Talk:Thomas M. Cooley Law School/Archive 1

Ranking
I just want to add my two cents here as a Cooley alumnus. While I would have certainly made it to several law schools with my 3.3 GPA, the fact Cooley had a liberal admission policy made the choice to attend Cooley a rather easy one. The fact they had a year-round curriculum allowed me to finish my law school education in two years. The fact they had an extensive internship and externship program allowed me to hit the ground running. I struggled with the California bar, but so do most law school graduates. But once I passed it on the third try, I found that the competitive atmosphere at Cooley really prepared me for the jungle that is law practice. I have practiced in California for 6 years now with no incidents. Like most Cooley grads, I don't have any illusions I'll be able to get a job at a boutique firm, but like most Cooley grads, I have a chip on my shoulder, like I have to constantly prove myself.

I really think it matters little the argument re the rankings. At this stage in my career, I think it's my resume AS A LAWYER that controls whether a client that walks in the door retains my services. Cooley sure has had its share of distinguished alumni, and take a backseat to no one. My Torts Professor, the late Gerald Boston, published two books on Damages;

My Professor, Dorean Koenig, teaches Constitutional Law, and is a very active participant in the Innocence Project, having worked extensively in the move to reverse the sentences of several drug offenders who have been in prison since the 1970s. She co-authored a book of International Women's Rights, a book in which I collaborated on a chapter. She got me involved in the case of Commonwealth v. Chapman in Kentucky, a case involving a 17 year old sentenced to die. I traveled to Kentucky and worked on the case for 6 months. I am glad to report that his sentence was finally commuted by the governor. My Professor Brian Brooks also got a capital case overturned on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Chicago, Illinois. My Property Professor John Rooney, graduated Second in his class at Harvard Law School ahead of one Ralph Nader. I don't think Cooley has anything to apologize for.


 * The Thomas M. Cooley Law School has consistently been credited with the status of "the ultimate TTT" by internet message boards similar to xoxohth.com.[7]

"Similar to" because most/a majority of derogatory remarks made of the school will be found on elitist, and for the most part, despicable discussion boards LIKE xoxohth.com. It is important to consider the target audience and members of the particular forum (elitist, jerks, unfounded remarks). An important element of what the board is like as a whole. There are many sites and forums (i.e., LSD.com) that refer to the xoxohth.com site as such; therefore, it is not strictly my POV or opinion. 

I put the ranking back in because it does not make this page POV. The ranking totally relevant to this page. Many Wikipedia pages display opinions of people or organizations, however, you can feel free to include a criticism of the ranking. Iamblueman4 23:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC


 * 1) Cooley offers its own ranking system on its website in which it ranks itself the 18th best law school in the nation -- superior to Stanford Law School and the University of Chicago Law School, among others. [3]

I think some clarification is a necessary addition to this bullet point. I know that many criticize Judge Brennan for his Judging the Law Schools book, but that book allows any student to compare certain data from any ABA accredited law school. The data are taken directly from each school's annual reports to the ABA, which are published each year as part of the LSAC-ABA Guide to Law Schools. The data was placed in a searchable format on Cooley's website, allowing individuals to compare a variety of factors using self-reported information. (The individual is able to organize the data according to what they consider most important.) The variables are equal in weight rather than weighted by subjective importance, which result in the change in rankings.

Also, I fail to see the relevance of it being referred to as "the ultimate TTT" by two law school discussion boards (out of hundreds). There are many discussions on those boards as well as others that argue otherwise.


 * I have removed the bullet point on "Judging the Law Schools" from "Rankings" These rankings, written by Brennan and LeDuc, are self published and do not qualify as reliable sources per Verifiability. It is improper to include it here. Fladrif (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To the Admin who Protected the Cooley article from editing
I notice that you protected the Thomas M. Cooley Law School page from editing. Although this may have been a necessary move, the manner in which you have taken this action disturbs me. You provided no explanation for your block on the article's talk page. I looked on the recently blocked articles page to see if you had listed your rationale there; you had not. In short, it would by really helpful if you could provide a reason for this block and some sense of when you plan to remove this block so that good faith editors can continue to do their work. Although I agree with you that we can't have the vandalism, there were also some edits removed right before your edit (eg textual information regarding rankings) that appeared to be a good faith, if controversial, edit, the inclusion of which was likely best left to consensus-building. Thank you. Consensusbuilder1 14:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Other editors -- please express your chagrin at this unexplained protect at the user page of the administrator responsible for this block. The admin is: User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)...Thanks Consensusbuilder1 15:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The article was knocked down to semi-protection while I was sleeping. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

