Talk:Paris-Panthéon-Assas University/Archive 1

Faculté de Droit de Paris
Should alumni of the former Law Faculty be included? Assas was founded as its continuations and certainly considers them to be alumni. Le Pen, for instance, has recently been added as an alumni on wikipedia. Should we also include Mitterand and other Paris Law Faculty alumi? Given that Assas is todays incarnation of this Faculty, I would be in favour. Sprotch 08:39, 06 June 2005 (UTC)

Libraries
"they both administer the University Library of the Pantheon"

Do you mean Cujas or Sainte-Geneviève ? Apokrif 18:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Cujas is admninistered jointly by Paris 1&2.
 * So the article should say Cujas, not "library of the Pantheon". Apokrif 12:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. It seems that official name is Bibliothèque interuniversitaire Cujas.

" which is the largest student library in France"

You're sure? I wonder if it's not Sainte-Geneviève (because it covers more topics than Cujas does). Apokrif 12:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Could be.

GUD
Shouldn't we mention that Assas was (and perhaps still is?) a hotbed of far-right student activism and violence? David.Monniaux 09:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I did mention that Assas was more de droite than most universities in France. It's not a hotbed for anything nowadays. ;) LeoDV 14:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

"and while most of France's universities lean culturally and politically to the left, Assas leans to the right."

All this looks like vague unsourced POV. Apokrif 12:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Good reputation
"Assas likes to think of itself as a renown law and business university"

Assas is far from being a premier business university. No significant representative of the business community, in France or abroad, graduated from Paris II. Or else, this claim needs to be supported.

IMHO the French counterpart of Ivy League universities (for law and business) is rather Sciences Po, ENA or "Parisian" business schools. Apokrif 02:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * None of the institutions you cite deliver law degrees. I would say the phrase "likes to think of itself" balances the statement. No one disputes Assas' No.1 spot for law, it is regarded as the continuance of the Law Faculty of Paris.
 * "None of the institutions you cite deliver law degrees."

"Assas likes to think of itself as France's Harvard: it is the country's premier law and business university, and a breeding ground for politicians."

Wrong.

Regarding business: Nobody recognizes Assas as a premier business school in the country, would it be for the simple reason that Assas is not a business school stricto sensu, but only has an econ department. And it does not hold comparison to, for instance, Dauphine, job-wise and prestige-wise. Also, the comparison to Harvard does not stand: Harvard only offers graduate business degree and has no undergraduate business school; also, Harvard Business School has continuously been ranked the first business school, Assas hasn't.

Regarding law: Assas is without contest the first law school of the nation, prestige wise. But here again, the comparison with Harvard is not warranted: Harvard has constantly been ranked the second (to Yale) law school over the years. The phrasing needs to be changed. Also, "likes to think of itself" does not balance the statement to the extent that the following statement "it is the country's premier law..." eliminates the internal focus.

Again, Assas is not a breeding ground for politicians; on the reverse, Sciences Po and more so ENA are. Stop trolling please, nobody is gonna think higher of Assas based on a wikipedia page.

