Does adding "All rights reserved" have no legal usefulness? My University requires students to add the mention "All rights reserved." on their thesis. The full required copyright notice is "© 2008 Jane Doe. All rights reserved."

However, I have read in a couple of places that the mention "All rights reserved" has no legal significance:

http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/allrightsreserved/ :


  The phrase was a required element in the 1910 Buenos Aires Copyright
  Convention. This was a treaty between the United States and most South
  and Middle American countries. Article 3 of this Convention states:
  
  The acknowledgement of a copyright obtained in one State, in conformity with its laws, shall produce its effects of full right, in
  all the other States, without the necessity of complying with any
  other formality, provided always there shall appear in the work a
  statement that indicates the reservation of the property right.
  
  Adding the phrase "All rights reserved" was enough to comply with this
  article.
  
  The phrase "All rights reserved" indicates that the copyright holder
  does not want to give up any of the exclusive rights he has under
  copyright law. This is only relevant for members of the Buenos Aires
  Copyright Convention.
  
  Today all members of the Buenos Aires Copyright Convention are also
  member of the Berne Convention. The Berne Convention states that
  unless explicitly stated otherwise, all rights are reserved. Further,
  a copyright law may not require any formalities as a condition for
  copyright protection. Therefore "All rights reserved" has no legal
  significance anymore.


Wikipedia echoes the same information:


  The requirement to add the "all rights reserved" notice became
  essentially obsolete on August 23, 2000 when Nicaragua became the
  final member of the Buenos Aires Convention to also become a signatory
  to the Berne Convention. As of that date, every country that was a
  member of the Buenos Aires Convention (which is the only copyright
  treaty requiring this notice to be used) was also a member of Berne,
  which requires protection be granted without any formality of notice
  of copyright.


Is adding "All rights reserved" only a legally insignificant reminder to the reader that author is by default the copyright holder of the piece of work and that he did not give up any of the exclusive rights he has under copyright law? Has the mention "All rights reserved" turned to be useful in the jurisprudence since its legal obsolescence?
Currently, copyright is assumed to the authors unless explicitly declared otherwise, and no rights are granted unless explicitly declared.  Thus, de facto your work is "all rights reserved" even if you don't explicitly state it.  

Please do make sure you explicitly state copyright information, however, including name and durable contact information!  The assumption of strong copyright protection even without explicit notification is actually a big problem for effective sharing of information both inside academia and outside, because people often reserve more rights than they intend to, and lack of good copyright information makes it difficult to correct this.

A number of organizations are building systems intending to simplify this type of interaction.  One of the most notable is Creative Commons, whose licenses your see all over Wikipedia.  Other similar ventures and consortia exist for software, electronic hardware, mechanical blueprints, DNA, etc., each of which has its own unique set of IP problems, often intensified by the interaction of copyright with patents and less well-known IP systems such as EU sui generis database rights.