blatantly biased edits
In regards to this, although I think it it self-evident that these edits are blatantly biased and that they deliberately distort the cited sources (presumably in an attempt to pose as being verifiable facts), I'm willing to listen to what other mature editors have to say (I mention the "mature" qualification, since this article seems to attract a disproportionate share of juvenile vandalism). older ≠ wiser 21:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Response : Although these edits were possibly not a slam dunk for inclusion, they also do not fairly qualify as self evidently "blatantly biased"


 * The motto controversy -- Brennan himself discusses this controversy in the source provided. He also admits that his knowledge of Latin is from his high school studies. This edit potentially crosses the line into original research when it critiques this choice of words, but at the same time everything written is verifiable (the editor provides objective evidence regarding latin meanings).


 * The message board posts -- wikipedia articles frequently (and rightly) include opinions attributed to verifiable / notable sources (so as not to be pure POV). The message board cited are perhaps the two best known law school message boards. The fact is, on these and other message boards, and in conversation among law students, Cooley is frequently referred to as an archetypically mediocre institution  ("the ultimate TTT). Although the wording of this bullet may need to be changed, the basic point here is a notable fact about how Cooley is perceived by man law students,as evidenced by these message boards.


 * For these reasons, I suggest that someone re add this material (although bkonrad has already violated the 3 revert rule, I will not do the same. I acknowledge, again, that the disputed edits could use some cleaning up, but, overall, they are well-referenced and are not,. as bkonrad alleges, "blatantly biased".Helpmeoutnow 22:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Response :
 * Casting aspersions is easy. If you want to have any credibility, however, back them up.  You accuse the author of attempting to pose distortions as verified facts, yet besides making conclusory statements, you have not mentioned a single statement that is not a verified fact.  What there is not factually true?  If you cannot answer that question here, then quit vandalizing via deletion. --24.107.158.80 05:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is there ANY evidence that there is a "motto controversy"? Here is the cited source material:

One day I visited the classroom and showed the students several drawings of logos which we had under consideration for the school. Curiously, the students picked a representation of an Ionic column. I say curiously, because it was some time before anyone thought of acquiring the old Masonic Temple with its stately front pillars, as our school building.

With the help of Father Jerome MacEachen, our pastor at St. Thomas Aquinas parish in East Lansing, I devised a Latin motto to be displayed beneath the logo. In corde hominem est anima legis. The spirit of the law is in the hearts of men.


 * Did Father MacEachen flunk his high school Latin class? The genitive singular of homo is hominis.  The only verb in the sentence is intransitive, and cannot "take" or govern a direct object.  In this sentence, homo cannot be employed in the accusative case (hominem) because it is paired with corde, a noun in the ablative case.  The relationship between these two nouns is one of grammatical possession:  in the heart of man (in corde hominis).  There's no way you can put hominem in there, not even if you were thinking of the genitive plural, hominum, because Latin always uses the singular when dealing with groups or classes; the plural in English is regularly turned into the singular in Latin.

It wasn’t long before a delegation of our female students visited my office. They informed me that they were representatives of a new student organization known as CAT, an acronym for Cooley Action Team. They made it clear to me that the spirit of the law also resides in the hearts of women.


 * Even if you wanted to play the gender-switching game, you still would not be able to swap the genitive case with the accusative case, which is what MacEachen did. If the spirit of the law resides in the heart of woman (as opposed to man), the Latin sentence would be "In corde mulieris est anima legis" - again, without an accusative in sight.  We use the third declension noun mulier instead of femina because we are talking about adult female humans - the fairer sex - and not just female animals.

Summoning my high school Latin background, I explained that vires was the Latin word for the male of the species, and that hominem was more properly translated as mankind or humanity. From that day forward, the official translation of the Cooley motto became “The spirit of the law is in the human heart.”