http://www.sciences-po.fr/formation/master_scpo/mentions/carrieres_juridiques.htm http://www.sciences-po.fr/formation/master_scpo/mentions/droit_economique.htm http://www.essec.fr/formations-ecole-commerce-paris/masteres-specialises/mastere-droit-affaires-internationales-management Granted, they do not offer a complete program in law as universities do, but I'd say that thee schools are seen, in law and business professions, as X or ECP are seen in engineering. Members of the Conseil d'Etat, who hold the highest legal positions in public service, generally come from ENA (which teaches public law even if, like most public service schools, it does not issue "degrees" to French students) while many students of Ecole de la magistrature students come from Sciences-Po.Apokrif 10:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * None of these are law degrees. They are political science degrees or French business school "Masteres" (which is not a French national degree) with an emphasis on law. They do not entitle you to take the bar exam for instance. These schools have no authority with regard to law at all. With regard to business, HEC, ESSEC and ESCP are the best (in that order). Dauphine and Assas would come afterward (in that order). Science-Po is the best path to join the ENA, but is worthless on its own, you will get nowhere with a single degree from this school. The majority of ENM (Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature) students come from Assas. The ENA is the best path to join the Conseil d'Etat (a very tiny group of administrative law magistrates), mostly because no law degree is required for some positions, this carreer is heavily political and your ENA buddies will help you. Nonetheless, the majority of Conseil d'Etat auditeurs went through regular law school, and I do believe that most of the C.E. ENA group did both. Outside of this tiny branch, the ENA is useless for law (albeit prestigious). In sum, you need a law degree to be lawyer (although the Conseil d'Etat does not require one for some positions, and the ENM exam is open to ScPo and ENS grads), and none of the institutions you cite deliver one. Although an additional degree from the schools you cite is well regarded (and, indeed, more and more necessary for the most sought after jobs), it is seen as a bonus, and not your main degree (not getting into Sc-Po or Essec when you have graduated from Assas is seen as has an abject failure). While there are alternative paths, as you underscored, the "royal" one is throught Assas. A study observed that over half of "magic circle lawyers" graduated from Assas. I'll look for it on the internet. Sprotch 15:30, 21 Mar 2005 (GMT)


 * Did you find the study you were looking for?


 * Here it is:


 * As a bonus, Nouvel observateur ranking: http://www.ulb.ac.be/polytech/smana/NOUV_OB/Observateur.htm


 * Legalease statistics, made on the basis of a survey of Magic Circle Firms in Paris:


 * 86,8% des maîtrises ont été effectuées à Paris :
 * 46,1% à Paris II Assas,
 * 17,9% à Paris I Sorbonne,
 * 11,2% à Paris X Nanterre,
 * 5,8% à Paris XI Sceaux,
 * 2,9% à Paris V Malakoff,
 * 1,7% à Paris IX Dauphine,
 * 0,9% à Paris XII Créteil,
 * 0,3% à Paris XIII Villetaneuse.


 * 13,2% des maîtrises ont été effectuées en province :
 * 2,6% à Montpellier,
 * 2,3% à Aix-Marseille,
 * 1,7% à Rennes,
 * 1,2% à Lyon,
 * 0,9% à Dijon,
 * 0,9% à Nancy,
 * 0,9% à Toulouse,
 * 0,6% à Lille,
 * 0,6% à Rouen,
 * 1,8% ailleurs (Bordeaux, Caen, Clermont-Ferrand, Grenoble, Poitiers, Strasbourg).


 * Répartition des maîtrises par domaines de droit :
 * 37,8% sont des maîtrises en droit des affaires,
 * 16,7% des maîtrises en droit des affaires et fiscalité,
 * 24,6% des maîtrises en droit privé,
 * 6,5% des maîtrises en droit privé, mention carrières judiciaires,
 * 9,9% des maîtrises en droit international (toutes maîtrises à vocation internationale, y compris les doubles maîtrises droit français/allemand et français/anglais de Paris I Sorbonne, la MSG DAI de Paris IX Dauphine ou le DEJA de Paris X Nanterre),
 * 2,9% des maîtrises en droit public,
 * 1,5% des maîtrises en droit social.

No quotes supports this statement; one could say that Dauphine holds a reputation comparable to some business grandes écoles, and only at the master's level; but there being now law grande école, and Assas not being famous for its econ department at all, the comparison does not stand.
 * This looks like unsourced POV. Apokrif 12:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your statements seem unsourced and POV as well. Please evidence them.

"For these reasons it has several peculiarities: while all of France's universities are notoriously understaffed and underbudgeted, Assas gets all the money it needs from the Education Ministry"

This too. Apokrif 12:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * One more ranking: http://www.smbgrecrutement.com/2_classement/6.html
 * and the full rankings: http://www.smbgrecrutement.com/2_classement/1_1_classement.php?menu=2
 * Assas tops every subject for which it offers courses.

Wrong; in the ranking you provided, Assas only tops the Droit des Affaires and Droit Social section; on a side note, this ranking has no standard value, such as US news or Financial Times ranking, since very little recruiter are aware of its existence and students do not take it into consideration when making educational choices. Or please, find support fur such claim.


