Talk:Juris Doctor/Archive 3

More on J.D.'s Using the Title 'Doctor' in advertising

Opinion 344 (www.law.uh.edu/libraries/ethics/Opinions/301-400/O344.html) "An attorney engaged in, or intending to engage in, the practice of law, and holding a "J.D." degree may not ethically use any of such titles orally or in writing, professionally or otherwise, subject to certain limited exceptions as set out in the following opinion." (The exception is in an internal corporate setting wherein other doctoral degree holders use the title 'Dr.' The opinion, however, goes on to state that the exception applies only to the use of the title within the corporation. The title should not appear in any form accessible to the general public.) Wikiant 13:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

But, in May 2004 the Supreme Court of Texas(Professional Ethics Committee, Opinion Number 550),permit a lawyer who is a graduate of an accredited law school with a Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence degree to use the titles Dr., in social and professional communications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.102.144 (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anything more recent? Lawyers' ethics codes are updated very frequently. Also, the opinion you reference is talking more about "self-laudation" than anything. In other words, even use of JD after one's name would be prohibitted. This is back at a time when it was also unethical for lawyers to advertise on TV and print advertising was also very strictly regulated. (Both still are, but it's a lot more open than it used to be). Peyna 11:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll look around. Regardless of which way we go here (ethical vs. unethical), we need to cite the appropriate authority. Wikiant 13:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

THE FOLLOWING OPINION IS A NEWER OPINION. THE OPINION CITED BY WIKIANT WAS UNDER THE CANNONS OF ETHICS WHICH ARE NO LONGER USED BY ANY U.S. JURISDICTION. FURTHER, ANY SUCH ETHICS RULE WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS WERE ETHICS RULES PROHIBITING ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.

If you look at [1] you will note that the American Bar Association at ABAi1151 has indicated that it is ethically permissible for "a lawyer holding a Juris Doctor degree to use the title 'Doctor'." All states that have examined this issue have agreed with the ABA. As to individuals holding a J.D. who are not lawyers, in the U.S., there can be no ethical or legal prohibition on the use of the title in social situations.75.13.146.44 13:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the opinion cited by Wikiant is a 1968 Texas ethics opinion. If you look at [2] you will note that in May of 2004, Texas issued an ethics opinion under their current ethics rules which indicates that an attorney may use the title Doctor.69.220.35.146 15:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Who cannot use the title Doctor? Doc Severinson isn't a doctor. Dr. Demento isn't a doctor. If one isn't impersonating a surgeon or the like, couldn't a high school dropout introduce himself as Dr. Smith if so chose? JJL 19:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it depends on the law of the jurisdiction and the context. If it's clear you're just joking around (for example, a five-year-old calling himself a doctor for Halloween), then there's no harm in it. But if people take you seriously, you intend that they take you seriously, and someone gets hurt as a result, then one could be looking at anything from fraud to unauthorized practice of medicine to murder.

But seriously, a lawyer who insists on being called a "Doctor" would be widely seen in most parts of the U.S. as extremely pretentious. Esq. is already seen as rather pretentious and a lot of lawyers don't bother to sign it after their name nowadays. --Coolcaesar 06:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In many situations, esquire is mainly used as a term of respect when referring to other attorneys, but rarely when referring to one's self. Much like "Doctor" is used among doctorate degree holders who are not physicians. (And maybe even physicians). Lawyers will usually refer to each other as Mr. or Ms. and not Dr. or Esq. in speaking. Peyna 13:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Look....All you that hold JD's that want to be address as Doctor should go ahead and use the title...let see how far you go before you are laught at. Any JD who for a sec thinks he/she should be address as Dr. is a fool and wannabe. For your information the equivalent degree to the JD is the LLB; The LLB is a bachelor degree… how can you explain that. Even the Dept of Education states that a JD is not equivalent to the PHD and other Doctorates like the DBA,DM,D.ENG.ETC...AND EVEN DOCTOR OF LIBERAL STUDIES….and still you wannabe nuts think you have a true doctorate LOL. Losers

Response to author of prior paragraph -- First off, the proper spelling is "laughed", not laught. If you're going to attempt to criticize anyone, make sure you don't open yourself up to criticism in the process. Second, the LLB that you are referring to was originally a Bachelors, but you're only half right. The LLB used to be a Bachelors that was done as an undergraduate program, usually taking only 18 months. The curriculum, and hence the naming, has changed significantly since then. The JD IS a doctorate in every sense of the word. There are a couple differences between a JD and PhD though. The curriculum is much more regimented for a JD than a traditional PhD. Also, the method of instruction is entirely different. On that note, in a PhD program, one is expected to research and analyze on their own with only some supervision from professors. A law school is set up to force a student to become his/her own teacher as well. It's not just rote memorization like in undergraduate or most Masters programs. A JD takes less time only due to the strict regimenting of the student's schedule. In closing, I'm not saying that a JD need utilize the title "Doctor". I'm only bringing up a set of facts to validate that a JD IS a DOCTORATE.

A counter responce to the author above...Thanks for noticing my laughed versus laught error; it was an error. I agree with you that the JD is called a Doctorate but we tend to forget that the JD is a first profession doctorate and not a research doctorate. The title of Dr. is only awarded to people who have earned research doctorates. In the UK the first professional degree in Pharmacy is called a Master of Pharmacy, but it is really only an undergraduate degree. Only a fool would try to pass the Master of Pharmacy as a Master Degree; by the way I met such a fool once. The whole mess associated with trying to prop up an academic degree is self evident; let’s take a look at the U.S Law degree. First you have a Juris Doctor (JD), which is followed by the Master of Law (LLM), which is then followed by a SJD (Which is a reach doctorate in Law equal to the PhD). Tell me…does it make any sense to have a doctorate, then a Master, then another Doctorate. The first U.S Professional degree in Pharmacy is the Doctor of Pharmacy degree, which recently replaced the Bachelor of Pharmacy as the first professional degree in that field. I don’t see any Pharmacist requesting to be called Doctors. In the case of Medical Doctors, the title Dr. being attached to that profession is just a fluke of history. The original degree awarded to physicians was called the Bachelor of Medicine. The bottom line is that Professional Doctorates and Masters are not equivalent to other the degrees that bear similar titles.

Yes, the U.S. J.D. is a terminal degree and a first professional degree, and is basically the equivalent of a master's degree, like the 3 year M.Arch. and the 2-3 year M.F.A. and the 2 year M.S.W. Each of those are considered terminal for purposes of professional practice and for teaching, even though there are higher degrees one can earn after them. The J.D. is the same; a 3 year degree that follows 3-4 years of undergraduate study. At best one could argue that it's the equivalent of an Engineer degree or Specialist degree. JJL 21:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The JD is simply a Master Degree called a Doctorate. The damn degree is not even equivalent to a Doctor in Liberal Studies. What a joke. Hey is a good one; let imagine that something in the future, some insane college would decide to transform the Bachelor of Engineering into the Doctor of Engineering and demand that Engineers should be called Doctors. (PHD 2008)

Actually, that's been discussed often in The Bent. There are lots of people who want to follow the "medical model" and professionalize engineering by making all engineers D.Eng. holders. But, of course, it's financially infeasible. Compare the new D.P.T. degree and consider the article "Credential Creep" in the 22 June 2007 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Pharmacy is only one of the most recent to play the game. Soon every professional you meet will be a 'doctor'. JJL 03:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

All you doctors wannabes...Read this http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:eTLzM3VOobgJ:www.ag.state.oh.us/legal/opinions/1996/96-039.htm+%22juris+doctor+is+a&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=us (PHD 2008)

Ok....I might have to change my view about this JD (Dr.) thing. I just found out that people that earn a DPT (Doctor of Physical Therapy), which happens to be a postbaccalaureate degree, are entiled to use the title Doctor. Jezzzzz...if this is true, I now fully support the use of the title Dr. by people with JD's. (PHD 2008)

Most of these discussions are outside of the title. Originally, only holders of the JD/MD could use the honorific of doctor when advertising. The original prohibition on the use of doctor in advertising was not to confuse the public (because when the general public thinks of doctors, they think of medical doctors). When hiring an attorney for to recover damages from an injury or medical malpractice, it makes a big difference if the attorney also holds a medical degree. In recent years, that restriction was relaxed, and then eventually abolished.

It seems that the disagreements above are based on whether or not the institutions should have named it a doctorate in the first place. If you hold a doctorate from an institution of higher learning, the term of doctor logically follows. 23:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity

The problem is this: unless there is an explanation that functionally the JD is THE doctorate for law in the USA, foreign readers will make the assumption that Americans who work in the academy routinely go and do a PhD. They do not. Therefore I or others shall be placing this into the article. --Lawman15 05:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So if the JD is a 'first degree', yet a 'doctorate' yet also a pre-requisite to a legal profession in the US .. then what does a lawyer who has been practising for many years, or furthermore a BARRISTER who has been practising for many years do if they go to the United States with only an LL.B after their name? Get a job stamping forms, even though they're more qualified than half the professors of law over there given that professorship doesn't require doctorial status nor 20 years industry experience like it does in Australia?

The M.D. and D.D.S. are also "first degrees" and are requisites for professional practice. The source of confusion is that you are unware of the terms "professional degree" and "non-academic doctorate". Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

But the MD and DDS are four-year that have prerequisite undergraduate material. This is one reason why the J.D. is traditionally lumped in with professional master's programs like the MFA, MSW, MArch, etc., rather than with the doctoral degrees. People here understand the issue of professional degrees. This has been long debated and I think the consensus is that the less of this debate that appears in the article, the better. JJL (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Some DDS programs are three year programs. Duration is not an issue (B.A. in Europe is only 3 years). The academic community decided that this doctorate be only 3 years long. I don't think that all of those knowledgeable scholars that created the degree could have made a mistake--they would have called it something different if they didn't intend it to be a doctorate. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No U.S. DDS programs are four (academic) year programs, though it may be possible to complete them in three (calendar) years, as it is with some med. schools. In saying "all of those knowledgeable scholars that created the degree" I think your history is somewhat off. JJL (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Even still, there is little useful basis for comparison. Another example (I'll be more careful this time), is that a B.A. is not required for a D.D.S. (see UOP admission page for an example). There are so many differences because the professions are different. I'm not sure what you mean by my history being off. I hope you don't think that one professor in a law school could create a new degree without the approval from the department and the university. That same approval has been given by every US university. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems the US/AU legal systems are imcompatible on many levels. No working vacation for me.  :( 211.30.71.59 06:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

They have to obtain an LL.M degree designed for foreign lawyers, which takes about one year. For example, UCLA School of Law offers such a program. Then many states, like California, will allow a foreign lawyer with a domestically-obtained LL.M to take their bar exam. --Coolcaesar 06:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, although it's possible for an attorney with no practice experience to become a law professor---Eugene Volokh is a great example---many American law professors do have several years of practice experience. --Coolcaesar 06:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The term 'professor' has as little meaning as 'university employee' in the US education system compared to other countries it seems. Another part of the US EDU that confuses the hell out of me. In Australia your average professor (and there's probably five to ten distributed across a large university) has probably had forty years industry experience and an immense CV of publications as a leader in their field. Weird. Very weird. Then again, all degrees in Australia -are- 'professional' degrees. There's none of this messing around stuff that seems to be everyones 'first degree' over there; we take care of all that in high school and senior high as far as I know.

That being said: --

While universities in nations with legal systems based on the common law generally still award the LL.B. degree as the first professional law degree, some law schools in Canada, Hong Kong, and Australia have renamed or changed LL.B. to J.D., or confusingly offer both J.D. and LL.B. The J.D. degree is also being awarded in Japan as of 2004.

