Talk:University of California College of the Law, San Francisco/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

First Tier

US News expressly states that UC Hastings is "Tier 1":

Stop deleting this reference, its vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.135.218 (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I'm adding a citation for an earlier fact that I added to the article (1/3 of all sitting judges in CA went to Hastings). I think the following assertion definitely needs a citation, as it's a very specific claim: "over 513 Judges representing federal, state and municipal benches went to UC Hastings." I've deleted that entry for now. Hopefully whoever contributed that factoid can post the source for that bit of info. Jsol5 10:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Humor

This whole section was removed. Some of the other UC sites have humor sections, why not Hastings?

University of California Lightbulb Jokes

University of California, Riverside Survey

I'm posting this survey request Talk:University of California, Riverside#UCR Survey on all the UC talk pages in order to gather outside opinion on ongoing issues concerning the POV of this article. Please read the article and add your insights to the survey to help us identify any points of consensus in the UCR article. Thanks--Amerique 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey closed, thanks--Amerique 19:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hastings is a top-tier school?!

Let's see---the 2008 U.S. News rankings show Hastings tied for 36 with such august company as the University of Alabama, the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of Georgia, the University of Maryland, the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, and Wake Forest University. I haven't heard anyone calling Boulder or Alabama a top-tier school lately!

On a more serious note, the reference to Hastings as a "top-tier" school is clearly a biased statement and also original research in violation of official policies WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. --Coolcaesar 08:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the unreferenced line "It is consistently ranked as one of the best public law schools in the nation" in the lede, which isn't elaborated on elsewhere, I don't see any mention in the article of "top-tier" status. Still, 36 out of how many ABA accredited law schools would still seem to qualify as upper-tier, but the article does not seem to basing this "best public law school" claim on any particular reference. Amerique^dialectics 19:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the cites for my assertions. Any school in Brian Leiter's various top-40 rankings is considered "top-tier" in the legal community, and anyone familiar with US News rankings knows that the top 50 schools are considered "first-tier" and were in fact expressly referred to as such before the publication went to the new "top 100" format. Also, a simple count of the US News rankings reveals that Hastings is consistently in the top 20 of public law schools, which also supports an assertion that it is ranked as one of the "best" public law schools. I can't understand the animosity against these common assertions of top/first-tier. While the title of "elite" law school in the legal community may be reserved to the top 10 or 14 (see article on Boalt), top/first-tier is generally reserved for the top 50. 216.38.135.218 22:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)T

I don't even go to Hastings, but it is common knowledge in the legal world that any school in U.S. News' ranking of the Top 50 law schools is considered a 'Top Tier' or 'First Tier' law school. Schools in the 50-100 list are 'Second Tier'; schools in the 100-150 list are 'Third Tier'. If you want a term for a more exclusive group try using the term 'T-14' (Top 14), which is also a common term in the legal world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.207.123 (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the photo

Someone commented on my talk page a few days ago that they don't like the current photo. Well, if you don't like it, feel free to take a better one! I don't visit San Francisco that often, so it might be two or three weeks before I have the opportunity to photograph the other half of the Hastings campus (the half that isn't under construction). I'm surprised that a law school with so many alumni doesn't have at least one SF-based alumnus with enough school pride to take a couple of really good photos for Wikipedia (like I've done for my law school)!

WikiProject University of California

Several editors are organizing a WikiProject to better organize articles related to the University of California. A preliminary draft is available here. You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:University of California#Developing Wikiproject University of California. szyslak 21:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Page title

I moved "University of California, Hastings College of the Law" to "UC Hastings College of the Law". The even shorter form "UC Hastings" should also be in line with the naming conventions.--Jiang (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Post graduation employment

I've removed this section. It is unencyclopedic. Why? 1. We have multiple sources (not necessarily RS) which give different numbers for different times. 2. The very nature of employment rate stats is dynamic -- is it possible to give a meaningful figure for 2012 (or whatever) months or years later? 2a. What do such numbers mean? One school is better than others? Graduating from law school has a positive or negative impact on one's employment prospects? Anything? 3. There is no such section in the WP:UNIGUIDE. 4. If there were an article on Post-law school employment trends of American law schools, adding that link in the "See also" section would be appropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

These are all exceedingly weak reasons for removal of the employment information, and inclusion of this very relevant data is far from "unencyclopedic." (1.) This can be solved by using only the information verified by the American Bar Association. The ABA releases data for every school clearly indicating what percentage of the class found full-time, long-term, JD-required work after nine months. (2) This is a complete non-starter as an argument for suppressing the employment data. Of course the stats are not updated on an hourly basis. The standard measurement for success in long-term employment placement across all law schools is employment placement within nine months of graduation. This statistic is compiled for every school by the American Bar Association on a yearly basis. By your logic, Wikipedia shouldn't never reference a country's GDP or census figures -- after all, these are subject to constant change (and the US census, gasp, is only taken every decade!). Every school reports the same categories of employment data. While the data may be imperfect, as so much data is that isn't subject to constant updating, the categories are consistent across every single law school; the numbers are thus useful points of comparison. We would all love to know how a given class of students does 10 years later, but that has nothing to do with whether these employment figures should be listed or not. The applied measurement is constant across all schools. (3) This objection fails utterly. A law school is not a college or university. WP:UNIGUIDE address formatting for colleges and universities. Only this tiny subsection discusses reference to the schools, colleges, or faculties that make up a college or university. There is no specific guidance as to what should or should be included here, and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to conclude from this subsection that the inclusion of employment data for the professional schools belonging to different colleges and universities is discouraged. In fact, two out of the three law school articles listed as "good articles" on this page include employment data. (4) There need not exist such an article in order for uniform employment statistics, as compiled by the American Bar Association, to be worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. This is not a serious reason. Again, two out of the three law school articles listed as "good articles" on WP:UNIGUIDE include employment data.

Accordingly, I will restore the topic and information. You have not provided a single reason of even minimal strength that counsels against the inclusion of this data. Measurements of employment outcomes employed in a uniform fashion across all law schools are unquestionably relevant pieces of data for individuals seeking information on various law schools on Wikipedia. 130.132.173.136 (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Forbes Ranking of Law Schools Whose Grads Earn The Biggest Paychecks

Someone removed the reference to the 20th place ranking in Forbes Magazine's list of 'The Law Schools Whose Grads Earn The Biggest Paychecks'. I added it back. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/03/14/the-law-schools-whose-grads-earn-the-biggest-paychecks/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.207.123 (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed revision to article

I just got to a law library last week and read through the official UC Hastings Centennial History. I propose to revise the article to clarify that the awkward relationship to UC is a result of Chief Justice Hastings being hoist with his own petard. The article as written currently implies that Hastings was antagonistic to the Regents, which was not the case. In 1878, Hastings inexplicably tried to create an "affiliated college" with its own board of directors as envisioned by the Organic Act (which appears to have envisioned that UC would merely affiliate with someone else's professional colleges rather than having to start colleges of its own), rather than revising the Organic Act directly to have the new college of law operated directly by the Regents. Then Hastings appointed a board of directors which turned out to not share his views of legal education at all. And then the 1883 and 1885 acts passed at his behest to transfer control to the Regents were declared unconstitutional by the state supreme court in 1886, thanks to the 1879 constitution passed in the interim which made UC largely independent of the state legislature.

Any objections? The reason I ask is that there may be newer sources than the Centennial History book that I don't know about which may have cleared this up further. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)