 * 1. The above claim is correct, Assas tops every subject for which it offers courses.
 * 2. An unanimous and continuous stream of rankings cannot be ignored. The SMBG survey is, notably, based on a survey of recruiters.  This is further evidenced by the composition of the more prestigious firms.

No it isn't please, check again these websites. Assas does not top every subject for which it offers courses: some of its graduate programs are not even listed. There is no unanimous stream of rankings; SMBG ranking is marginally praised (indeed, only by students in search of lauding of their education). The alleged composition of the most prestigious is completely fictitious. It is well known within the legal industry - and the moST prestigious firms since you invoke them - that the most sought after educational background are double and triple formation (sciences po, HEC/ESSEC/ESCP, law degree from ANYWHERE to complete) and even more so American LLMs. A rapid check on the most prestigious law firms websites will evidence this.


 * I suggest that you conduct more than a rapid check.

Assas is not the best
""Assas likes to think of itself as France's Harvard: it is the country's premier law and business university"

No, I don't think so. The Sorbonne and Lyon III are excellent universities as well. Don't forget that only the master degree is excellent. A maitrise, licence ou deug is not something you can be proud of.


 * These debates are endless. The fact remains that law degrees from this university are better regarded than from any other. But please note the phrase "likes to think of itself", which neutralizes the statement.
 * Please say who regards them better. Apokrif 12:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Recruiters and students (and as futher evidenced by every ENM and agregation exams) since the University was founded in the early 70s.
 * besides the Nouvel Obs figures above, could you please cite your sources about what recruiters and students think and what ENM and agreg results are ?
 * Although individual students might clearly have superior skills and attend any other university, as a whole, the university has consistently been regarded as the best. Please find evidence of the contrary and post it here before imposing your POV on the article.
 * No, if you want to add info to the article, it's up to you to give the source: Citing sources . Apokrif 15:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

See list of rankings, all featuring Assas as No.1: Legalease report quoted above http://www.ulb.ac.be/polytech/smana/NOUV_OB/Observateur.htm http://www.smbgrecrutement.com/2_classement/6.html http://www.smbgrecrutement.com/2_classement/7.html http://www.smbgrecrutement.com/2_classement/11.html http://forums.figaro-etudiant.com/view.php?site=figaro&bn=figaro_formation&key=1113522114 --Sprotch 16:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

French law school ranking list is something like Paris 2 then Paris 1 and Paris 10 depending on degrees. (based on Paris top lawfirm representation).

On the note, the last year of Master in law is very selective in most law school (5 to 15 % ish in Paris 1,2,5,10) If a DEUG (or Licence 2) in law isnt a very exiting degree, i think u can be proud of a "maitrise" !

On the "grande école" topic: There is no "grande école" in law ! (same for med school btw). But quite a few students graduated from lawschool own a degree from prestigious schools in others field such as business (HEC, ESSEC, ESC ESCP or IAE of Paris Audencia ...), political sciences (Science po Paris, etc), administration school (ENM - ie école nationale de la magistrature -, ENA - école nationale d'administration -, ENI - ie école nationale des impôts = tax school - ), financial and accounting degrees (DECF, DESCF, ...) and/or sometime multiples Masters in law in differents fields or from differents colleges (one from Paris II and another one from Paris X or a LLM from UK or the US).

see also: http://www.smbgrecrutement.com/2_classement/4.html or http://www.smbgrecrutement.com/2_classement/14.html Note that "IAE" = University (IAE of paris = university Paris I)

About the agregation in law (there is 3: public law, private law and history of the law), its a quite different one: you need a phd to attempt it and ofc almost everyone did law school.

To sum up, the "grande école" summa divisio did not exist at all for law-schools and med-schools. Concerning business schools as mentioned above, university Paris II, Université Paris I (including IAE of Paris) and Paris Dauphine rank in top10.

--meto 06:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Please would the contributor who added the banner explain which section is NPOV. I suspect that it's the laudatory vocabulary. Perhaps it should be removed in favour of a section on "rankings"?