A number of universities such as Australia's University of Melbourne, Hong Kong's Chinese University of Hong Kong offer both first-entry and second-entry first professional degrees in law: the LL.B. is offered as a four year program for secondary school graduates, while the Juris Doctor is offered as a two to three year (6-trimester) program for "mature graduates with a good degree in a discipline other than law and significant employment experience, and for lawyers who have a civil law degree".[1][2]

Those two paragraphs are extremely ambiguous and make it seem as though the JD is accepted or even known of anywhere outside the US. It's definitely not known by any Australian lawyer I've spoken to on any mailing list further than what is listed on Wiki. Perhaps a rework to idenfity it purely as an Americanism is in order? 211.30.71.59 07:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which Aussie lawyer you know, but JD isn't just an US thing. Melbourne Law School is a top law school in Australia, and here's the link regarding their JD program:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_University_Law_School
• http://jd.law.unimelb.edu.au/

JD has not been known outside of US in the past. However, the idea of studying law after undergrad education is catching on globally, and is regarded as a brilliant idea. Your lawyer friends might not know this because they are too focused at doing what they do-- writing briefs or contracts, and not paying attnetion to the academic scene anymore. This might be the reason why they tell you they don't know what it is. Justicelilo 16:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the ABA sanctions the use of DR by attorneys, although the majority of attorneys do not use DR. I have been told that lawyers are addressed as DR in Latin American states. Non-attorneys are not regulated by professional codes and as such, non-attorneys need not adhere to those codes. Someone did mention the Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) code, but that UPL is also prohibited by state civil and criminal fraud statutes. I believe the distinction between the JD, Master, and PHD have been made clear in this discussion, that is that the JD is beyond the Bachelor and not equivalent to a Master or PHD. Not to say a Master or a PHD is more than or better than a JD, I want just to point out that the degrees are not equal and were never meant to be. Each degree confers the recognition of a unique set of skills and should not be weighed against each other in terms of “What is better on a one to ten scale?” Well, yes one degree may be better than the other in use in their respective fields. A PHD will hold no value to the body that licenses attorneys, nor would a Master hold value to an accused criminal seeking a person to represent him in court. A JD will hold no weight to a hospital in search of a psychologist and so forth. Juris Doctor, not Juris Doctorate, is printed on my JD, I don’t know if some schools classify their degrees as the latter, but I have also seen Medical Doctor, not Medical Doctorate, printed on MD degrees. Again, this point was addressed where degrees like the MD and PHD are issued in combination and those joint degree programs are sometimes referred to as something like a medical doctorate. Please bear in mind that one need not receive a medical doctorate to be referred to as DR, an MD would be enough. Changing DR JONES to MD JONES would help us distinguish JD JONES. Clearly anyone who has earned a JD can refer to themselves as JOHN JONES, BS, JD or simply as JOHN JONES, JURIS DOCTOR. Ultimately, a conferred degree is the basis of your credentials and there certainly is a property interest. Now, if the law were to strip one of the use of their degree, even the ability to reference it in the title of your name as so many of us do with our degrees, then that law would be tantamount to a illegal taking. A JD simply is what it is, it is a recognition and not a license to practice law nor hold yourself out as having the ability to do so. 71.250.186.167 (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Various copyedits

Dear editors: I have done some copyediting and moved some new material added by another editor down into the relevant section. These edits hopefully do not change any substantive meaning in a material way. This article seems to be vastly improved over what it was many months ago (and I can take no c redit for th at).

I like this article better now, in part because its sourcing seems to have improved. I think the whole "this degree is or is not equivalent to that degree" argument that was going on here for a while was a bit strange, but the article's sourcing has made the article much stronger.

On the legal research thing, I would think most if not nearly all law schools require extensive training in legal reseach and writing. My law school had what I considered a very good full year of this, which was required for all students. However, I have no backup for the statement that "most" (i.e., over half of all) law schools require this -- so I changed "most" to "many" and deleted the citation tag someone else had put there. It won't break my heart if someone wants to add the tag back, based on the word "most." Maybe it should be "some"??

Anyway, my hat is off to those who have been working on this article. I haven't been paying attention for a long time. Yours, Famspear 20:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Grinding Axes?

JJL isn't grinding axes, but is likely citing accreditation requirements. For example, the AACSB (the top accrediting body for schools of business) count a professor as "doctorally prepared" if s/he is (a) has a Ph.D., and (b) is teaching in an area in which s/he either has the Ph.D. or in an area in which s/he has published research (e.g., a Ph.D. in Economics who has published in a marketing journal). According to the rules, however, a J.D. is considered "doctorally prepared" only if s/he is teaching in the area of law (e.g. business law). Wikiant 01:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not a JD - I have no axes to grind here. I, too, think it was a misnomer to go from the LLB to the JD back in the 1960s. However, the finest universities in the country, which have the finest law schools in the country, have large faculties where almost every professor has only a JD, with only the occasional LL.M. and maybe a JSD or two on the staff, just as almost every clinical professor in every medical school has only the MD. If Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, and U Michigan are content with the JD as a terminal degree -- not for the casual adjunct but for the vast bulk of their tenured, full-time faculty, and the ABA is too, then the article, which makes note of objections to the terminology and status abundantly clear as it stands now, is fine as it is.

The Economics analogy doesn't hold. You're talking about a medical school-style situation: In Med School, some of your professors might have a D.Pharm., or a Ph.D. in biochemistry or whatnot, but that doesn't mean that the army of professors with only MDs who are teaching Medicine are any less professors, or any more professors, than the pharmacy or pure science guys. A PhD in Econ teaching in a B-school is like the Biochem-PhD in the Med. School. And there are plenty of JD's on the faculty of university law schools as "professors" teaching an additional undergrad course in the A&S college in something like "Constitutional History" in the History Dept. to BA candidates, or "Legal Issues in Medical Ethics" to BSN candidates in Nursing Schools. HarvardOxon 02:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I constantly see surveys of educational levels that list the J.D. with M.S. degrees. The phrase "terminal degree" includes the M.F.A., for example, and usually the M.S.W., yet there are D.F.A. and D.S.W. degrees, as there is a J.S.D. So, while Harvard surely accepts the J.D. as a law school teaching credential which makes it terminal in one sense, it is more akin to the M.F.A. in this regard (cf. the old 5- or 6-year D.Pharm.). The CSU business card reference is wholly unconvincing--it certainly doesn't seem like an academic policy. It's obvious why a J.D. could be listed on a business card. The J.D. is a M.S. level degree, like the 3-year M.Arch.; that's the key point. How to say it is another matter. I don't think anyone is disputing that the J.D. is the right degree for law school faculty, much as a master's degree is the right degree for many art school faculty. JJL 03:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For God's sake, get past it. Harvard, Yale, Columbia, etc, do not grant fully-tenured, full professor status of MS's. They do to JD's. I'm not citing any business card, I never put that in. If an MD is a doctorate, so is the JD. For god's sake, give it up: no, its not a Ph.D., but so what? Nobody expects a JD to teach English, Classics or Biology, but no Ph.D. in Chemistry is expected to teach Law. Is the Ph.D. itself not a "real doctorate" because Oxford and Canmbridge offer the Litt.D. beyond it? Does it not count because german universities require the habilitation BEYOND the Ph.D. for a faculty job? JD means "doctor," the ABA allows JD's to be called doctor, the law schools accept it for professorship - it's a doctorate. It isn't a Ph.D., but neither is a Doctor of Arts. The whole damn paragraph is just fine. You are coming across like somebody who lost out on tenure to a JD, and are now out to prove JD's are al mentally retarded or something.HarvardOxon 03:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly true that there's far too much comparison of degrees in the article. I'd wager that both sides are to blame--Ph.D.s looking to denigrate the J.D. as merely a second bachelor's degree, and J.D.s looking to build their master's level degree into something grander. But, the military agrees with the general consensus that it's a M.S. level degree--note that J.D.s come in as O-2s, as experienced nurse practitioners and engineers can, while doctorate holders come in as O-3s, for example.JJL 13:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I know a couple Ph.Ds who earn less than a BA holder per month. The point is, I fail to see how one's *personal* social status or how much money you get paid, or even how the operational policy of a governmental organization would provide any relevant basis for the "debate" that is happening on the page. How is the salary of a lieutenant junior grade that WILL BE increased to 0-3s level after a year of being in JAG be relevant to saying JD is a "lower" degree than Ph.D.? This is beyond me, and furthermore, I don't even think it is a topic worth spending too much brain juice on. The type of degree defines what expertise you have. You have a JD, you know about law more than a BA, and the Bar Asso. says you can now take the bar exam. You have a Ph.D in Biochem/medical science? Great, you know more about human body and chemical stuff more than a BA in chem, you can go work on a cure for Aids. JD, MD or Ph.D, it's just a degree that tells others what you can do. Whether you live up to your degree, or if you can make use of your degree depends on your own *personal* competence. Now there is really no objective answer as to "which degree is 'higher' than which" so can we just forget it? I can argue LLB is "BETTER" than Ph.D because LLB graduates can earn more money quicker than a typical Ph.D graduate! Don't believe me? Just calculate, a 23 yrs old lawyer get paid at roughly 3000/mo. versus 30 yrs old Ph.D graduate. I rest my case. If a lawyer has the nerve to call himself a doctor in front of his clients or peers, let him! I bet no one is gonna say a darn thing if he is a GREAT litigator. If you don't like him, don't be friend with him, or don't enter a counsel-client relationship with him. Ya, you might think the guy is a "weirdo", but I bet no one is gonna care how "pretentious" he is when he promises to get you out of jail and he does just that! On the other hand, we all like to laugh at pretentious fools whenver we get the chance. Justicelilo 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. Based on statements presented so far, can we agree that this is kind of a silly debate, can we just call JD for what it is, the law degree in US, and be done with it? Spare the readers of this whole ... er..."drama". Justicelilo 17:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Whole section deleted on relationship with PHD