 * Vires does not mean "men."  Rather, vires is the plural of the irregular noun vis.  (From this old word, by the way, we get our modern noun vim - as in "vim and vigor").  The plural you are really looking for, is viri.  -Yes, they look very similar, but that is one of the reasons you are graded on these things when you take Latin 1 in high school.  I suspect Father MacEachen (like Brennan) did not fare too well in his Latin classes.


 * The inserted material below is a completely bastardized version of events, to present this person in the worst possible manner.

The motto was selected by Judge Thomas E. Brennan who had only taken a high school class in Latin decades earlier. [6] The motto, which originally mentioned the hearts of men, was immediately challenged as sexist by a newly formed female organization called the Cooley Action Team [7]. This once again forced Mr. Brennan to rely upon his basic Latin skills to muster a response. He claimed the Latin word for men and humankind were identical. In actuality, however, the proper Latin phrase encompasing the sex-neutral motto would have been the agrimaticus [8] formulation: "Discipuli nostrum bardissimi sunt" [9]. Nonetheless, Mr. Brennan's erroneous formulation remains in place today.


 * 'Response:' You quote the entire section of the source material (which, by the way, supports every contention of the wikipedia entry concerning Brennan), then you quote the entire wikipedia section you disagree with, again cast conclusory aspersions at the latter as bastardized attempts at slandering Judge Brennan. I restate, and will continue to restate, what should be obvious common sense for any wikipedia editor -- if the information is accurate at root, and you merely disagree with word choice, improve the word choice.  Your actions, by way of comparison, are akin to one who deletes "George W. Bush maliciously promotes bans on homosexual marriage" because you dislike the fact that "maliciously" reflects poorly on Bush; this when merely removing the word "maliciously" would maintain the valid factual point while simultaneously addressing your issue completely.  Again, what you are doing is vandalism, and it must stop.  Since you appear to be incapable of making good-faith edits, I will try to edit the section to address my understanding of your problem with it.  --24.107.158.80 17:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * this cited source says absolutely nothing of relevance to this. The "citation" for the latin phrase discipuli nustrum bardissimi sunt is in fact a link to a Wikipedia page on which the phrase was added March 10 without any verifiable source provided.


 * Sorry, but I will continue to remove this material until you can provide verifiable sources that there was any sort of "controversy" rising above an amusing anecdote in an person's memoirs. older ≠ wiser 13:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The delegation clearly did not know their homo from their vir. It's an easy error for latin novices to make.  I don't quite get the use of the accusative here (hominem) as I'd expect to see the genitive (hominis), or perhaps it would look better with an adjective (in corde humano).  In any case this is a law school, not a crammer. --Tony Sidaway 16:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Response: Bkonrad (I think that's your name -- the guy who keeps deleting the section), are you related to this Brennan guy or something? Your drastic efforts seem a bit extreme considering you are defending him against statements he himself admits to in his writing on Cooley's own website. Your efforts are better spent elsewhere. You're going way overboard here. Not only that, but I found the section on the motto controversy quite interesting background information and think it would be unfortunate to not have it here. If Cooley itself has decided to offer such information on their website, it's certainly appropriate here. So please, lay off the Motto section! --NoSpinZone 19:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am no relation to Brennan and actually have no interest whatsoever in this law school aside from ensuring that the content is NPOV, verifiable, and encyclopedic. The statements that Brennan writes about have very little in common with the POV diatribes that have been attempted to be inserted into the article. older ≠ wiser 03:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is a transitive verb that looks very similar to the copulative verb esse - it has a long E on the first syllable. While Cicero often wrote edere for eat, there were those who regularly replaced the d with an s, all other things being the same.  Juxtaposed, the two consonants /r/ and /s/ mysteriously fuse and become one, at least in some of the outlying areas far from the seat of Roman culture, generally considered Urbs Romana.  (The fusing of R and S is not something to be relegated to the odd twang of country bumpkins outside of Rome proper.  It also happened in such far away places as Iceland a thousand years later, but that is a different story.)


 * The many puns involving EST (eats) and EST (it is) is something you should have run across years ago back when you were in high school. Heaven knows there are instances of their distinctions in clever graffiti on old walls and ruins in Rome and Pompeii, as well as elsewhere.