 * I've created a table. This will allow users to add information as they wish. Codik 23:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fourth Republic?
The section on 'origins' claims the Fifth Republic was founded after 'the tumultuous events of May 1968' which is clearly wrong (it was established in 1958), but I don't really know (or care to research) enough about the actual uni reforms to fix it.It should be a trivial edit for someone who knows about these things. Stuffisthings (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Paid-contribution disclosure
On the French Wikipedia, some IP have in the past claimed to be writing for this university, and never in a neutral way.

For anyone contributing on this article, never forget to read Paid-contribution disclosure and Conflict of interest.

--XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
Recently, User:Launebee has edited the articles Pantheon-Sorbonne University in an downward biased way, and the article Panthéon-Assas University in an upward biased way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.212.115.205 (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * How is it vandalism to give facts with source? To put a logo? Your changing are obvioulsy made in a biased way. --Launebee (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The logo is recent, it was notably used by Eduniversal this year and is from the university website. Why delete Sorbonne university affiliation? Clear vandalism.--Launebee (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Launebee has asked me to have a look at the article and these POV claims. If you find the article to be biased, please state your comments here so that all can agree before getting involved into an edit war. (and PS: don't call each other vandals, they were a Germanic tribe and I'm sure you're not one of them... unless you start behaving like them of course)

I had a look at this edit, and I can't find too much wrong with it. Some snippets:
 * Please agree on what needs to go in the infobox. There's a link to the Sorbonne site, and to www.u-paris2.fr. Which one is most accurate, or do both go in?
 * "The top law school in France"... the problem here is the word "THE". That's a no-go on Wikipedia. There is no single best university. They can rank highly, people can find them to be the best (add references), but you can't just write THE. So please find a way to reword that piece, and support your statements with references.
 * Where did the paragraph on "The establishment of Panthéon-Assas" go to? You don't often get the chance to mention Christian Fouchet in an article, so don't miss out on the opportunity.
 * Same comment as on Paris-Assas. What's with the ranking obsession? It's overdone, especially since it mostly seems to be based on Eduniversal. I'm sure Ed is a nice guy, but he shouldn't dominate the article. --Midas02 (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for stepping in! Thank you for adding the orginial name, I am not sure I am the one who deleted that. Note that the multiple adresses' user did not add anything, he just returned to an old version. About your questions, please note that in the summaries of my changings, I explained a lot of things: Thanks again! --Launebee (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes both. My link directs towards the English version of the website. The Sorbonne link is an affiliation.
 * OK, I change that, you tell me what you think.
 * I moved that paragraph in University of Paris, it is not at all specific to Panthéon-Assas.
 * It is because in France, there is no global ranking, they do not like rankings. You have then to show all the specific rankings to "prove" that globally, it has obviously the first place for graduate degrees in law, and the second for economics behind Paris-Dauphine. You can check the French page: it is even more detailed. Here are only the degrees that concerns directly the domain.

Dear, dear ,

I do not understand: There is no talk about the biased accusation of biased editing by people refusing to talk, is that not a condition for removing POV? Please note that it was not the second time but the first time I removed the POV, as I wroted in my edit summary. Thank you!

--Launebee (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User talk:207.237.156.1 is doing clearly biased editing, like before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pantheon-Sorbonne_University&diff=prev&oldid=708126190 --Launebee (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No more talk so removing POV banner. (Once again, I did not remove it the first time.) --Launebee (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Subsections for academic rankings
Dear Launebee. The general consensus in Wikipedia is to have one category regarding "University rankings", see Harvard University for instance. With that aim, it is suggested to have either just one category for both international and national rankings, or at the most two subcategories for each of them. Let me know your opinion in order to reach a general consensus and avoid edition wars. Sincerely, --Kanon6996 (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK done, thanks! --Launebee (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Finally, I checked, and, as in the Panthéon-Sorbonne talk, the "general consensus" you invoke simply doesn't exist. In the Harvard talk page, there is no discussion on that topic. --Launebee (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not say "discussion" but consensus. They way articles are creted does not suggests de divisions of the reputation and rankings sections based on the areas, but they are altogether as a whole, in the best cases, making statements based on the name and type of the academic ranking, sentence by sentence. I will encourage to apply that to all Parisian universities without any exception.--Kanon6996 (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If no agreement through a discussion, you cannot say consensus. A consensus is not something people simply do, they have also to agree on the fact that it is what has to be done. See the definition: --Launebee (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is still WP:UNDUE that clearly says that "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects". So two sections to deal with 1 ranking is way too much. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But 1 It's not minority view 2 it's not a question of ranking but of specialties. And, talking of consensus, in Panthéon-Sorbonne, the QS ranking is much more detailed. --Launebee (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1 you're true, it's not even a minority view. No press coverage was given to this ranking.
 * 2 consensus can't go against the rules. And there is no consensus about putting that ranking in the article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please give real arguments. --Launebee (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What you want to add to the article is not consensual. explained it, I explain it again. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This section is on the presentation of subsections. --Launebee (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Panthéon-Assas University‎
Hello,