Um, an entire section was deleted and I don't believe that it was complete nonsense that could not have been salvaged. However I don't know anything about J.D.'s or whether they are related to PHD's. It just seems that more discussion should be made before one IP deletes a section. --Fastman99 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There really isn't any reason to compare it to the Ph.D.; that should be done in the first professional degrees entry. However, the early reference to the D.C. degree is clearly meant to shine an ill light on the J.D. by associating it with a degree that has a sketchy reputation. The whole thing is fueled not so much by the Ph.D. but by the related issues of addressing a lawyer as Doctor, and it being a terminal doctorate. The CSU-Fresno ref. is meaningless--it's just one campus's Human Resources policy and not a statement by CSU as a whole (on a degree it doesn't grant). The J.D. is clearly all that's needed to teach and be tenured at a law school. That can't seriously be at issue. But the extent to which it's a terminal degree/doctorate is at issue. JJL 23:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't agree with any of the Ivy League, Pacific Ivies, Midwest Ivies, et.c, who do hold it to be terminal, but that's your tough luck. You want to say it's like a chiropractor degree, a DDS, and MD, well, buddy, all those folks are actually called Doctor in society. So, you're arguing against your own case. Sockpuppets will be visited too.HarvardOxon 23:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I request blocking of further edits by HarvardOxon to this page. Clearly, s/he does not seem to be an expert contributor to this page and is supporting a biased POV. The J.D. has no relationship to the Ph.D. To provide a balanced comparison of the J.D. with like degrees, such as the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.), serves the reader best. Moreover, the J.D. is a degree that prepares one for licensure, such as the Master of Social Work (M.S.W.) Neither the J.D. nor the M.S.W. are the highest degrees in their respective disciplines; if the holders of these degrees have earned tenured faculty positions, it is for another reason than being doctorally prepared for teaching in higher education. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.212.15.230 (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Ummm, ok. So, harvard, Yale, Columbia hire "unqualified" professors. The JD is like the MD and DDS, except we call MDs and DDSs "doctor" and the anonymous sockpuppet is shroeking that JD's aren't doctors. That's a perfectly logical argument.HarvardOxon 00:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The J.D. is sufficient for teaching law. However, it's much less clear whether it is more akin to a M.D. at 4 years or a M.S.W. at 2 years (or a M.Arch at 3 years), and whether it should be considered a doctoral/terminal degree, See archived versions of this page for much more on this. JJL 00:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, take your own point: JD=MD=DDS, this, we call MD "doctor," and DDS "doctor, so you're arguing we should call JD "doctor."HarvardOxon 00:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll find that argument in the archives. As well, you'll find a response (I don't recall from whom) that, in fact, MD's are not / were not referred to as "Dr." in some European countries. Either way the circular argument flows, it's still circular. My impression is that the whole issue is relevant to the JD degree in that the JD degree differs from other degrees because (a) there are higher degrees in the field (sidestepping the definition of "terminal"), and (b) the degree was, originally, a baccalaureate degree and was renamed. Wikiant 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Then the D.Phil isn't a terminal degree because Oxford and cambridge offer the Doctor of Letters beyond it. What this is REALLY about is people who want to declare the Ph.D. a degree for superheroes , and the JD some sort of post-high school trade school diploma. The fact is, a JD is far tougher to earn and represents far more scholarship when taken from some universities than the Ph.D.s in some other fully-accredited schools in this country. Is the JD a research doctorate? No, but who said it was? Will the JD win you a full professorship oustide the law school? Only in the Medical School. But will a Ph.D. in English earn you a professorship on the faculty of Chemistry? No. The fact that these people are shrieking so loudly about this PROVES there is a controversy and discussion, that damn well should be reflected in the piece. If anyone actually read the article, it is made abundantly clear that the JD is a three-year "taught" professional degree, the words "first professional degree" appear, and all of that is thoroughly explained, as is the fact that it is academically recognized as a doctorate and terminal degree for law school faculties (just look at the damn academic regalia for it!), and all this is thoroughly contreasted, as the piece now stands, with the 5-8 year Ph.D,. with its research component in subjects academically suitable for A&S schools. Do I think it was unfortunate that the LLB was dropped? Yes. Am I a lawyer? No. Am I in fact in the humanities, and have no axe tro grind on behalf of the JDS? Yes. This peice sas it stands is perfeclt fair, informative, and accurate. Some folks will not be satisfied until it is reduced to one sentence: "The JD is a fake degree for losers, and they suck, and I'm smarter than any lawyer, and I'm the best, and Economics totally rules!."HarvardOxon 00:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

...and other folk will not be satisfied until the talk page is reduced to: "HarvardOxon possesses the truth and everyone else is stupid [throw in a few explatives in case some of you might be thinking of disagreeing]." Wikiant 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have had similar thoughts, and in fact I have some degree of surprise that the three revert rule wasn't enforced. There doesn't seem to be much willingness to compromise here, and the repeated claims by HarvardOxon that all arguments advanced by all sides serve only to prove his points isn't helping. JJL 14:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to abandon straw man argumentation if we're to get anywhere. I said very much the opposite of JD=MD=DDS; I said it wasn't clear to what extent that was true or to what extent JD=MSW=MFA is true. In fact, I lean toward the latter, much as with the new 3-year D.P.T. that's replacing the M.P.T. degree. The entry at terminal degree may be helpful (though I don't agree with all that's written there).

There's no question that the article here has devoted too much space to a whose-degree-is-better argument that isn't likely of interest to most people reading the page. If that section is going to be here, though, it should be right. For that, the J.D. is a professional M.S.-level degree that lawyers may choose to consider a doctoral degree but that most otehrs lump in with lower degrees. JJL 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The J.D. is very similar to the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) in the sense that a profession is trying to appropriate legitimacy, and these two professions have attempted to gain legitimacy over approximately the same time. (Of course, it is also very similar to Master of Social Work [M.S.W.] as well in the sense that the degree prepares the student for licensure. I suppose the next profession that will want to be called doctors are C.P.A.s, who are now required in many states to earn 150 semester credits plus experience to achieve licensure. Shall we one day have to contend with the Enumeratonis Doctor (E.D.) or Doctor of Enumeration (D.E.)?) Both the J.D. and D.C. are standardized curricula and do not require students to add to new knowledge. Neither the J.D. nor the D.C. are the highest degrees in their respective fields, law and medicine. On the other hand, the Ph.D. and other similar research-based doctorates bear no resemblance to those "professional" degrees; the student is helped/forced to matriculate a non-standardized curriculum culminating in an original contribution to knowledge in the discipline, which makes it the highest degree that can be earned in the discipline. The graduation rates in Ph.D. programs is alarmingly low because it is so difficult and the economic utility of the degree outside higher education often approaches zero in some disciplines. Again, the schools that teach the J.D. produce graduates as numerous as rabbits, and these students often don't really have the "stomach" to make a living from people's misfortunes, so they gravitate toward to teaching and trying to help people, which alone doesn't make them qualified to teach beyond any other masters degree holder. In sum, such motivations to attain false legitimacy in higher education should be discounted in the development of a Wikipedia entry; the goal of achieving a balanced POV hearkens one to delete references to the Ph.D. from this page. Moreover, it might be helpful to the reader seeking information to compare the J.D. to a similar professional degree such as Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) or other similar degrees. 76.212.15.230 16:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe your goal is to put down the J.D. by using guilt by association: The D.C. has a shady past, it's a prof. degree, therefore the J.D. is also questionable. I don't agree that there is a medical degree that is higher than the D.C. There's no reason for this article to mention chirpractic at all, and focusing on it isn't helpful. JJL 16:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not necessary to put down the J.D. in the Wikipedia entry, nor does an objective viewpoint threaten to do so; the point of mentioning the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) is that the process of training a J.D. is more comparable to the training of the D.C. than the Ph.D. And both the J.D. and the D.C. are designed to help students enter a profession other than higher education. Hence, mentioning the Ph.D. in the discussion only confuses the reader. The J.D. is not an academic degree and to make false comparisons will confuse the reader. In fact, many J.D.s who read the Wikipedia entry will also be confused into thinking they have earned the respect and status of making an original contribution to a discipline. (By the way, to millions of blue collar workers the D.C. is a respected medical professional.) Still, the J.D. and the D.C. are not doctorally-prepared for a career in higher education. Likewise, the Ph.D. should not pretend to practice law or medicine, and they generally don't do so. 76.212.15.230 17:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"In fact, many J.D.s who read the Wikipedia entry will also be confused into thinking they have earned the respect and status". OK, I officially believe that you're simply trolling to cause trouble. It is correct that the J.D. is a professional degree like the others, intended for practice, but as to higher education--the holders of professional degrees largely teach their own, in many cases with some help from specialized Ph.D.s. JJL 00:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To all participants in this great debate to come up with an objective description of the JD degree, first, I would like to say hello (courtesy, courtesy, =D); second, will someone please offer an explanation to why is it so important to know whether JD is a doctorate degree? Has it ever occured to anyone that there are evolutionary changes to a particular training prgram (i.e. college, professional grad school, etc.) in a discipline that are unique to that discipline alone? Take an imaginary scenario for example: in country A, where in the beginning there were only a handful of doctors and they faced a problem to train more doctors to face the rapidly rising demand, therefore they created an undergrad. level doctor degree in hope of meeting THAT specific social need. This is not really out of the realm of logic, is it not? MOST things (not everything, of course) happen for a reason, it is, therefore, important to step back to consider the reason why the US switched their undergrad. law degree to postgraduate. Furthermore, we must consider if that reason still matter today. For whatever historical reason undergrad. law degree was abandoned and came the postgrad. law degree, it might not be relevant anymore. What takes place here in this discussion is not a debate on whether JD should remain a postgrad. degree. J.D. is a postgrad. degree, this is indisputable fact, and it is a fact that will not change in the foreseeable future. I believe the exact issue here is whether JD is a doctorate degree, and I submit that discussion on this issue is really not beneficial to other wiki-users, this is because: one, the issue is a mind-trap, the question is phrased in a way that will lead to unnecessary quarrel; second, an answer to that question will be of no use to someone who genuinely is interested in learning an objective desciption of what a JD is.

Issue one, the question is not whether JD is a doctorate degree. Typically, it is reasonable to believe that "a name defines the thing." Thus, it is natural to say JD is a doctorate degree, because it is called "juris doctor." But is it right everytime that a name MUST defines the thing? This is controversial, and perhaps without an objective answer. However, for the moment, since most other degrees with "doctor" in their names are generally accepted by the public as "doctorate" of its respective disipline, then why not accept for a moment that, JD is indeed "doctorate." But is there no qualification to the title of "doctorate"? Are all "doctors" the same? And what is "the same" anyway? There is clearly a difference between a Ph.D in biology and a Juris Doctor besides that they are degrees of different discipline. In some countries, Juris Doctor is classified as a "taught program" of postgraduate professional degree in law. By contrast, a Ph.D in biology would be a "research program" of postgraduate degree in science. Let us visit our "question" again--"whether JD is a doctorate degree?" Isn't this question too broad in neglecting the difference between a taught program and a research program? Can it reasonable be said that JD is a "taught program professional doctorate" degree? It is possible, though I admit it still sounds like a self-laudation coming from the mouth of a JD holder, but sometimes, feelings must give way to reason, right? And of course, the issue is not over, one could clearly replace the previous question with another one: "Is a research doctorate more respectable, or reputable, or legitimate than a taught doctorate?" To this question, I submit that it is not necessary to make such comparison. Each discipline requires its practicer unique sets of skills. A scientist should be competent at carrying out his own scientific research, and a lawyer should be very good at identifying legal or social issues and offer a logically legal explanation to those issues identified. You see, these two disciplines ask from their practicers totally different type of skill and expertise. A scientist is best at learning his skills at doing research. A lawyer is best at learning his skills by tackling legal and social problems taught and provided by expereienced law professors, and in the process he is required to apply legal analytical skill that is very different than the analytical skill utilized by a scientist. My point is, although they both are within the same category of "fruit", but how does one compare an "apple" and an "orange" in terms of quality? Can we just accept that JD is unique? Can we also accept that research-Ph.D is unique? A JD is called JD for a historical reason. There are some rather...pigheaded people out there who insist that they are doctors, thinking that in doing so would increase their social status, but in reality, they are only selling themselves short contrary to their own original intention, because in their heads, they believe that a JD is not as good as a research Ph.D; that is just not true, because the two degrees are really two different things.

