --Coolcaesar 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Response by EditorEsquire: Please. This is ridiculous, and petty. I think the entire context of the statement in the main page is to distinguish the fact that the law school is not in Westchester. That is all. The school is diagnally across Olympic from the Staplese center in downtown LA. That area is zomed and treated as downtown. The central business district (CBD) where all the big buildings are, and downtown, are two different things (CBD is within, but not exclusively, "downtown"). Does this even matter. My god. EditorEsquire 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does matter because Albany Street in front of Loyola looks like a typical inner-city urban nightmare (like most of Pico-Union), with the vacant lots, potholes, weeds, broken glass, litter, chain-link fences, and the homeless people ambling around and leaving strange odors all over. There's also several flophouses or SROs nearby, including the one around the corner on James Wood Blvd. Neither USC nor UCLA nor Pepperdine have it that bad.

And Loyola's not right next to Staples; you're forgetting about the block between Albany and Blaine where the UPS shipping depot is located. Plus there's a 12-lane freeway as well. And a huge parking lot (where L.A. Live is under construction). So Loyola is really almost half a mile away from the Staples Center. That's why I think the article should be changed back to indicate that Loyola is actually in Pico-Union, which is what it used to state. --Coolcaesar 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Response by EditorEsquire: First, you're wrong, biased, and obviously writing with a motive. Why don't you focus on your studies. Your exams at Pepperdine or SWU Law will be around the corner before you know it. Second, if it were a real issue, you could write "near downtown" or "adjacent to downtown" and be done with it. Which leads to third: Who cares? EditorEsquire 03:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you bothered to look at my user page, you'd soon figure out which law school I graduated from. Also, I already earned my J.D. several years ago, and like 86-90% of my law school's graduates, passed the California bar exam on the first try (unlike one-fourth of Loyola graduates in recent years). As for why I care, I care about ensuring that Wikipedia is as accurate and precise as possible (please see User:Ericsaindon2 to see what happened to the last editor I ran into who would not give up on inserting distortions into Wikipedia). Saying Loyola is in downtown is as inaccurate as saying that SWU is in Beverly Hills. There's a tremendous difference between Pico-Union (or Westlake, if we want to get really precise about boundaries here) and Bunker Hill. Finally, I drove by Loyola as recently as May 2007 and the neighborhood still looked as bad as I remembered it (although at least the Dome Village for the homeless a block away was gone). --Coolcaesar 17:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Editoresquire is completely out of control. He thinks he owns this page, and that it's a Loyola marketing tool. Loyola is in an area which can be described as a ghetto. They are not in the business district of downtown LA. I agree with Coolcaesar that we should be accurate. --Brickexistab 16:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'm fixing this. Since EditorEsquire has apparently moved on to other things and is no longer contesting the obvious. --Coolcaesar 06:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Loyola2L

The fundamental issue here is that Loyola2L's unsubstantiated claims and charges about Loyola Law School are not suitable material for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the republication and amplification of alleged grievances. I have not read the site, but unless there is something there which is more substantial than postings on an anonymous blog, I'm afraid it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 05:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the fact that the wall street journal's highly influential law blog just declared he/she their person of the year? Are we still saying this isn't newsworthy? Seriously?

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/12/19/the-law-blog-lawyer-of-the-year-loyola-2l/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.248.86 (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Though issues need to be addressed across the board about law school not being upfront with career prospects, this section is absurdly bias and damaging to the school. It needs to be cleaned up. Snowboarder2713 (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Snowboarder, First please note that Loyola 2L was named lawyer of the year not just by the Wall Street Journal, but also by a 2,700 count vote on another popular legal blog, Abovethelaw.com. [5] I updated the section for this. Regarding your concerns, I wonder if that's a good reason to hide relevant facts. On a related note, I noticed you took out the "employed at graduation" statistic. I restored it because, although 95% of every law school's students are employed in 9 months (which is to be expected, as national unemployment is only 5%), the percentage employed at graduation may be a more informative measure, and separates schools with good career placement from those with bad career placement. --Gratglo (talk) 05:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Internet polls have no validity. I'm going to delete that on the basis of it being an unreliable source, not to mention the fact that it's not really relevant to the subject of Loyola. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that's a good blanket rule? Abovethelaw.com is the most popular legal blog on the internet.[6] Wouldn't it be fair to say that someone who was named lawyer of the year by both by the wall street journal and abovethelaw is a notable figure in the legal community? In the least, Loyola 2L is a more popular figure than the "notable alumni" and professors listed on Loyola's page. --Neongreenchair (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