I know that it's probably not the best place to deal with that (the problem is larger than the Sciences Po article), but it would be good if someone could have a look at the article about Panthéon-Assas University‎. I have 30.000+ contributions on the French Wikipedia, but WP:RAA seems to work in a very specific way here.

In France Science-po and Assas are known to be rivals, and it feels like this fight is happening here now, as it was happening a few month ago on the French Wikipedia.


 * On the French Wikipedia, a SPA was created on the 1st of Decembre 2015, and then started disruptive contributions about the Assas article (false claims about ranking, backed by a shady company... in order to promote that university)., and was blocked for a few weeks
 * On the English Wikipedia, Launebee started to contribute on the very same day. I let you check by yourself what Launebee wrote on the Panthéon-"the top law school in France"-Assas article.

you should definitely have a look at the Talk:Panthéon-Assas University. Launebee has had the same behaviour there. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * EDIT : and now Launebee is trying to cover paid contributions. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks. On top law school of France, I am not saying that, all the sources, in French and in English, do. --Launebee (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Law school don't exist in France, and they have never existed.
 * You have wasted months on the Sciences Po talk page, trying to attack contributors on their "Approximations". That's eaxactly what you are doing here.
 * And if you can't quote me making "personal attacks", that's a personnal attack. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Paid contributions
As this page is strangly very active (way more than any other French university), everyone should know that in the past (?) some people were paid on the French Wikipedia to contribute to this article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It’s no so important, but I don’t think it is accurate. You are misunderstanding the edit summary you are linking to. It’s in a poor French and it can mean the anything, like "it is better to have extensive information on universities". And you are linking to only one edit summary, so no "some people". --Launebee (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are clearly trying to cover paid contributions. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What?! I won’t even answer to this. --Launebee (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking to carefully read Paid-contribution disclosure. And then I want you to answer this very simple question : do you contributions fall under the scope of this rule ? You will notice that paid doesn't mean only geting money, and that any sort of affiliation must be disclosed (not only to the Panthéon-Assas University, but also to Eduniversal).

I'am also asking to read Conflict of interest. And then I want you to answer this very simple question : do you contributions fall under the scope of this rule ? It includes links between Panthéon-Assas University, but also to Eduniversal and "family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships".