Issue two, I will keep this short; how is it beneficial to someone who wants to know what a JD is by reading that there is a debate about whether JD is a doctorate? What really is the point? Let's say I am a high school student who wants to be a lawyer, I would not care whether it is a doctorate or not, as long as it gets me admitted to the bar. So really? what good is this discussion? In conclusion, please just settle on that JD is a postgraduate professional law degree, it will get you into the US Bar and become a lawyer. Leave it to imagination whether JD holder should be a doctor or not, let people other than wiki-editors decide. Justicelilo 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The J.D. arises from a standardized curriculum; each student is stamped in a mill to pass the bar exam. The Ph.D. (and other research degrees) have a non-standard, individualized curriculum that culminates in the production of an original contribution of new knowledge. There are no similarities between the J.D. and the Ph.D.; to argue otherwise is to expose a lack of understanding of the doctoral process. The J.D. is not a doctorate (for academic purposes in higher education) because there is no variable length, non standardized, and individualized process that leads to unique expertise. Does this help you to understand the difference between the Ph.D. and other degrees? 76.212.15.230 17:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mister, read my whole post, please. The above comment aims to address the purpose of why someone would care if JD is a doctorate or not. Now before you answer that question, you already have jumped into the mode of offering an explanation why JD is or is not a doctorate. So, again, please read and disgest what I am trying to say. I offered you my thoughts, you will give me the courtesey to at least understand my thoughts. Finally, others might have already noticed, I am not offering an answer to the debate, I am merely focusing the issue a bit. Oh, and the "stamped in a mill" comment, I assume you mean that passing the bar exam is easy? Correct? Justicelilo 17:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I did answer this question indirectly: "second, will someone please offer an explanation to why is it so important to know whether JD is a doctorate degree?" Besides all the information about why J.D. does not arise from a doctoral process, the short answer is that some J.D.s want to command the respect and receive the academic pay commensurate with having earned a doctorate while teaching in the context of higher education. They deserve neither the respect nor pay associated with being a doctor in higher education. Millions of dollars could be saved in higher education by paying J.D.s at their true academic pay level. The answer to your second question is that "stamped in a mill" means that educating a J.D. is standardized: 'Oh, and the "stamped in a mill" comment, I assume you mean that passing the bar exam is easy?' The J.D. may be difficult and standardized; however, the Ph.D. is exceedingly difficult and non-standardized, and so the degrees are not comparable. 76.212.15.230 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and yes, I almost forgot. To those whose argument is based on JD not being the highest degree of that academic area, one must take the following factor into consideration: it is subjective whether students in a Doctor of Law (LL.D, or JSD, etc) program study the same thing as students in JD. One is more a study of subjects and issues closer to legal theories and jurispurdence (I heard), and the other is more toward the application and the practice of law. Thus, one can argue that JD and JSD are really two different programs on different "tech-trees". Of course, you can disagree, and this is again why the on-going discussion is truly nearly impossible to come up with an objective and fair answer. Justicelilo 16:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear readers: Wow, I have been watching this page again for a while. I am sorry that this has slipped back again. A long time ago I raised concerns similar to those raised by editor Justicelilo.

I would like to comment on the following commentary:

The J.D. arises from a standardized curriculum; each student is stamped in a mill to pass the bar exam. The Ph.D. (and other research degrees) have a non-standard, individualized curriculum that culminates in the production of an original contribution of new knowledge. There are no similarities between the J.D. and the Ph.D.; to argue otherwise is to expose a lack of understanding of the doctoral process.

I don't know what kind of law school or Ph.D. programs the writer was using for the basis of this commentary. I have a Juris Doctor degree and have not (yet) enrolled in any Ph.D. program. I can tell you that where I went to law school, the only thing standardized about the curriculum is the first year -- and it's standardized only in the sense that everyone takes the same courses for the first year. Courses in law school, however, are very unlike courses in college.

Law school (at least mine) is what I call "directed self-teaching." That is, there is very little actual teaching in the sense that I think people find in many non-legal academic fields. Professors do not stand in front of the class and "lecture" (with a few exceptions). Much of the learning occurs outside of class. For the most part we do not study textbooks.

The vast majority of my law school experience was directed at the development of the student's ability to make original contributions of new knowledge -- law school was very oriented toward legal research and discovery of new knowledge (at least mine was) through the analysis of verbatim reprints of the texts of literally thousands of court cases and the preparation of briefs on those cases. The main focus of study is on primary authority (statutes, regulations, and primarily court cases), not treatises or textbooks. Indeed, one of the critiques that people have for law schools like mine is that the experience is too theoretical, too research and "concept" oriented, and not enough geared toward the "teaching" of "practice skills". In my view, however, this research and conceptual orientation is a strength of a law school, not a weakness.

The idea that law school -- at least my school -- is a "mill" turning out people to pass the bar exam would be pretty laughable. Anyone who graduates from my school who thinks he or she is ready to take the bar exam of any state without taking an intensive bar review course is delusional. Almost all graduates of my law school take a bar review course immediately after graduation.

Maybe some other law schools are different.

I cannot compare law school to a Ph.D. program, since I haven't entered a Ph.D. program. Yours, Famspear 18:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing and synthesizing cases is not the contribution of new knowledge. Legal briefs are defined primarily by what was included, but the dissertation is largely measured by what was not included. Even a large book report is not comparable to a dissertation. 76.212.15.230 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Law students are in fixed length courses studying well-defined topics with other students while Ph.D. students are in variable length courses by themselves building or explaining theory. Both could be hard work, but only the latter forges a doctor of the discipline. 76.212.15.230 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 76.212.15.230: Sorry, but summarizing and synthesizing cases, and legal analysis in general, is very often the creation of new knowledge. To illustrate, I'll give a previous example, adapted from comments I made on this talk page a while back.

If legal research is not the creation of new knowledge, then please answer the following questions without creating new knowledge. The following is a typical set of real life legal questions that are timely as subjects of legal research (names and dates changed for confidentiality, of course).

Hypothetical #1: XYZ Corporation was created under the laws of the State of Texas, operating entirely inside the State of Texas. XYZ Corporation uses December 31st as its year end for all federal and state tax purposes. Under Texas law, a corporation's Texas corporate franchise tax report for, say, the accounting year 2002 (which would be report year 2003) is generally due May 15, 2003 (let's ignore extensions).

Suppose that XYZ Corporation files Chapter 7 bankruptcy in Federal court in Texas on September 20, 2002. As of May 15, 2006, the corporation's Chapter 7 bankruptcy case remains open, and is expected to remain open for several years (for whatever reason).

Question #1 (to be researched): Is XYZ Corporation (or its bankruptcy trustee) required to file a Texas corporate franchise tax report for its accounting year 2005 (report year 2006) no later than May 15, 2006 (ignoring extensions), when the company is still in Chapter 7 bankruptcy?

Hypothetical #2: Same facts as in Hypo 1, except that we have JKL Corporation filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy on November 3, 2005. Suppose it is now May 15, 2007. Under Texas law, a corporation's Texas corporate franchise tax report for the accounting year 2006 (report year 2007) is normally due May 15, 2007 (ignoring extensions). As of May 15, 2007, the corporation's Chapter 7 bankruptcy case remains open, and is expected to remain open for two to three more years (for whatever reason).

Question #2 (to be researched): Is JKL Corporation required to file a Texas corporate franchise tax report for the accounting year 2006 no later than May 15, 2007 (ignoring extensions)?

Now, to the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely no Federal or state statute, regulation, or case law, or any other primary authority, that even mentions the treatment of state franchise taxes (of Texas or any other state) in the two situations described above (with respect to what I am going to call, for lack of a better term, the hidden issues that are behind these hypotheticals), much less states that a state franchise tax return is (or is not) due in the factual situations given.

Also, there is to the best of my knowledge no existing secondary authority, in the form of any treatise or other scholarly work of any kind whatsover, that even mentions state franchise taxes in this context, much less tells us how they should be treated.

By the way, despite the fact that the two legal (tax) questions raised above are actually important in many corporate bankruptcies, and are very practical questions, and not merely theoretical ones, I know from personal experience that very few lawyers (even bankruptcy or tax specialists) actually know how to answer these questions.

So, how do you provide answers to the above questions without discovering or creating new knowledge? Yours, Famspear 18:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Obviously, I do not expect anyone to actually answer the above questions. Indeed, you cannot answer these questions without creating new knowledge. I am just trying to get someone to tell me how you would go about providing answers without first creating new knowledge, when there is no legal text (statute, case law, treatise, etc.) that tells you how to treat state franchise taxes in this situation.

A related question is: Does a Ph.D. holder in history do his or her historical research and publishing work without creating new knowledge? Yours, Famspear 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Everybody, please read anonymou's posts above, all of them. You will find a long tirade about the legfitimacy of law, AS A PROFESSION. He states that the only lawyers who teach are those 'who don't have the stomach to make a living about other people's misfortunes." As I have sai all along, this edit ward being launched by anonymous mhas NOTHING to do with academics or degrees, and everything to do with a visceral, vicious hatred anonymous has toward LAWYERS. Arguments about the niceties of prerequisites are therefore irrelevant: as he himself has stated above, he simply hates all lawyers, and the whole branch of human endeavour called law. Thus, his edits have been propaganda aimed at destroying law as a porfession or academic pursuit. Now, since I am not a lawyer or law student, and never have been, they can put all the lawyers at the bottom of the sea, as Shakespeare and Thomas More suggested, for all I care. However, that debate belongs somweher else, not on a page which I have striven to make descriptive of the JD degree itself.HarvardOxon 20:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Disappointingly, HarvardOxon continues to advance ad hominem and emotional arguments against contributors with whom s/he disagrees. In fact, his/her comments seem non sequitur to what we have been discussing here. Moreover, I would ask him/her if a spell check could be used before posting; all those mispellings are diminishing the credibility of what is being said and are distracting. Again the J.D. has no logical connection to the Ph.D. and should not be discussed on the same Wikipedia page; to do so just confuses readers with a false comparison between dissimilar degrees. Instead, I recommend that the J.D. be compared to similar degrees attempting to garner credibility for its holders, such as the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.). 76.212.15.230 21:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"the schools that teach the J.D. produce graduates as numerous as rabbits, and these students often don't really have the "stomach" to make a living from people's misfortunes, so they gravitate toward to teaching" - not me, but 76.212.15.230, who remains anonymous and only ever edits this article

"The J.D. is very similar to the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) in the sense that a profession is trying to appropriate legitimacy, and these two professions have attempted to gain legitimacy over approximately the same time."-- I don't claim Law is "illegitimate" (what a self-contradiction), or that the whole profession is built on "making a living on other people's misfortunes," it's 76.212.15.230 who has stated that as his motivation for these edits.HarvardOxon 21:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

HarvardOxon, let's get you some time on task. Are you arguing for or against deletion of the irrelevant Ph.D. section and references on this Wikipedia page? 76.212.15.230 21:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh anonymous nameless one, I have said from the begnning the article is fair, fulsome and complete without adding or subtracting to fit your personal vendetta against law as a pursuit or lawyers as people. Leave the page alone, and go way, that's what I'm saying.HarvardOxon 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As this discussion has proven, there is little support for leaving the irrelevant J.D. to Ph.D. comparisons relative to the needs of all Wikipedia users. Can we delete them now and block HarvardOxon from any further edits to this page? Or least block HarvardOxon temporarily, so the mischief of one obstructionist doesn't hold us all hostage. Thanks. 76.212.15.230 22:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, 76.212.15.230, the fact that you, one anonymous person, one obsessed editor hiding behind an IP who only deal siwth one article, is the only person consistently and energetically demanding this edit does not mean, megalomaniac, that all the world is in consensus with you.HarvardOxon 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, that settles it. There is currently no objection to deleting the erroneous Ph.D.-related section. I will request unprotection of this page. Thanks, Everybody. 76.212.15.230 23:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a lie, 76.212.15.230, a decption, from an anonymous user.HarvardOxon 00:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What are the objections to deleting the section that erroneously compares the J.D. to the Ph.D.? You've been name calling for hours. Does this mean you have nothing to say? Silence means consent. Do you intend to discuss this matter?76.212.15.230 00:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the main objection is to the claim that consensus of any sort has been reached. There is no consensus as to whether or not the comparison to the Ph.D. should be in there. By the way, if it's removed, I'm certain that some Ph.D. will soon add it back in. A well-crafted article will address it briefly and carefully. JJL 02:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You're not really raising an objection to removing the section, but an objection to ending the discussion on the removal. I think the portion of the section that discusses degrees beyond the J.D. could be added to another section, but the section is comprised of mostly erroneous comparisons between the J.D. and the Ph.D. Other thoughts? 76.212.15.230 03:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear editor IP76.212.15.230: Since you are taking the position above that "Silence means consent," may I infer from your silence (non-response to my questions) that you now understand why the assertion -- that legal research is not the "creation of new knowledge" -- is incorrect? Weren't my tax law hypotheticals just riveting? What, no?