Taking this phonetic phenomenon one step further, and realizing that the Latin word edit ("it eats") regularly turns into est (with a long E in it), we can observe what may be an unintended pun: In corde hominem Est anima legis translates into "The spirit of the law (hanging on a string) eats man." The implied verb is the participle pendente: Pendente in corde, hominem Est anima legis.


 * It's hard to come up with any other conclusion than that Brennan and his paterconfessor failed their Latin classes in high school.

A lawyer's familiarity with Classical Latin is of excruciating importance when one realizes that lives of people can well hang in the balance, depending often on the proper translation of a word or two of Latin text, or a part of speech that resists easy comprehension. That a lawyer could be elevated to a position of power without being educated in Classical Latin is something that shocks the conscience of ordinary members of the public.

xoxohth remarks

 * The Thomas M. Cooley Law School has consistently been credited with the status of "the ultimate TTT" by internet message boards similar to xoxohth.com.[7]

"Similar to" because most/a majority of derogatory remarks made of the school will be found on elitist, and for the most part, despicable discussion boards LIKE xoxohth.com. It is important to consider the target audience and members of the particular forum (elitist, jerks, unfounded remarks). An important element of what the board is like as a whole. There are many sites and forums (i.e., LSD.com) that refer to the xoxohth.com site as such; therefore, it is not strictly my POV or opinion. 
 * The problem with your logic is that there are plenty of threads bashing cooley on LSD.com and the like. This is not an article about xoxohth.com. this article is about Cooley and the fact is that there are discussions about Cooley's low status on pretty much every major US law school discussion board out there. To say such discussion only occurs on xoxohth.com is simply not true. Consensusbuilder1 00:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in that statement does it say, "...such discussion ONLY occurs on xoxohth.com." Forming opinions about Cooley based on comments found on xoxohth.com is ridiculous. The statement says, "consistently." Well-rounded and unbiased opinions and conversations about Cooley can be found on other internet sites and message boards NOT similar to xoxohth.com.

Bulletin Board Citations
The objective of wikipedia it to provide authoritative and verifiable sources for the information that is presented in articles. 

The sources cited in the Criticisms section were merely opinions of a small group of individuals, posted in a forum for personal opinion (bulletin board). The citations provided are far from authoritative, nor factually verifiable. In the event you can find an authoritative source, then you can post the information. Please refer to wikipedia policies on reliable sources. Bulletin Boards are never reliable sources.  bweimert 14:21, 04 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your argument makes no sense in this context because the assertion made in the article is precisely that Cooley gets widespread attention as the "ultimate TTT" on numerous message boards. These message boards are fine evidence of that. You are obviously a Cooley troll ... you must be aware of the widespread "esteem" in which Cooley is held...why are you trying to deny that this perception exists. Helpmeoutnow 18:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Bweimert, you are missing something central. If I say "Bush is incompetent" and cite a poll site, you would then be correct that the poll site does not provide objective proof of Bush's incompetence and thus is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. However, if I say "a substantial plurality believes that Bush is incompetent" and site the same poll, this is an entirely valid cite to otherwise opinion information because the information is objectively supporting the "substantial plurality" fact and not the "bush incompetence" fact.--Fartman2 22:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Revised Criticisms Section
I've added a new version of the criticisms section that tries to capture the more scientific side of the controversy about the school while avoiding the name-calling (TTT, etc.) side. There seems to be a significant amount of criticism of the school's claims that it is among the nation's top law schools - many feel this claim is dishonest. So I've tried to focus on the reasons that the Cooley rankings have been criticized rather than focusing on any particular view of the quality of the school. Any thoughts?--38.112.184.20 19:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've revised and retitled the section in response to someone deleting it (I'm assuming that someone is just deleting anything on this page titled "criticisms and controversies" - which would not be unreasonable given this page's history). I'm trying to bring the paragraph to as neutral a position as possible, while still getting across the point that the ranking system is, at minimum, controversial. I think it's a valid point, given that the school touts its ranking as a reason to attend - it's a controversial and often-criticized means of promotion, and worth mentioning, I'd think. I'm glad to re-work the section, if people think it needs something. Any thoughts or suggestions? --38.112.184.20 21:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