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Rankings

 * To put it simply, what claims is just false.
 * I have been contributing on the French Wikipedia for years, focusing on universities and colleges, and I have never heard of this Eduniversal ranking. I can't find a reliable source about this company either.
 * More often than not, this university ranks poorly on national rankings. Launebee claims without giving a source the Le Figaro newspaper ranks it on top. Guess what, I can give you 2 ranking by this newspaper saying that
 * "université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne et Paris 2 Panthéon-Assas ne se retrouvent qu’aux 10 et 19e places," (Paris 1 and Paris 2 universities only rank 10th and 19th
 * Ranking Paris II at the 49th place for its efficiency for students.
 * XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please verify what you say:
 * Eduniversal is well-known (even if you don't use it in French wikipedia), it is often the only national quality ranking, and I precise that it is only according to them when it is the case.
 * For Le Figaro, it was there before, not my statement. You only talk about employment (you cut the paragraph which only deals with "taux d’insertion professionnelle"), but all these universities have very narrow rate (93% for Assas, 96% for the first one). You can see that the only columns differ a lot and that Assas is first for two of them and second (in point from Grenoble) for the third.
 * Your second ranking is even more specific: it is how much they let go to the next year, i.e. it only means that it is very difficult to have one's exam at Panthéon-Assas (some would say because of the high level of the university), nothing else.
 * --Launebee (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To put it simply, Eduniversal, is an obscure website with no notoriety (except by other websites it owns). But please, fell free to prove your point by giving us a source.
 * You recognize that none of the rankings provided rank this university very high, that's enought to remove all of the academic boosterism. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Its former name is SMBG and nearly all public universities and private schools refer to it, as well as newspapers, some examples among a lot : www.univ-tours.fr/actualites/classement-eduniversal-smbg-notre-licence-droit-classee-2--496237.kjsp, http://www.iae.univ-poitiers.fr/fr/classement-smbg-2016-six-masters-et-deux-licences-de-liae-de-poitiers-bien-classes , http://www.u-pec.fr/pratiques/universite/actualites/25-masters-de-l-upec-dans-le-classement-smbg-2015-666164.kjsp , http://www.ut-capitole.fr/formations/nos-diplomes/masters/classement-smbg-2015-2-masters-ut1-classes-485006.kjsp , https://www.u-cergy.fr/fr/universite/actualites/classement-eduniversal.html , http://www.formation-continue.dauphine.fr/les-actualites/details-dune-actualite/article/lemba-dauphine-dans-le-top-10-des-mba-eduniversal.html , http://www.decision-achats.fr/Thematique/decideurs-achats-1035/Breves/classement-SMBG-est-seul-classement-que-regardent-etudiants-252500.htm It was used here before I came.
 * I never wrote that. I was only talking about your quotes out of context. --Launebee (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I've just removed -again- false claims in the introduction.
 * It was stated that this university "has always been ranked first in law in national rankings", with only one source. As I've shown before, it's far from being true. The "good" rankings only come from a shady company with no real notability (press coverage of its rankings ?), and the bad ones are never mentionned.
 * It was stated that a "Sorbonne University" was the origin of this university. Too bad, but except on some low quality hoodies sold near the Eiffel Tower, no "Sorbonne University" has ever existed. Only the University of Paris did.

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * You just write again what you've already stated above, I have already answered to you. You show nothing and you refuse the discusion by simply saying again the same things without hreading what the others have to say. Please be constructive and stop these disruptive editing. Thanks!
 * For Sorbonne, you just had to change this in "colloquialy called "Sorbonne University"". I change it like done elsewhere.
 * --Launebee (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'll write it again and again, until you start to actually read what I write.
 * Again, It's a lie to claim that this university "has always been ranked first in law in national rankings" because a lot of rankings clearly show that it's not true :.
 * Again, there was no such thing as a "Sorbonne University", not even colloquialy. We are writing an encyclopedia, not selling T-shirts. You chose to put this wording back into the article.
 * XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please accept the fact that people read you and even answer you. Please only consider reading the answered that people give to you instead of saying that they didn't read you and writing again the exact same thing. Thanks.
 * If you say Harvard is first, you talk about quality, not difficulty of exams or people of color's rate, it's obvious. As already explained, the rankings you give are not a global ranking but are very specific.
 * I've already changed to what others wrote in other articles: La Sorbonne.
 * --Launebee (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I will keep it simple :
 * The introduction says that the university "has always been ranked first in law in national rankings". There is one source, and it doesn't say that. So I'm still waiting for a source to support this claim.
 * The Law ranking part says that it "was ranked first by several newspapers in France like La Tribune, Le Nouvel Observateur and Le Figaro". There is not even a single source to support the claim, so I'm still waiting for a source.
 * Only Eduniversal rankings are used, even though it has no notablity in France. There are a lot of other rankings, backed by newspapers, in which the university scores not so well. The only favourable ranking is lenghty used, and the other ones are simply ignored. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "It's not minority view" is not an argument. Still, I explained why. If no press coverage can be found (independant coverage), then it has no notability. And if so, it has nothing to do in the article.
 * Only Eduniversal rankings are used, even though it has no notablity in France. There are a lot of other rankings, backed by newspapers, in which the university scores not so well. The only favourable ranking is lenghty used, and the other ones are simply ignored. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "It's not minority view" is not an argument. Still, I explained why. If no press coverage can be found (independant coverage), then it has no notability. And if so, it has nothing to do in the article.

