Talk:City Law School/Archive 1

Merger proposal
I would be against merging ICSL into City Law School just because of the historical differences; ICSL had a separate and critical role as the monopoly for training of barristers for a considerable period of legal history. I think that it falls under the same category as Radcliffe College and Harvard University, and I don't think anyone would ever seriously contemplate merging the two. ICSL and City Law School are in the same boat, just with less developed articles. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd recognize a distinction between the two. I'd want to see further arguments in facor of the merge before agreeing. RJFJR 02:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The intake of students at the LLB level at City University is markedly different from the high quality of students admitted at ICSL for post-graduate professional courses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.202.65.76 (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all the above; different and independent application procedure, different standards, different history, different location. I know that there's this merger/renaming going on, but it appears to be all marketing; there's no tangible difference that I can see; no sharing of staff, or resources beyond those already available. A spade is a spade, no matter what you call it.

On the other hand, playing devil's advocate: Its a small article, which is highly relevant to City University and its law school, and they are fundamentally linked now (for parallel, I guess the presentation of Oxford colleges as part of one entity "Oxford University" is somewhat similar. One organisation, one page, despite deep and multiple sub-divisions?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomanynotes (talk • contribs) 13:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd merge. ICSL has been taken over by City University, London. All reference to ICSL has been expunged from the marketing and teaching literature - unless inadvertently. The signage at all the sites on the campus has been changed. All the literature provided at the course has the City University branding, and diplomas are issued in the name of the City University. Exams are carried out under City University assessment regulations. The Dean of the School is a member of the City University Council, and the leadership of ICSL directly report to him.

ICSL is probably notable, given its illustrious alumni and the history of the Bar. But unless this article gets considerably longer and mentions all this, I recommend merging with City Law School, because legally that is what it is. --86.161.65.192 (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Prefer redirect
I would suggest that City Law School be silently redirected here, or to City University, London. Very few law schools in England and Wales are notable enough to merit an article (see Category:Law schools in England). Aside from its inclusion of the ICSL, City Law School doesn't seem notable to me. This thread appears stale: unless there are any objections, I'll perform a redirect shortly. — mholland (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirecting to a name no longer used would be the wrong direction IMHO. The university article is probably the best target. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

ICSL/CLS merger
Unilaterally decided to merge, as per Merging_articles and WP:Bold.

ICSL has been taken over by City University, London. All reference to ICSL has been expunged from the marketing and teaching literature - unless inadvertently. The signage at all the sites on the campus has been changed. All the literature provided at the course has the City University branding, and diplomas are issued in the name of the City University. Exams are carried out under City University assessment regulations. The Dean of the School is a member of the City University Council, and the leadership of ICSL directly report to him. Those currently studying at ICSL may wish it were still ICSL, but recognise that it is now City Law School.

ICSL is probably notable, given its illustrious alumni and the history of the Bar. But unless someone made an article considerably longer that mentions all this, I recommend merging with City Law School, because legally that is what it is.--86.161.65.192 (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry chaps. The argument against merging seems untenable given the success the City University has had at obliterating all independent identity ICSL once had. 86.161.65.192 (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverted. That was not a merger, that was a crude redirect. Either the two articles should be properly merged or this one retained detailing the ICSL history as an independent body. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

ICSL has been taken over by City University, London. All reference to ICSL has been expunged from the marketing and teaching literature - unless inadvertently. The signage at all the sites on the campus has been changed. All the literature provided at the course has the City University branding, and diplomas are issued in the name of the City University. Exams are carried out under City University assessment regulations. The Dean of the School is a member of the City University Council, and the leadership of ICSL directly report to him. Those currently studying at ICSL may wish it were still ICSL, but recognise that it is now City Law School.--86.145.154.96 (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No monopoly before 1999 either
Despite the misleading implication, ICSL did not have a monopoly of Bar training until 1999. When I was a bar student in 1975-7, a special branch of the College of Law in Chancery Lane taught some Bar students who declared the intention of practising. It had smaller classes, was more convenient for the Temple, and was recommended by many Oxbridge tutors in preference to the overcrowded ICSL. I do not know when this alternative started or ceased.Jezza (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Jezzabr, thanks for the extra detail. Do you recall if the course you mentioned at the College of Law had a formal name? Do you know where any additional information could be found? Thanks! Hijklmno (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Duplicity
The two articles are essentially identical at the time of this writing, so something needs to be done. If both articles are to be kept separately (and that seems to make sense considering ICSL's history), then someone should do some serious editing of the ICSL article to make it focus on the institution of the past rather than the institution of the present. Unless there is a lot of objection, I'll try to do this over the next few months (unless someone else does it first). Should keep everyone happy that way! Hijklmno (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)