I wasn't silent about the discussion topic. I read those hypotheticals; those would not be original contributions to new knowledge at the doctoral level. Do you think they are? Back to the discussion topic. Would you delete the entire section or rewrite it to remove the erroneous portions? 76.212.15.230 03:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I am deliberately not taking sides (at least not now) on the question of whether the large block of text that IP76.212.15.230 and HarvardOxon have been arguing about should be included or deleted. I just wanted to make a minor point. And good luck to all with the, uh, discussion. Famspear 03:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear user IP76.212.15.230: No, the answer is that you simply cannot "answer" the questions I posed without both (1) doing original research, and (2) creating new knowledge, in the sense in which you are thinking. My example was presented to illustrate that when you create knowledge that did not exist before, you've, well, created something new. Law libraries, and I suspect libraries for historical scholarship (I am not a historian), are examples of places full of law reviews and treatises containing the results (literally) tons (paper weighs a lot) of newly created knowledge.

Similarly, the offices of law firms all over the United States contain legal briefs and memoranda with the results of original research on a level of complexity that would astound most non-lawyers. Indeed, in the area of U.S. Federal taxation the complexity of the new knowledge that is being created is such that the United States Patent Office recognizes patents in connection with tax research (a practice, by the way, which some members of the Congress may be moving to stifle with legislation to stop the granting of such patents).

Your statement -- that generating the knowledge required to answer my tax questions would not be contributions "at the doctoral level" -- is actually correct. But that wasn't what I asked. My point is that to answer those apparently "simple" tax questions I posed, you must indeed create something new, something out of thin air, something that does not physically exist in any statute book, or in any court opinion, or in any regulation, or in any book or article or other legal text, or in the mind of any legal scholar who has not already researched these questions and created the answers. In this particular example, you must connect dots by creating lines that do not exist before you yourself draw those lines. And to do that, you have to first know that the dots exist, and you must identify the dots. You have to be able to see which dots are really dots. You must have the kind of knowledge that would allow you to know the dots exist without anyone pointing them out to you. You also would have to have the kind of knowledge that would allow you to recognize that lines need to be created between those dots. You also would need the kind of analytical ability that would allow you to determine how and where those lines need to be drawn.

The typical J.D. program does indeed have, as a primary function, the training of candidates to produce new, original knowledge. That's the thing that law students are studying to learn how to do every day.

In your defense, however, I must point out that there are indeed differences between a J.D. program and a Ph.D. program. For the sake of argument, let's posit that the very longest research paper produced by the typical J.D. candidate is nowhere nearly as long as the paper produced by a typical Ph.D. candidate (a point that I think may have already been raised somewhere on this page). Here, you could argue that in some sense the typical Juris Doctor program itself does not require the creation of new knowledge during law school as a requirement for obtaining the degree, whereas the typical Ph.D. program itself does require a Ph.D. candidate to produce new knowledge during the program before being awarded the degree. I suspect (without having been in a Ph.D. program) that this assessment would be more or less valid. So in that sense, a Ph.D. program requires more of its candidates than a J.D. program does of its candidates. This, I suspect, is something that distinguishes a J.D. program from a Ph.D. program.

Obviously, my commentary cannot be inserted into the article. I just hope this helps fellow editors in some way in thinking about the article. Yours, Famspear 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lawspear, you are right as rain. The point is (and I made this in a recent study for an E European government) is that in law it is actually most difficult to come up with anything 'new.' A novel argument or even solution is not new 'knowledge' in the same way that newness is judged in other fields. If one does research on how business people actually make decisions, this, and many similar questions, are not properly law.--Lawman15 06:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC) In regard to another comment regarding whether legal research generates new knowledge, that is, to questions which are not addressed by statute or prior decision, I would say no. One would only have an argument; only a court judgement might create the new rule. One might assemble analogous court cases etc., but this is not new knowledge. This is the reason that the JD is a 'better' degree for the field of law.

editing change request

"...Melbourne, Hong Kong's City University of Hong Kong, and the newly opened faculity of Law of the Chinese University of Hong Kong offer both first-entry and second-entry first professional degrees in law..." Why does it have to state that the Chinese U's school of law is "newly established?" This is an unnecessary qualification to be added. If CU school of law is qualifed in the said context, then is it necessary to mention the age of any university every time that unversity is mentioned? For example, "the 200 years old univesrity of La La land offers an XOXO program." Kinda weird if you ask me......Justicelilo 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The section comparing the Ph.D. with the J.D. is irrelevant to the Wikipedia entry, as the J.D. is a first professional degree such as the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.), M.D., or D.D.S. Please delete that entire section. 76.212.15.230 00:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Read this talk page. Anonymous ISP (with suspicious traces) is attempting to manipulate protect process for extreme POV.HarvardOxon 00:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}. Given that the page was protected only today for edit warring, it would be inappropriate to make edits such as this. Please contact User:John Reaves, who protected the page, if you wish to have it unprotected. CMummert · talk 02:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will contact User:John Reaves, as the user who requested protection seems to think they own the page and started to spaz out when necessary corrections were introduced. Unfortunately, the spazzing user is not an expert in this topic, so they have obstructed correction of the page. 76.212.15.230 03:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My doctorates are academic, and the dissertations published as actual books, by real publishers -- not vanity or microfilm. What exactly are the qualifications of an anonymous number that is apparently so firewalled it is behind at least 11 nodes? On what university faculty does 76-etc. serve as a tenured full professor? This is an ass who hates lawyers (and chiropractors, apparently), not somebody actually trying to advance the diffusion of knowledge. His expertise comes in the form of 50 edits in 3 days on a single set of paragraphs in one article because it is not derogatory enough in its statement that the law isn't a real pursuit. HarvardOxon 04:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are so well-educated and urbane, you should know how to argue a point without leveling ad hominem attacks. Now, I will ask you again to focus on the task at hand. 76.212.15.230 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this is the time when the bartender comes in between and say, "take it ouside." Justicelilo 05:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. I believe someone should stop adding in response in the middle of the block of text written by someone else. It is creatin confusion. If you want to respond, respond AFTER the previous author's signiture. Thank you. Justicelilo 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is how to "thread" a discussion. 76.212.13.178 14:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with both of Justicelilo's positions as stated in the two paragraphs above. Also, for the record (in case someone takes this dispute to ArbCom), I'll note that 76.212.15.230 appears to have just vandalized User:HarvardOxon's user page in violation of WP:POINT. --Coolcaesar 07:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted that and left a note for each of them about WP:CIVIL. CMummert · talk 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but do you have any input to the discussion? 76.212.13.178 14:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I originally came here to follow an editprotected tag. My general opinion is that a short paragraph that states that the JD is considered a terminal degree by various accreditation boards would be sufficient. The comparison is a very minor issue, and the space devoted to it right now is out of proportion to its importance. But I have no plans to edit the article; I just have it on my watchlist because I removed an editprotected tag yesterday. CMummert · talk 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I too think limiting the discussion to the J.D. degree is important. As for comparison with other the degrees, comparision to the Ph.D. is not accurate. The J.D. is a generic, standardized credential; students complete "x" amount of work to graduate. The Ph.D. is nonstandard and exceedingly difficult to complete. To compare them, as opposed to contrasting them, inflates the J.D. and diminishes the Ph.D. In fact, the scope of the training of the J.D. is finite, such as the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) and other professional degrees. In sum, it would be better to talk only about the J.D. and the limits thereto appertaining. 76.212.13.178 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Greeting again. I now begin to see Oxon's point regarding Mr. 76's perspective and purpose. Now from the above paragraph, I get a sense that Mr. 76 wants to end the discussion and settle on a simple, short, but non-encompassing description of the JD degree. I cannot say that I agree with the reasoning used by Mr. 76 to arrive at his submission. His reasoning that contrasting JD and Ph.D would "inflates the JD and diminishes the Ph.D." is dubious to say the least. Education is about what you learn, not what amount of work you do; the amount of work is only the mean and it is pointless if you do not see the end of it. Standardized or non-standardized work and years of completion are meaningless, if you do not learn the method of analytical skills the degree program requires you to learn in order to graduate. Again, I submit again that you cannot "compare apple with orange" although they are both fruits. I disagree with Mr. 76's reasoning. However, I see that a complete and unconditional conciliation is impossible. Thus, I suggest that we should move on to come up with a brief but non-encompassing description of the JD degree, and in coming up with that desciption, we shall avoid comparison with other degrees as much as possible. Justicelilo 16:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

PS I agree with Mummert above, "...that a short paragraph that states that the JD is considered a terminal degree by various accreditation boards would be sufficient. The comparison is a very minor issue, and the space devoted to it right now is out of proportion to its importance." Also, I have to suggest to edit a sentence again because someone has not been very courteous on this discussion page.

"...Melbourne, Hong Kong's City University of Hong Kong, and the newly opened faculity of Law of the Chinese University of Hong Kong offer both first-entry and second-entry first professional degrees in law..." Why does it have to state that the Chinese U's school of law is "newly established?" This is an unnecessary qualification to be added. If CU school of law is qualifed in the said context, then is it necessary to mention the age of any university every time that unversity is mentioned? For example, "the 200 years old univesrity of La La land offers an XOXO program."