How can you talk about "no press coverage" when I gave you the list below? (Discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eduniversal )

There is a source for the history of the ranking (one each year so plural).

For the newspapers, it was not from me, as I already told you, but I agree to delete. Hope we'll find an agreement here.

--Launebee (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Which one of these articles actually focuses on the ranking ? It's sometimes mentionned, but it doesn't go further. It's not a press coverage of this ranking.
 * Again, more than 1 page of rankings coming from the same unkown company.
 * I've checked one of the other ranking (29). Guess what ? The press article ranks the university 19th by chances of finding a job, and goes on saying that the results are not trustworthy (not a lot of students answered). Still, it says that if you are lucky enought to find a job, you will be well paid. Only one of these elements are in the Wikipedia article. Guess which one.
 * Again the claim in the introduction is just a lie and must be removed.
 * Again, other rankings also have to be mentionned, even if they are not favorable to this university.
 * Again, a minority view such as Eduniversal's must be kept as tiny as possible. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The question is not an info is favorable or not but whether it's relevant. Want it or not, if Le Monde, Le Figaro, Le Parisien, L'Étudiant, Studyrama, etc., all refer to Eduniversal rankings to know the quality of a degree and have confidence in them, then it's serious and not at all a minority view. And I'm not mentioning all the universities which refer themselves to its rankings.

You already talked about the job finding ranking, and I already answered that with 93 % for Assas and 96 % for the first one, and like you say with the fact that it is approximate numbers, it is not relevant. It is why you don't find it in the Paris 1 page neither, it would be ridiculous. Anyway, it is a very specific ranking, and, like I say, when we talk about the ranking of a university, we obviously talk about the global quality of education and research, not very specific aspects, like people of color's rate.

For the salary, the differences are huge, and it is clearly an interesting fact for every university.