L2L's viewpoint on Loyola is significant and should be included in this article, but his own background and popularlity are off-topic. L2L may be notable enough for an article, if he's had articles written about him in reliable publications (not blogs). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Comparative statistics and quote from school's dean

Moved RFCxxx template back to start of section where it should be. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

To help new commenters get caught up, these are the statistics being disputed:

According to the 2008 U.S. News & World Report survey "America's Best Graduate Schools," 62.7% of Loyola students were employed at graduation. Their median starting salary was $70,000 for private sector attorneys and $54,750 for government attorneys. In comparison with other local schools,

• 81% of Southwestern Law School students were employed at graduation, with a median starting salary of $65,000 for private practice attorneys and $55,000 for government attorneys.
• 95% of University of Southern California Law School students were employed at graduation, with a median starting salary of $125,000 for private practice attorneys and $55,000 for government attorneys.
• 97% of UCLA School of Law students were employed at graduation, with a median starting salary of $125,000 for private practice attorneys and $55,033 for government attorneys.
• An unknown percentage of Pepperdine University School of Law students were employed at graduation, with a median starting salary of $82,350 for private practice attorneys and $50,000 for government attorneys.

This is the quote being disputed:

Dean David Burcham says the school makes no guarantees to students that they will obtain jobs. He says it is problematic that big firms only interview the top of the class, "but that's the nature of the employment market; it's never been different." --JKRowlingg 19:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion re: excluding or including these two items: —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKRowlingg (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole job placement section is tendentious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparative statistics are hardly tendentious. They're also very important to potential students. I restored the comparative statistics, which you had deleted for some reason. Please do not delete them again. Further, I added a quote from the Dean of Loyola Law School on career prospects. --Uponsolid133 06:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They are there to prove a point not to provide neutral information. A neutral list would include all local law schools, or all schools in a similar tier. Further, none of the listed schools have similar lists. This article is about one school, so let's keep the focus on it. The quote from the dean is fine, but the comparison to a hand-picked selection of other schools is indeed tendentious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Statistics aren't useful without a comparison. Those statistics were there for months before you decided to delete them. Please leave them in. --Uponsolid133 06:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