Will someone pleas remove the protection tag? Justicelilo 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity of thought, let me see if I can agglomerate your points. We should limit the discussion of the J.D. degree to comparisons with similar degrees. The Ph.D. is an academic credential and bears no resemblence to the J.D., which is a professional credential, such as the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.), so comparing the legal profession to the medical profession should be included in the new J.D. page. Is that what you are saying? You've made some conflicting statements, so it is important to clarify. Thanks. 76.212.13.178 16:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of clarifying your statement, I must ask what meaning you have in mind when using the word, "limit", in your statement. Are you suggesting that I've suggested that we should limit to restrain from discussing JD by drawing comparisons to other degrees, or are you suggesting that I've suggested that we should limit to exclusively discuss the JD degree by drawing comparison with the other degrees? Anyway, my submission is that we should limit in the sense of restraining ourselves from comparing JD to ANY other degree. The proper apporach in crafting an objective description of the JD degree is to treat it as an unique entity. Call it what it is, "a postgraduate professional law degree which enables its holder to take the bar exam, permitted by ABA, for the purpose of becoming a lawyer in the United States." Now of course, others can accept, decline, or make change to my brief attempt at crafting a description I've just presented above. However, I believe it is possible to provide an objective and informational description of the JD degree without drawing reference or comparison to other degree, ANY other degree. Mr. 76, I hope now you are able to properly agglomerate my point. Justicelilo 16:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It is best to let the encyclopedic description of the J.D. degree stand alone, without references to other degrees; this avoids false comparisons to academic credentials. 76.212.13.178 17:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing Ph.D. References

What are the arguments for and against removing Ph.D. references from the J.D. definition page? 76.212.13.178 14:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for Removing Ph.D. References from J.D. Entry 76.212.13.178 16:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Comparisons between the Ph.D., which is an academic credential, and the J.D., which is an professional credential, such as the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.), are grossly misleading to Wikipedia users. 76.212.13.178 16:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(deleted paraphrase) I refuse to join your endeavors. Next time, please extend other wiki-users the courtesy of asking them for permission before you paraphrase or quote for your own purpose. Thank you. Justicelilo 17:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't get to edit other people's facilitation of the discussion... Readers understand the use of an unattributed word as information that implies no endorsement. Here is the statement that you deleted: '2. A user has suggested that the Wikipedia entry for the J.D. avoid comparison to "ANY" other degree.' 76.212.13.178 17:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. I don't get to "edit", you say? Well, I just did. And I believe your definition of "other people's facilitation of the discussion" is quite subjective. How is paraphrasing another person's statement to the possibility of taking the statement out of context not contradicting what you've just said regarding editing statements by other people? Did you not just "edited" my "facilitation of the discussion?" Curious contradiction indeed, would you mind to offer a justification? Justicelilo 17:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. You can add to the discussion, but not edit anoother's comments directly. Redacting an open discussion is typically the work of a novice. 76.212.13.178 17:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Arguments against Removing Ph.D. Reference from J.D. Entry 76.212.13.178 16:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1. One user strongly objects. 76.212.13.178 16:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Another user strongly objects to removing references to the PhD. Such references are helpful to users in comparing the two types of earned doctorate level degrees in the U.S. While the J.D. provides professional training, it certainly is also an academic credential. However, it is not a research doctorate as is the PhD. Thus, such a comparison provides users with helpful information.Twiceafter 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Relative to your point that the J.D. is "also an academic credential," in what way does law school incorporate a nonstandard, variable length process in which an original contribution to new knowledge in the discipline occurs? 76.212.13.178 17:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What the still-anonymous and utterly obsessed 76.212.13.178 continues to lie about is the simple fact that this article NEVER failed to make a distinction between reserach and taught doctorates, and he continues to fail to deal with the fact that it is bullshit to compare the JD with mere "phd candidates": universities do NOT grant full professorships to people with MA's, but they do to JDs. The fact that you must have a PhD to be granted full faculty position in most suibjects, but only a JD or an MD in their respective subjects, makes a statement about the comparison (which, despite 76.212.13.178 , was always accurately, fully and fairly contained in this artriucle before he ever showed up two days ago) perfectly legitimate. The great ancient universities of the Middle Ages had a faculty of arts, and faculties of law, medicine and theology: they have been perfectly legitimate fields of academic endeavour since the days of Gratian or Thomas Aquinas. It's a horrible, cruel world, 76.212.13.178, but yeah, that guy who merely spent three years at law school gets to be called "professor" on a constituent faculty of a real university and paid a full professor's salary, and that guy who never wrote a dissertation for his dentistry DDS gets to be called "doctor" by everybody and makes more money than God almighty tightening braces, and it's just too damn bad that not everybody in the world runs around calling you "Super-Extra-REAL-Doctor" because you happened to pick a field where you had to write a dissertation which, like the overwhelmingly vast majority of PhD dissertations (including the very best of them), will only ever be read by a defense committee because its "original contribution" to the field of knowledge is (like even the very best of them) so excruciatingly narrow almost nobody will ever actually care. That's life. I live with the same reality. So what? Move on.HarvardOxon 00:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think user HarvardOxon is missing the point. The PhD and the JD degrees are fundamentally different. As 76.212.13.178 correctly pointed out, the PhD is a terminal research degree that confers an academic qualification on its holder, namely certifies that he/she is a junior scholar, capable of conducting independent, original research in a certain field. The JD on the other hand is a preliminary professional qualification that enables its holder to take a bar examination and, if successful therein, later practice Law. Although it is true that a JD degree is normally sufficient to obtain a faculty appointment in most US Law Schools, the JD per se is not considered a doctoral qualification in academic circles. The US doctoral qualification equivalent to a PhD degree in the field of Law is actually the SJD degree, not a JD. 161.24.19.82 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm against removing the comparison. I think it's appropriate to point out that the Juris Doctor is a professional degree, and that the purpose of law school is to prepare candidates to take the bar exam. Also, it's important to remind readers that the PhD is a degree awarded to those who perform independent academic research. As to lawyers using the title doctor? I showed this article to a professor of mine (I'm in law school) and she laughed out loud at the very notion of lawyers referring to themselves that way. She is a Yale grad and went to Temple for law school, and she has yet to meet a lawyer in over 30 years in the field that has had the pomp to use a title other than Counsellor, Esquire, or Attorney at Law. BTW, I met a guy who flunked the bar on his first try and he is now working as a clerk in a small law office, and he has to have "J.D." on his busines card since he has no license to practice.(Wildcarrde (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

requesting change on protected page

"...Melbourne, Hong Kong's City University of Hong Kong, and the newly opened faculity of Law of the Chinese University of Hong Kong offer both first-entry and second-entry first professional degrees in law..." Why does it have to state that the Chinese U's school of law is "newly established?" This is an unnecessary qualification to be added. If CU school of law is qualifed in the said context, then is it necessary to mention the age of any university every time that unversity is mentioned? For example, "the 200 years old univesrity of La La land offers an XOXO program." Kinda weird if you ask me......

I suggest that it should be changed to: "A number of universities such as Australia's University of Melbourne, Hong Kong's Chinese University and City Univesrity offer both first-entry and second-entry first professional degrees in law..." Justicelilo 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}. This is a good suggestion, but I anticipate that the page will be unprotected relatively soon once the issue of JD/PhD comparison is settled, and then you will be able to make the change yourself. Admins are discouraged from making changes to pages that have been protected because of edit warring, so it wouldn't be appropriate for anyone to make the change right now. I'm afraid that your suggestion is being held up by the edit war. CMummert · talk 17:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

final resolution on the issue of comparison between JD and other degrees

In the introduction of the article (as stated below)has provided a fair and sufficient description of the JD degree. I suggest that we take out the section of "The relationship of the J.D. to the Ph.D., and degrees beyond the J.D" completely, and then add a short sentence in the "title" section to address the JD/Ph.D situation.

(introduction)---here for reference, no change intended "In the United States, it is a first professional degree, usually earned after three years of full-time (four years of part-time) study after earning a bachelor's degree. One of the main purposes of the degree is to provide the professional training for those who wish to become lawyers. The J.D. (or its equivalent) is the degree required for admission to the bar in nearly all U.S. state and territorial jurisdictions.[1] (Some U.S. law schools award the first professional degree in law using the English terms Doctor of Law or Doctor of Jurisprudence rather than the Latin term Juris Doctor.)"

(the edit suggested to the section of "title")

"Licensed attorneys in the United States may append a variety of titles to their names, most of which are intended to convey that the person is licensed to practice law in at least one jurisdiction. "Attorney," "attorney-at-law," "Esquire" ("Esq."), "lawyer," and "J.D." are all generally acceptable titles that an attorney may use. However, "J.D." may be used by anyone who has received the degree from a law school, regardless of whether or not licensed to practice law. Those who are not admitted to practice law, but nonetheless represent or imply they are an attorney, may be subject to penalties for the unauthorized practice of law or impersonating a lawyer, both of which are criminal offenses in many jurisdictions.

The Juris Doctor is a postgraduate degree and may be regarded as a "doctorate degree of taught program", in contrast to a "doctorate degree of research program". Few U.S. attorneys who hold the J.D. use the title "Doctor", a term reserved mostly to physicians or a holder of a doctorate degree of a research program. One possible reason for this is that former rules of professional conduct prohibited self-laudation. The ABA, and many state ethics committees, now permit anyone holding a J.D. degree to use the title of Doctor (ABA Informal Opinion 1152).[1] Some attorneys do use the title when they are testifying as expert witnesses. One should noted, however, that J.D. is different from Ph.D in terms of substance (of things learned) and form (of how the program is organized)."

Justicelilo 17:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your suggested edits demonstrate a sound understanding of the issue: A J.D. is a doctoral degree and is a professional degree. Too bad it didn't make it into the current article. There is so much abuse in this article by someone who is hell-bent on convincing us that an LL.B.=J.D. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing the section, but what sentence do you suggest in the title section? The J.D. is a professional degree, such as the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.), so it has no relationship to the Ph.D. 76.212.13.178 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Duh, I see this now. Cool. This is a good start. Let me see if I can tweak this last sentence a little bit. 76.212.13.178 22:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the ABA says this and that, but just because somebody promulgates baloney does mean that Universities or anybody else is obligated to eat it. The J.D. is not a doctoral qualification in higher education; in reality, the J.D. holder is roughly equivalent to a Ph.D. student who has passed comprehensive exams and is in the process of proposing a dissertation topic. In sum, please stop posting these silly, self-serving promulgations by the ABA... 76.212.13.178 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. I myself do not endorse the view that JD holder should refer himself/herself as doctor, almost as bad is someone referring himself as "esquire". Nonetheless, our duty owed to the wiki community is to present unbiased view. The reason the ABA comment on doctor surfaces in my edit is simply because someone has pointed out that an ABA decision is relevant to the subject matter at hand. Whether the reader agrees with the decision or not is strictly his own business. what is important is that we present objective facts, nothing more or less than what is relevant. Justicelilo 00:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I stumbled onto the J.D. page recently and saw that it was edit protected. All of this over a J.D./Ph.D. comparison? I see no logical reason for comparing the degrees. What does a comparison between two unrelated degrees accomplish? I hardly think that it is informative. In addition, I read above some debate over the use of the "Doctor" title. Aside from my physician, I don't reference anyone as "Dr.", certainly not Ph.D.'s or J.D.'s. To say that any one group is more entitled to the "Dr." title use is both inaccurate and POV. Sawagner201 20:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Sawagner201

You've missed an important point. The context is higher education; only Ph.D.s (and similar degrees requiring a dissertation) have completed a doctoral process and have earned the right to be called "Doctor". Like, the J.D., M.D., is not a doctor of the university. 76.212.13.178 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The "right" to be called doctor? You must be kidding. How does a dissertation and a "doctoral process" necessarily lead to earning a new "right" of a doctoral title? In addition, in my humble opinion, I think that anyone outside of the medical profession is just a bit silly for using the "Dr" title, including Ph.D's; All doctoral degree holders, however, are certainly entitled to the use if they are so inclined. Sawagner201 22:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr./Ms. Sawagener, your point had been raised by others numerous times before. In fact, I raised a similar point earlier. I am not accusing you of anything, but if you do not have any new idea to say, it is better not to enter this "messy affair." The more people join in, the more it seems like this is a "controversial" topic, while it is becoming clear that this discussion does not deserve our attention. (sincerely) Justicelilo 00:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am about to implement the change as stated in the "final resolution"

This serves as a simple notice. Justicelilo 01:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

updating, change implimented. Justicelilo 07:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess sincee you and the anonymous IP have agreed, that somehow counts as "consensus" to be imposed on everybody else. How nice. In fact, you haven't solved anything, just ignored the issue, making Wikpedia less informative for the sake of satisfying an anonymous number who apparently cannot stand the fact that anyone who holds a degree in any subject but his own is actually treated like an academic. Once again, the more psychotically obsessed someone is, the more likely they will steer Wiki into being written in a way that they can run around citing it as "proof" of how right they are. In the meanitime, I have re-added an absolutely incontrovertible fact. Please, Justicelilo, remove that too, and feel free to add in its place the "consensus" statement that anonymous IP has given us that all lawyers are "people who have the stomach to make their living off the sufferings of others."HarvardOxon 13:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. If you've observed the exchanges between Mr. 76 and me, you would have realized that he and I do not agree. His position as he has stated, "The J.D. is not a doctoral qualification in higher education," while I have little preference either way. You are correct that I have no "solved anything," if by "anything" you mean the debate of whether JD is, or should be, regarded as a "doctorate" degree. However, any answer provided to solve that problem inevitably is subjective, thus creating further unnecessary controversey. I disagree with your point regarding the change I have implimented has made Wikipedia less informative. Wikipedia has its limitation. Are we to expect a novice in rocket science to be able to learn how to make a rocket by reading an article on wikipedia? No. There is a limitation to wikipedia, and that some information, however relevant, should be restricted from being addressed on wikipedia. This is one of those instances where we should excercise that restrain, when the potential gain of learning in detail about JD/Ph.D debate clearly has become distractive and perhaps harmful to the main purpose behind the creation of the JD article; that main purpose is to provide an unbiased information on the subject matter addressed. Now if you've noticed, in the JD article, there is absolutely nowhere in the article that says JD is NOT a doctorate degree; thus, your argument that Mr. 76 will go around citing this article as proof that JD is not doctorate may not be appropriate. I would like to believe that per one psychotic wiki-user around, there are 10 exceptional objective wiki-users to correct inproperness where it arises.