--Launebee (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * So I had a short look at the QS rankings for Law Schools in and across the entire world. The results I found are; 25. (1 in France) Universite Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne, 51-100. (2 in France) Sciences Po, and 101-150. (3 and 4 in France) Universite Pantheon-Assas and Universite de Strasbourg. First in the world is of course Harvard Law School. That said, it's academic reputation for Law is marked 71.9/100 whereas Sciences Po sits at 69.3/100. Sorbonne again comes first at 84.1/100. All of this info comes from here. I had to use QS as ARWU doesn't even mention Science Po or Paris II - though it does have Paris I at around 401-500 and Paris 6 at 39 - though this is across all subjects. Comparatively, LLM Guide for Europe put's Pantheon-Assas in 2, with Sorbonne-Assas in 1, while Sciences PO is 12. This comes from here. In any case, other rankings don't put Pantheon-Assas in first, but, do put it towards the top in Law. Still, at best second to Pantheon-Sarbonne. Adding to this our, non-neutral, article on Pantheon-Sorbonne University also declares itself first in France for law; Law & Legal Studies: 20th (1st in France). Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right and it is what is stated in the article. You are talking about ranking, and, indeed, the article says that PA is first in national ranking, but not in international ranking (which deal only with few French universities, France is not their priority). It is different to PA called everywhere the top law school of France, as the sources show. --Launebee (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I may have misphrased or over explained it to the point of causing confusion. QS and LLM put Pantheon-Sarbonne as first in France and Pantheon-Assas as third and second respectively. That would by definition make Pantheon-Sarbonne the top school and Pantheon-Assas one of the top schools. Though, all rankings are subjective and I am not of any particular familiarity with schooling in France. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article does not currently says that PA is the top law school, but is seen as such, and you can see all the serious soures that call it such.
 * By the way, LLM guide only ranks with popularity on its website, and you can see that the first one in France is PA (SAILW is a school from PA). https://llm-guide.com/most-popular/worldwide . But I am not sure it is worth mentioning. France has its own system, it is why it suits ill with international rankings, eg based on English‑speaking papers and quotes. But you can see that the well‑known Eduniversal ranking is clearly rating PA first (see references in the article).
 * --Launebee (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Panthéon-Assas University has always been ranked first in law in national rankings - then perhaps something has been lost in translation. Perhaps a rewrite; Panthéon-Assas University is (considered/seen as) the top law school in national rankings. In other words, if we take Eduniversal as an example; Eduniversal ranks Panthéon-Assas University as the (top/first) law school in French national rankings. Or something to similar effect. You can also add other sources and name them as well; e.g. "Edunivsal, ABC123, and DEF456 rank Panthéon-Assas University as the top ...". Without specifying who, the blanket statement suggests that all sources feel this way, when of course, they wouldn't. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ranking is different that having the nickname "top law school", it is not seen as such in national rankings, but in all newspapers. However, indeed, the formulation of the sentence on ranked first should be more precise. --Launebee (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, you won't find any newspaper ranking this university at the top of their rankings :
 * Le Point in 2011 : 15th
 * Le Figaro : 19th ("université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne et Paris 2 Panthéon-Assas ne se retrouvent qu’aux 10 et 19e places," (Paris 1 and Paris 2 universities only rank 10th and 19th) and {{tq|49th (for its efficiency for students ).
 * L'Etudiant'' : {{tq|52th}} in 2014
 * I have already given these references. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And I already told you that these are not global education rankings but rankings of specific criterias: professional insertion for your first link (with broadly everyone having the same result), easiness to succeed at exams for the three other ones. These are not at all general review of the university or of degrees. --Launebee (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And Eduniversal is only ranking B.A. and M.A. Degrees. So according to your standards, there is not a single "global education ranking"(©Launebee) that actually qualifies this university as the best in France.
 * I would like to know what other contributors think of this claim : {{ping|Mr rnddude|SalimJah|SashiRolls|MePhisto}} what's your opinion on this specific point ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not my standards, it is simply sources. Eduniversal is a recognized ranking institution and is globally ranking degrees.
 * It is not my claim, it is sources (in the lead and in the article) that all call it explicitely top law school in France. That’s it.
 * --Launebee (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that's only your opinion.
 * References describe Eduniversal's activities as "embarrassing", "against all the university' principles", "illegal" and "really outrageous".
 * But anyway, you have implicitly admitted that it was not a fact, but only an opinion by a very specific company. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you repeting things you know not te be true? These comments are not at all about Eduniversal rankings, which are recognized worldwide. And, about top law school (different topic than rankings), the sources say it explicitely, "top law school", so it’s obviously not my opinion. --Launebee (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Two references are used to support the claim "top law school" in the lead. Let's have a look at them :
 * www.letudiant.fr : "cultive son image prestigieuse de “première université juridique de France” ". You should notice that the expression "première université juridique de France" (an expression that you poorly translated as "top law school") is between quotation mark. So clearly that's not the journalist' opinion, s/he is just reporting the university's claim.
 * www.huffingtonpost.com : it simple, Assas is not even mentionned in this article. You made that up.
 * XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The journalist is saying the university has the reputation of top law school, so is the article. The HP says she attended to the top law school of France, and she attended to Assas. --Launebee (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What part of "quotation mark" don't you understand ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

removals of complains
I have checked the history of the article, and I have seen that and  have removed warning templates : Now let's see what Lannebee is doing on an other article, Sciences Po, which is known to be a long standing rival of this university. Well, he/she is not endlessly removing put putting the warning templates on the lead :
 * March, 4
 * March, 13
 * April, 5
 * November, 29
 * November, 30
 * November, 30
 * November, 30
 * November, 30
 * September, 17
 * August, 8
 * July, 17

Should I be surprised ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It comes to no surprise that one of these contributor tries to censor my text today and yesterday. After trying and failing with legal threat, this contributor is trying new tricks. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)