These look cherry-picked, though. UCLA and Loyola are not schools that should be compared on this kind of basis. I would find a comparison to a national average or a regional average appropriate, maybe. Ideally, Loyola should be compared to similarly-ranked schools. But this starts to get into WP:OR territory. Mangojuice^talk 17:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They are not cherry picked LA schools. That implies there are other LA law schools which were excluded, so as to make Loyola look bad. Those law schools were chosen because they are in Loyola's market (Los Angeles.) They are not OR either, as they are numbers prepared by US News. Please leave them in. --Brickexistab 18:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you properly properly source verifiable material? - CobaltBlueTony 18:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Both the quote and the statistics are sourced. See footnotes 5 and 6 in the article. --Brickexistab 18:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Another instance of selective citing of statistics is that we aren't including the full range of data available about each school. If we're going to compare career prospects why don't we also compare tuition, accepteance rates, student body size, etc? If we wanted to provide a neutral comparison of all L.A.-area schools we could create a seoparate article for that purpose, but unless we find other sources than U.S. News & World Report we'd just be copying their existing comparisons. The simplest thing is just to limit this article to information on this school and elave out the comparisons. Wikipedia is not a guide to choosing a law school. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What, pray tell, do tuition, acceptance rates and student body siz--e have to do with career prospects? I can see why unemployment rate at graduation and starting salary are related to career prospects. --JKRowlingg 19:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason for excluding this information doesn't seem to be the existence of the statistics, but the usefulness of them in the grand scheme of things here on Wikipedia. Neither is how long this information was left on the article before being scrutinized. What you're essentially asking for could be construed as original research, and not the concise reporting of facts. I'd have to concur with my fellow Wikipedian above here. - CobaltBlueTony 19:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several reasons to exclude these statistics. The length of time this material was in the article is irrelevant. I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy or guideline that gives more credence to information based on its tenure. We can report all kinds of facts, but these facts are not about the subject, they are about other law schools. Would it make sense to compare the architecture of law schools, noting in the USC article, for example, how much less prestigious their architect is than Loyola's architect? No, that wouldn't be appropriate either. Nor would we compare the credentials of L.A.-area law school deans in the UCLA article. Each article should maintain its focus on its subject. We're not here to compare all the possible schools that a person might attend. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So you ask to exclude the statistics because it makes Loyola look less prestigious? That doesn't seem like a good reason to exclude useful information.--JKRowlingg 19:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Continuing discussion . . . You said it above. Without getting into a semantics game, I don't understand why you want to hide the poor career prospects of Loyola graduates. What if your daughter, niece or granddaughter were using Wikipedia to learn about Loyola? Shouldn't she know that it has the worst career prospects of Los Angeles Law schools, and that the dean doesn't promise any graduate will find work? Why don’t you put the welfare of potential applicants, who risk wasting three years and $150,000 on a degree of dubious value, over your desire to manage Loyola’s image? Haven't you read the multiple stories of 20 year old mortgaging their future for expensive and worthless degrees? Did you read the Wall Street Journal article before opening your mouth in this comments page? [7] Did you read this article? [8] Or this one? [9] Or the hundreds of articles documenting the spiraling cost and limited reward of our current educational system? I'm sorry if the FACTS are making your school look bad, but for you to try and hide them is beyond the pale. --JKRowlingg 20:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said anything of the kind, please don't put words in my mouth. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to advise prospective law school students. This article is here to only provide an overview of the school. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You said it, and please don't turn this into a discussion of semantics game, with which you pass time in your too idle life. There are more serious issues -- the futures of young people -- behind this data. --JKRowlingg 20:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that Loyola's statistics are disturbing (and I'm very glad I went to a more prestigious law school), that has NOTHING to do with the purpose of Wikipedia. Please review the core official policies at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:No original research. --Coolcaesar 06:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to reporting all available reliable statistics about the school itself. Even general rankings, like "last among the top five L.A. city schools in employment, according to USN&WR" or "Second ranked in Field X by Source Y"., would be OK. Also, if there are promintent sources (LAT, etc.) highlighting the employment issue then those would be appropriate to summarize too. Even so we need to keep a balanced approach to the issue. Presumably there are many law schools in the Wikipedia universe with even lesser graduate employment rates, as well as those above it. All of those are beyond the scope of this article. Let's keep it simple here and stick with material about this subject alone. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on this I assume we can add the quote from the school's Dean, since that quote pertains to

Loyola and not other schools. --Remotecontrolad 15:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi Protection

In closing the AN3 report on this, I have blocked two known sockpuppets and one suspected - all used the edit war on this article. I think a week of semi=protection should close this down. Any regular editor is welcome to contact me to remove this at any time and I have no objections if admins involved in this article do so at their own discretion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation for study on career placement

I added this line "However, a study of large firm hiring demonstrates that some schools place far better than others, with Loyola Law School placing less than 10% of their students in large firms." to the career placement section. I linked to the National Law Journal article on the study. [10] as well as the study author's blog about his study, showing more detailed results than existed in the National Law Journal Article [11] --DelGoriam (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC) I also added a third citation from NLJ. [12] --DelGoriam (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's better. Thanks for improving the references. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted this edit [13] because it is based on inference ("it is commonly understood" and "perhaps also related") as opposed to authority. --Stepleft1 (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted this edit [14] because it is a misleading representation of the cited authorities. --Stepleft1 (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The author restored their change, and I reverted it again here [15] --Stepleft1 (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we note the law school's strange entrance?

This is the ONLY law school I have ever seen that is built like a fortress with the only entrance through the rather plain front of a hulking parking garage! --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that does sound unusual. However we'd probably need to find some source which mentions it. The second best we could do is to include a photograph of the entrance, and let readers decide for themselves if it's odd.   Will Beback  talk  07:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The garage is NOT the only entrance. There is an entrance off Olympic Blvd that you can access with your student ID (Danteshek (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)).

Considering the location (A huge plus), it would be foolish not to insulate the institution.

File:Loyola Seal - NewLLS Seal FNL.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Loyola Seal - NewLLS Seal FNL.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Loyola Law School - Employment after graduation

Loyola reports ALL employment, including temporary, occasional, and non-law jobs, as employment after graduation. Loyola also provides funds for professors to hire unemployed graduates as "research assistants," who can then be added to Loyola's employment statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adonshemeig (talk • contribs) 02:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)