A further point, it is true that Mr. 76 has said that lawyers are "people who have the stomach to make their living off the sufferings of others," however, his subjective comment is not stated in the JD article, therefore it is irrelevant to the issue at hands. Everyone is entitled to his opinion, while the right of 1st Amendment is not without qualification, I believe Mr. 76's comment has not crossed that threashold. And in case you are under the impression that there is some sort of conspiracy between Mr. 76 and I, then I suggest that you should reconsider your proposition since we are not. Justicelilo 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. regarding your recent edit, "The J.D. is also a credential sufficient for appointment to a regular position as a full, tenured professor on the faculties of universities, free-standing law schools and free-standing medical schools," I regard it as a fair objective comment. Although, would you mind to elaborate on the connection between JD and tenured professor in medical school? Justicelilo 14:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

PS2. If it is any consolation, perhaps you can create a link to a webpage that is about the discussion between JD and PhD, and then put a citation near the relevant point made in the main article. Justicelilo 14:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Justicelilo's change and oppose HarvardOxon's position. Justicelilo is correct to state that any detailed comparison between the JD and Ph.D will be inevitably subjective, and such comparison would be a distracting tangent from the main topic of the article. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research (WP:NOR), nor an indiscriminate collection of random information (WP:NOT). --Coolcaesar 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I also concur with Justicelilo. Wikiant 20:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This talk has been dominated by a somewhat childish debate between the merits of the PhD and JD degrees. The relevant point however is not which degree is "better", more prestigious, or harder to get, but rather to acknowledge that the PhD and the JD degrees are fundamentally different and have different purposes, the former being a research degree whereas the latter is a professional qualification. Because they are fundamentally different, the two degrees are not directly comparable and any such comparison, if included in the JD article, would be distractive and off-topic. It makes sense however to compare the JD to other Law degrees, be it U.S research law degrees like the SJD, higher doctorates like the LLD, or alternative first professional Law degrees in other countries, especially the LLB in Commonwealth jurisdictions. Toeplitz 12:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Exactly. But I would add that the only comparison to a J.D. is another graduate professional degree. This whole issue is illustrative of a fundamental difference in the legal education in the U.S. vs. most of the rest of the world: i.e. the U.S. has chosen to make the qualifying degree a professional degree, while most other jurisdictions require an academic degree (i.e. the LL.B.). A lack of understanding of this demonstrates a lack of study of why the U.S. created the J.D. program in the first place. Any LL.B. student who is unconvinced (particularly a European one), should try having a conversation about legal history, theory and philosophy with a U.S. J.D. graduate--the conversation would go nowhere! Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, but Once again Mr. Zoticogrillo Sir, You seem to be a bit mis- informed... Do you hold a UK or other LL.B.? As I said below and before in these pages, , I hold the LL.B.-Honours (UK), JD(US), PhD (US), LLM(US). All from accredited and well- regarded universities. Forgive me sir, but you simply do not know what you are saying in this regard... I did not study any "philosophy" at my LLB in the UK. I have even taught there (UK) as well as here presently, in an ABA Law School here. I do not know here you are getting all this information about UK Law degrees? The only philosophy course taught in most LLB degrees in the UK is "Jurisprudence" which is also taught in most US law school as an elective, as in the UK. Obviously, the US and UK law degrees do differ to some extent, but the CORE subjects are the same significant legal topics, plus a few more such as EU Law which is now a core requirement. Similar perhaps, like the study of UCC, in US law schools, but in the UK. The LLB and JD contains the same degree requirements, all the ABA changed was the name of the degree in the 1970's. The ABA even say this, and admit this. Many LLB holders, were simply GIVEN the JD, when the change occured... There are many of these converts that actually did this, and some did not. You are highly mis-informed. Sir, I REALLY "earned" my PhD. It was TWICE as difficult, stricter and demanding than the three other Law degrees I possess... Do not kid yourself. As one having all of these, I tell you that the JD IS NOT doctorate degree, just ask any JD/PhD or LLB/LLM/PhD. Anyone may want to think whatever they desire, sir, but the Academic and Professional communities worldwide do not agree with you. Respecfully. <TEMPLEBARRISTER>—Preceding TEMPLEBARRISTER comment added by 68.209.102.19 (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's Dr. to you! just kidding. Interesting opinion--thank you for sharing. Would love to chat about it over coffee (in fact, it seems you have a rich background and it would be really engaging to chat with you). But since we're not conversing, but trying to create an article, what would be most useful is for you to provide us with some citations of your ideas so that we can use them to enrich this article. Unfortunately, personal experience doesn't meet the wiki regs on verifiability. I know that learning about wikipedia can be time consuming, but please, let this not be the last we hear from you! Your contributions are warmly welcome. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reponse. I like your style... You are absolutely correct. I will prepare such a "citable and referenced" response in the near days to come. However, just keep in mind that even ALL of the jobs requirments posted by the federal governement for federal attorney's or (legal kindred jobs), which on any given day can be verified by just browsing the official federal jobs website (www.USAJOBS.com) state the following for most openings: 1) GS9 level-JD or LLB. 2) GS11 Level- LLM or other masters, GS11-13, PhD or other doctorate. Therefore, 1) It appears that the US Dept. of Labour and the Federal governement, DOES NOT consider the JD a "doctorate." If they did, then why do they differentiate btween the two at different levels? The Department of Education and Labour, does the same. Please, go see it for your self. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pretty much the premier scholastic job & educational opportuniy journal, is OFTEN full of universities listings where the university job in question (except in law schools, of course), is asking for a PhD, SJD/JSD, or LLD or other doctorate, for fullfillment of job requirements, and many of these states, that JD is not considered doctorate for such purpope... 2) It is however, very clear that the JD = LLB, and vice versa! More over, the National Conference on Bar Examiners (www.NCBE.org), as you may know, publishes various books on state Bars, Bar Admssions, and Law School and degrees... Again, please note that on the Book on Bar Admissions, ALL jurisdictions require Bar candidates either the LLB or the JD!! * P L E A S E !!! Review it yourself!! Thus and again, this does not only demonstrate that the LLB = JD, but more significant, in this regard, is that the required courses and prerequites are the same if not VERY similar!! Just look at the District of Columbia Rules of Admissions, Rule 46, for one, as I quite familiar with that jurisdiction... As already said, the names and titles of these degree are nothing but nomencloture, as it were, in many UK, AUS, NZ,ans Scottish universities for example, offer various "graduate" bachelor's degrees that require applicants to already hold an initial undergradute degree. Again, as many of us have already mentioned, Examples of this includes the degree of "Bachelor" of Civil Law at Oxford (of equal ranking to an LL.M. everywhere in the world, including NY, DC, CA, etc.)... This is one of the MOST prestigious degrees in Law in the World! Civil or Common! In years past, the Cambridge LLB was actually equal to an LLM. Today it is. Last, please note that the Faculty academic listing for many of the TOP law schools in the US, include many if not a majority in some, of LLB's who are still holding that degree and refused to convert to the JD, and of those who did, as well as many who are considered legal experts in their field and major legal publicists... By the by, scores of lawyers, judges, government officials, and past legal luminaries, who still hold or held the PhD. I personally know a few of these as I write... You do not really think that Prosser, Calamari, McCormick, and Perillo, held JDs do you? This was quite a long time ago! This is just to commence... Cheers! <TEMPLEBARRISTER>—Preceding TEMPLEBARRISTER comment added by 68.209.102.19 (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The department of labor and other government departments are not the same as universities, and it is the universities that control academia. In the case of the law degree in the U.S. the universities share this role with the A.B.A. The U.S. government has not said that the J.D. is not a doctorate anyways. The GS ranking might put the J.D. in a different category than the Ph.D. for a different reason. The Ph.D. is different from the J.D. anyways. Note that the LL.B. is not sufficient for admittance to the bar in common law jurisdictions outside the U.S.--it must be followed by a professional course and/or an apprenticeship (or traineeship or pupilage or whatever you want to call it). The LL.B. from an institution outside of the U.S. is not an acceptable substitute for the J.D. in most U.S. states (in fact only two allow it, and only under special conditions). The fact that some UK institutions require other university coursework before entering the LL.B. does not mean that all, or even most, do. In fact, in many of the most reputable schools (such as LSE) all that is required is a secondary education. Even Canada doesn't require a full degree, just a couple of years. You are correct that the LL.B. used to be common among top legal scholars in the U.S., and this is because Yale (a very conservative institution) for many years was the only school to offer the degree, and of course many of the best legal scholars went to Yale (but not all, not by a long shot). Thank you for the substantive information. However, there still remains the clear statements made by universities, the department of education and the individuals who created the degree which contradict your assertions. It would be most helpful if you confront those first, since they are very authoritative sources. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sir, it appears that you are confusing admission to the Bar with recognition and acceptance of the degree either as a Professional or academic degree. First, you CANNOT compare the feeble and weak US public secondary education (high school), and the Eurpoean Hard core (gymnasium system) of education. Thus, the entry requirement of "A" level requirements are quite advanced and quite hard... Thus, in many countries, degree candidates are more sufficiently prepared to undertake degree studies, thereafter. Many Universities in the UK, Germany, or other EU nations, and in fact how about Singaporee, will not accept a student to study even for an LLB, unless they have some degree... I actually know a couple of individuals who were rejected to various under the UK's UCCA scheme. UKENT, East Anglia, Durham, Nottingham, and ULondon actually evaluate the candiadates from the US first! Oxbridge will not even considere without one! As you do not know, I am an Oxford Grad, sir, 1992. Also, even in other common law coutries that do have or converted to the JD, they STILL must go through the "Article" system, and are not admitted by a single examination either!! Not in AUS, CAN, or HK!!! Which are the only ones at the moment... You seem to speak with some semblance of authority, but yet you have not revealed whether you assert it first hand. I DO! I have earned all of these. Again I ask, have you? You speak often of LSE (your favourite, I suppose), a constituent college of the University of London but, you seem to think you know ALL information by brochure, but not first hand. Perhaps you may have, but it does not appear so... As you may know, the admission to practise process of the US is different than that of th UK and most countries in the world. In the UK, although there used to be practise exams, they have all been phase out by 1999. The US is one of the very few nations, that admits lawyers to practise based soley upon a performanceof a single exam, albeit a rigorous one,(again, I really do know), and no professional training whatsoever. Even Germany, where the the "Staatsexaamens" are very hard (many say harder than US Bar exams), a period of apprentiseship is customary and in order, and I am not talking about some short summer internship either, but a long period of Articles, as it were. This has been questioned for sometime... I assure you that like me, you will not be allowed to practise in the UK or Carribbean, or any Common Law country with a JD alone. Even with one, you will still need some form apprenticeship... I "clerked" both in the US and UK, as well as Belize... It is not that the LLB is inadequate for professional entry, is that in THE REST OF THE WORLD, including Canada, they believe that one learns th practise of law with other lawyers, or "Reading at the Bar," but not through a maze- like exam that has more to do with memory, and "gamesmanship" rather than actual legal analysis, case management, and that his why the NCBE has now added the MEE and MPE, so that at least some real leal analysis can be more uniformed and less arbitrary, at the least. Some combined both methods such Switzerland and Italy. It has nothing to do with either the JD as a doctorate or law degree, or LLB as another professional entry degree... Recently Franklin Pierce Law Center, in NH, has initiated an experimental programme whereby law graduates do not have to take a Bar Exam, rather by coursework and training only, and they are exempt, does this mean that they need more training because their JD is not sufficient? Sham argument indeed! Moreover, many former LLBs and now JDs, are and have been admitted to the Wisconsin Bar by "diploma priviledge" only. Again, nothing to do with the type of degree... Sir, I am disappointed. I have been teaching graduate school inetrnational economics, econometrics, quantitative methods, managerial economics, etc (by virtue of my PhD) for 20 years, I have been Academic Dean of TWO US Universities, and taught in graduate schools and law schools in the US, UK, and Switzerland. Although at the moment I serve as a principal tax analyst & counsel for a major US company, I still teach Law School... Therefore, I speak from a basis of knowledge and experience as well. You ask for reference and citations, but you offer none yourself. It is often said in Academia that althought the burden of proof rest on the proponent, it later shifts to the challenger, if he asserts a counter - argument arising from a claim he himself has not proven. This was taught to me /us by Dr. Daniel M. Day and others. This is "ip se dixit." In other words, it is so, because you say it is, until others can proof it is not, and thus, I say it is... It appears that you are entrenched in your believes that what you say is "The Word," because you write the article. Others have already mentioned this berore in this pages... Yesterday, I offered the NCBE - ABA book, and still you say that in only a couple of states, they admit the LLB? Again, it appears that you have not reviewed it. You seem to be entrenched in that you are a "Doctor," and if so you wish so you are Dr. Zoticogrillo... It seems like that is what you want to believe. Once in Florida, I saw a lawyer call him self Doctor in front of Judge Ku, in a Session the Circuit Court, and he quicky put a stop to that non- sense... Hence, I guess that you may believe whatever you want to believe... By the way, as we don't know each other personally, so that you do not confuse me with one of these individuals that say in Wikipedia that thay have this degree or that credential... You are welcome to inquire about mine through Wikipedia, if you also reveal yours. I protect my identity as you do... I have asked some of my IBA- Harvard "LLB" friends(who did not convert to the JD) to take a look at your comments and your article, and to examine the accuracy and the validity of your own assertions... Thus, I leave to your own self- reenforced design, which tends to go only in the direction of its own affirmation. Sir, this is not scholarly thinking, as one of my PhD core faculty, Dr. Felippe Santiago of Johns Hopkins used to say to me when I was doing my own PhD. Mr. Zoticogrillo, Sir, are you familiar with Cicero's De Oratore? or perhaps the works of Jung, Marlowe or Focault? If perhaps you are, then you know what I am referring to... This diminishes you own endeavour in this article... I leave you to your madness and I shall proceed with mine, as Edmund Kean once said, as it appears that little or nothing will come of it... Respectfully again - Many Thanks & Good luck.-- [3]] 66.181.4.150 (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[TEMPLEBARRISTER]66.181.4.150