(Although, to be clear, the fuller version of that section that has now been reverted to is the old one, not mine - which is fine with me.)--38.112.184.20 20:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion page
What I find difficult to comprehend is that law students or lawyers are writing the unseemly paragraphs found here. And you all do so with cowardice by not revealing who you are. I don't know much about Cooley, but I did write the biography on Anthony Gair, a very honorable man who is also a Cooley alumni. Only law students or lawyers would care enough about this topic to actually write about it to such length, wasting so much effort and energy to be jerks. So, sounds like law students looking for a target for their angst--lawyers don't have that time. It's one thing to lodge cited, accurate criticisms of the school. It's another thing to resort to puerile humor, like including photographs of shit. If these are the actions of Cooley's rivals and critics, I'd rather stand with Cooley. You all accuse the school of denigrating the legal profession, but I think you all denigrate it with the things you are writing. Take your worthless, meaningless fights elsewhere, since you certainly aren't using your time to do something positive. Grow up and act like adults. --DavidShankBone 22:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

New Edits
There are a series of new edits by Hahbie that seem to me unencyclopedic and which seem to not follow WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. To me this all reads like an advertising brochure, so I went in and changed them. But those changes were reverted without explanation, so rather than getting into a revert war I thought we should discuss them here. (There are also some stylistic choices that I think make the article worse, but that's ok.) The guiding principle here is that this is an encyclopedia article, with a neutral point of view towards its subject. It should neither disparage nor promote the school. So here are the bits I changed, which were reverted:


 * "Cooley's admissions policy is unabashedly egalitarian." That seems POV to me, but there may be a way to say this that's not so "ad-like".


 * "Cooley Law School graduates therefore distinguish themselves as being among the most tenacious and dedicated legal scholars currently produced by American legal academia." I would disagree with that statement - but, more importantly, the statement has a strong point of view which makes it unencyclopedic.


 * "Cooley is a private law school and remains unaffiliated with a university, which contrasts with its counterparts at the University of Michigan and Michigan State University, both of which enjoy a positive and collegial relationship with Cooley, as do the law schools at Wayne State University and Ave Maria School of Law." I can't figure out what UofM and MSU have to do with the fact that Cooley is unaffiliated, nor can I think of a way to cite the "positive and collegial relationship." More importantly, other than dropping other schools' names, I can't think of anything that this sentence actually says.


 * "Looking forward to 2008, when Cooley will celebrate its thirtieth year of accreditation, Thomas M. Cooley Law School and its alumni are a positively-known quantity to Bars in every state in the nation, as well as that of Ontario, Canada." The part about "a positively-known quantity" seems impossible to support, and also very vague. What does it mean to be "positively known" to a bar? In any event, this is a WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV problem. If you'll excuse me for saying so, the point of this sentence seems to be "come to Cooley, you'll be able to get a job when you graduate." That's not what WP is for.


 * "Cooley Law School considers itself an exemplar among American law schools in its pursuit of practical, "hands-on", legal scholarship, focusing on a tripartite objective of "knowledge, skill, and ethics". Cooley recently completed construction and renovation of its practical and classroom facilities. The academic credentials of Cooley's faculty are published on the law school's website." That first sentence might actually be supportable - Cooley might consider itself to be an exemplar (even, theoretically, if no one else did.) But the fact which this statement supports - that Cooley thinks it's an exemplar - isn't a particularly useful one. We'd need a reliable source saying that it actually is an exemplar. The construction of a new building is a fact we can support, but it has nothing to do with the heading it's under: "Legal Scholarship." And the fact that the academic credentials of the faculty is published on the website seems...a little pointless. Every school has faculty pages with their academic credentials.


 * "Cooley is, therefore, geographically the most accessible of Michigan's law schools--one of Cooley's three campuses is a reasonable commute from almost anywhere on Michigan's Lower Peninsula." What's a reasonable commute? This seems like an ad brochure.


 * "==External hyperlinks==" Wikipedia follows a certain style - like MLA or the Blue Book, we have Wikipedia style. To follow that style (sometimes called "wikifying") we use "External links."

Any questions, thoughts, etc.? --TheOtherBob 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For clarity's sake (to keep the discussion together), this was posted on my talk:
 * I graduated from Thomas Cooley, and I experienced the culture there. You did not. That makes me more qualified to write the article. User:Hahbie 04:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here was my response on Hahbie's talk:
 * I'm glad you liked your school, and you're right that I don't have first-hand knowledge of it. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that it maintains a neutral point of view (a subject with which I do have at least some familiarity). We're not here to attack or promote anything - just to report on verifiable subjects based on what we find in neutral, reliable, third-party sources. I'd love to write a glowingly positive, promotional article about my school, too - but that's not what an encyclopedia is for. So maybe we can work together to write a good article - but whatever we end up writing does need to follow Wikipedia guidelines. --TheOtherBob 05:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * --TheOtherBob 05:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * TheOtherBob, I hovered over the undo button for a few minutes trying to work out whether this was a constructive edit or not; I gave up thinking about it and went back to my day job. IMO reverting this is definitely defensible, and now you have pointed out NPOV/COI issues, the flowery words that were added make more sense. (I'll keep a closer watch to prevent a one-on-one revert war) John Vandenberg 05:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hahbie, your comment on User_talk:TheOtherBob sounds like your claiming you know better that ThatOtherBob, and so you should win the revert war. That's not how it works. All statements with reliable sources are given fair weight on any article. As I said above, I found the wording of your edits quite flowery and they lacked sources; what's more, you definitely broke form by using "External hyperlinks" making me think "What The--?!". Anyway, please jump in a let us know which of the above changes you considered important; we can all quickly discuss them and work out how to include them in an encyclopaedic manner. John Vandenberg 05:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Moving this from my talk page - this is a discussion of the article, so it belongs here: --TheOtherBob 20:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I maintain that my version is better because of my experience attending Cooley. For example, my version recognizes the fact that some students from the neighboring province of Ontario have attended Cooley and then returned to Ontario to complete additional training in Canadian law, complete the Ontario Bar Examination, and become members of the Law Society of Upper Canada. Also, Cooley has maintained its ABA accreditation for almost thirty years. It should therefore take its place in recognition among its peers: the other American Law Schools. Many good law schools are ranked by U.S. News and World Report as "Tier 4": using the language "the lowest available tier" is extraneous. Anyone who is interested enough to consult USNWR's rankings will thereby become familiar with what their definition of a "tier" is. Their criteria are arbitrary and capricious, whilst Brennan's are factual and egalitarian.

Justice Brennan is a visionary jurist and educator. The law school that Cooley has become because of him made it a standout. Many Michiganders and other people from the upper Midwest region choose Cooley over the other five schools in Michigan because of its unique characteristics: for example, the administrations of Michigan State, Michigan, Wayne State and Detroit are all chosen by the voters at large by general electoral ballot in Michigan. Those of Cooley and Ave Maria are not, because those law schools are private. But even between Cooley and Ave Maria, only Cooley is not affiliated with a University. Thomas M. Cooley Law School has one mission: to train law students in the law and prepare them to become attorneys, not to faciliate the provision of a law curriculum among a broader context of academic disciplines.

As an aside, when Stetson U. College of Law would not admit me (after applying twice) and the then-unaccredited Florida Coastal School of Law was not an advisable choice for me, Cooley was the best choice for me, and even though every fifteen weeks I had to make the return-trip commute from Mid-Michigan back home to southwest Florida, I was glad to do it, because Cooley's reputation made it a more desirable choice than any of the Florida law schools that were available to me. 71.203.34.231 16:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but your point still seems to be that you like your school and want to promote it. That's a valid opinion - but we deal in facts, not opinion. That Cooley has been accredited for thirty years is something we can mention (although not give WP:Undue Weight). However, while we can mention accreditation as a fact, we can't trumpet it. Similarly, if you have anything to cite to support a broad Canadian law student presence, we can include that, too - but, again, just as a fact, not promotionally. You see where this is going - there are several facts that you present that we could conceivably (if you can provide citations) use to flesh out the article. But we can't string them together into an argument for Cooley's superiority over, for example, UofM (as you suggest).
 * That the fourth tier is the lowest available is perhaps a separate argument, but it points out the contradiction between Cooley's self-ranking and the rankings of independent ranking organizations. I'm flexible on that point, though - I think it makes the paragraph clearer, but also agree that most people in the field know that the fourth tier is the lowest. --TheOtherBob 20:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 01:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ranking Two
Why isn't there any mention that Cooley comes up with its own ranking system placing it at #16 and ignores its US and World News ranking of 140th?

http://www.cooley.edu/rankings/overall2007.htm

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/law/search

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php?topic=38465.0


 * There is (or was) a mention that they are notable for having their own, self-generated and self-favoring rating system. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging the Law Schools
I think the articles should remain separate because in the law school rankings world, Judging the Law Schools is a notable exception to the commercial rankings systems. Swampyank (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, "Judging the Law Schools" is not a reliable source per WP:RS. It is co-written by Cooley's founder and its president, and is self-published. Because it is both (i)unduly self-serving and (ii) makes claims about others, it does not even qualify for use in Wikipedia as a source about Cooley itself. See WP:SELFPUB. Thus, I am again going to delete this bullet point again, and also nominate the separate article about it for deletion. Fladrif (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This book really belongs in the Brennan article, as he is the author and publisher, not here. So, I changed the redirect of the article there rathere than here. While Cooley is highly ranked in the book, the connection is really more to Brennan than to Cooley.Fladrif (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression they were published by the school, but either way Brennan is a probably a better location for the info. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The book is published by "TEBCO, Inc.", i.e. "Thomas E. Brennan Co, Inc"Fladrif (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent article on defamation lawsuit
This is interesting... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Pass rate in infobox
I've started a specific discussion as to what data should be used for the pass-rate in the infobox. See: Template talk:Infobox law school. As Cooley is an ABA school, whose grads can take the bar anywhere, selecting a higher 84% pass rate for the MI grads is WP:CHERRY. Also, Cooley has a Tampa campus. We really can't have infobox data that parses out those grads. Keeping the infobox pass rate reserved for nation-wide stats certainly does not restrict editors from adding the higher 84% rate in the article text. --S. Rich (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC) ALSO -- the 84.53% data from the ABA refers to the statewide average, not just Cooley. So Cooley actually has a below average pass rate. 03:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

More on ranking
As per discussions above, there is controversy about Cooley & ranking. The US News report gives it a "Rank Not Published" rating, which means it is below the top 100 in US law schools. And Cooley gives itself a No. 2 ranking. Well, criticism of Cooley's self ranking is available in the Mike Masnick reference, which at least is notable in that he's got WP articles about himself and his blog. But the Political Cartel & senior editors have not achieved notability in that we don't have WP articles for them. So I submit that proper balance exists between the US News not-published ranking, Cooley's own No. 2 ranking, and Masnick's criticism of Cooley's self-ranking. Seeking to add the non-notable Political Cartel only leads to WP:UNDUE.--S. Rich (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Name change
Cooley and Western Michigan University are forming an affiliation. Part of this affiliation would be the renaming of Cooley to "Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School".Source If there is no objection, I will rename this article to the school's new name when the name change becomes official. SMP0328. (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * A WP:BLAR would work. – S. Rich (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced subsection
I have removed the Conflict of interest claim subsection from the Controversies section, because it is unsourced: "In August 1973, an article in the Detroit News and The Detroit Free Press newspapers criticized Justice Brennan for serving on the Michigan Supreme Court and leading the law school at the same time, suggesting that he was "moonlighting" and therefore not living up to his duties to Michiganders. Brennan denied the conflict of interest or the harm to the state and refused to step down." A cite tag and a dead link notation show this to have been the case at least since July, 2012. If proper sourcing can be provided, this material can be restored to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Notable alumni
Two people in this section have been removed from this section. This is the second time this has been done. Neither time was any explanation given for the removal other than that these people are "not notable". Why are these people not notable? How is notability to be determined in this instance (not to be confused with article worthiness)? The first time this removal occurred, I reverted it. I don't want to revert it again, because I would risk being accused of edit warring. Dom316, or anyone else, please explain why this removal is proper. SMP0328. (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The people removed do not fall into any category listed here Notability (people). The school graduates approximately 1000 people per year. If you go to the edit entering these people as "notable" it was done by what looks like the named individual. Some showing of notability must be present for the entry--not proof on non-notability. Dom316 (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The policy page you cite appears to be articles, not inclusion of a person in an article. However, the edit appearing to be self-serving is a definite red flag. SMP0328. (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)