Wow, it'll take me awhile to read that. But just let me say really quickly that this is not my article, and I think it's in pretty poor condition. I have been working on editing the article though and you can read a draft here. I've tried not to say anything that cannot be supported by credible/authoritative sources. Again, your argument is not with me, but with those sources. I have not synthesised their statements, but have only cited to their literal meaning. I'm not sure I believe anything you say about yourself, because the way you write is kinda crazy. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

JSD/SJD

"What is there", JJL, is factually incorrect. Not every law school has an LL.M. program (some only go as far as the J.D.). To earn the LL.M. one must have the J.D. (or a foreign equivalent). To earn the S.J.D. one must have the LL.M. Check out the requirements for these degrees at any reputable American law school. Further, check out law school faculties: Harvard, for instance, as a pretty good example, has 204 faculty members in its law school, of whom 8 earned an S.J.D., and 4 an LL.M. -- for a total of 12 with degrees beyond the J.D., or 6 percent of the faculty. Compare that with the ratio of Ph.D.'s to non-Ph.D.'s on the faculty of havard's grad schools of English, History, Economics, etc., and you'll see the ratio is reversed. harvard's Law School is one of the most prestigious in the US and its faculty is as highly qualified as you will get anyplace. The same facts will be found at any good law school or university. Hence, the S.J.D. is indeed very rare, even on law school faculties.HarvardOxon 00:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The page didn't say that every law school offers the LL.M. You are once again using a straw man ("straw page") argument, making things up that were never there and then claiming they were wrong. It's incorrect that one always needs the LL.M. to obtain the J.S.D.; I found counterexamples at the first two JSD programs I found (Stanford and Columbia), as detailed here [4]. I don't think 6% is "very rare" but no one disputed that it's rare. The rarity issue is clearly OR, as your comments and calculations above indicate, and unnecessary, so I removed it. Please consult WP:OWN, unless you're simply a Harvard undergrad. trolling for fun. JJL 01:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not a "troll," I want things correct. Read bthe whole damn page, please, before you give me a line of crap. The JSM and the LLM are the same degree,m for god's sake, just expressed using two different Latin phrases, Legum magister vs. Juris Scientiae Magister. As for Columbia, read the whole set of pages: the LL.M> is earned either on its own, or in cursu toward the SJD, just as one can either earn an MA independently or the MA on the way to the PhD : many PhD programs don't say you "need an MA to apply" because you start the program after the bachelor's and get the MA along the way. What I am fed up with on Wiki is not MY need to be right, but the constant re-editing of artticles by people to reduce the factual information in them, making them wrong. If you don't know what the hell you;re talking about, you should keep your mits off an article, and the crap thrown about by 76 and others like him have simply been incorrect, wrong, unfactual. The OR business is also bull, thats not what wiki means by OR. Finally, 5 percent is s statistically significant difference, it is not statistically beyond "rare" when applied in a population: the term 'significant' is being used in two completely different sense. If 95 percent of English profs have a PhD, and only 5 perecnt have an Oxbridge LittD, then the LittD is in fact rare, yeah.HarvardOxon 01:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I replied where you posted this on my user talk page: [5]. I'd prefer to keep it here. In summary, you're wrong and tiring. JJL 02:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The line stating that Ph.Ds in Law are not conferred in the United States is flatly incorrect. While it is rare, there are universities, notably Tulane University, that offer a Ph.D.

Can you provide a link? I don't see that here [6] (which does show the SJD). JJL 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be on the site, but it is definitely awarded and is included in the TLS Faces book next to the names of students pursuing the Ph.D, which also lists SJD students.

Recent change regarding LL.B by 192.88.165.35 now gone, reverting back to previous version by justicelilo

Let's not substitute the Ph.D/J.D. debate with a JD/LL.B debate.

Edit 1: "Nevertheless, the J.D. is simply a renaming of the program of study which was previously called the LL.B (and which is still called the LL.B in most other countries outside the U.S.) rather than a new program of study. For this reason, individuals who hold an American LL.B can request a re-issue of their law degree re-titled with J.D. for a nominal administrative fee if they choose to do so."

whether JD is "simply" LL.B is subjective, and not beneficial to furthering the purpose of providing a simple and objective description of a JD program.

2: "The Juris Doctor is a postgraduate basic first professional degree program in law which has chosen to use the title of "doctor" in its name. In the U.S. many professions (including for example Chiropractic, podiatry, physical therapy, etc.) have decided to use the name "doctor" in the title of their basic first professional degrees. Despite the use of the name "doctor", all these degrees including the law degree, are…"

This is an over-simplified statement mixed with subjective opinions. The previous version which this paragraph of text has replaced is more objective and less controversial.

3: "(However, holders of an LL.B from certain foreign universities may be entitled to write a state's bar exam witbout the need for an LL.M)"

This is a perfectly true statement, however, it belongs to the LL.B wiki-page, not the JD page.

minor note to 192.88.165.35, due to the recent "messy affair" that happened on this page, it might be wise to express what you are about to edit on the discussion page, rather than recklessly implementing your changes, which might cause another needless controversey. Thank you. (sincerely) Justicelilo 06:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Justicelilo's removal of the LL.B comparison to J.D.'s. It is not relevant here. There are severe methodological problems with most LL.B. programs (which is why American and British lawyers dominate the global legal services industry) but this article is not the place to tackle that subject. --Coolcaesar 22:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

British lawyers hold the LL.B. or the Oxbridge B.A. coolcaesar. They do not hold the J.D. The reason (in my opinion) why some law schools in Japan and Canada have adopted the J.D. is the lack of cultural self-confidence and vassal-state mentality of those countries in their relations with the United States. The U.K. and Ireland have been served well by the LL.B. for centuries and will, in all probability, never change to a J.D.

The J.D. as a "doctorate"

I am not restoring all changes but re-inserting the paragraph explaining the facts of the titling of the law degree J.D. It is all fact not opinion and needs to be there and is supported by a cite to the Dept of Education statement so not my own opinion. For people who are not Americans I feel the following facts are important:

1. J.D. is a "doctorate" simply because they have chosen to call it that just like in other professions in the U.S.

2. Calling first professional degrees "doctorates" is an American practice rarely used in other countries. Most other countries have first or second bachelors or masters degrees in these subjects

3. The U.S. Dept of Education has stated J.D. and other "professional doctorates" are not research doctorates and not equivalent to the Ph.D. This is their opinion not mine.

While I support perhaps editting this statement if it can be written better, please do not remove it entirely again as these facts are important for people to know who are not familiar with U.S. practices.

As for LL.B vs J.D. I believe it is fair to say that these are equivalent degrees. But if you Americans want to insist it is different or imply it is "superior" then I'm not going to fight over that but the clarification of the J.D. as a "professional doctorate" and how/why it can be called a "doctorate" stays. 192.88.165.35 18:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Objective facts can be used to support a subjective opinion. What we are trying to do here is to provide an uncontroversial description of the JD degree. By adding the new statements, you've procured another chance for a needless debate on JD's usage of the doctor title again. I say "again", because this has happened before, please scroll up and read all the arguemnts related to it. Now to address your points:

1. J.D. is a "doctorate" simply because they have chosen to call it that just like in other professions in the U.S.

No problem with the statement overall, but the phrase "simply because they have chosen to call it..." has a negative tone to it. However, the article already provides information similar to what you've added.

2. Calling first professional degrees "doctorates" is an American practice rarely used in other countries. Most other countries have first or second bachelors or masters degrees in these subjects

Japan, too, has introduced the JD degree. You miss the point that while the degree is the first in that subject, it is also the terminal degree, functionally.--Lawman15 07:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is where it gets needlessly controversial. Lawyers who call themselves doctors are considered to be pretentious. It is not only rarely practiced in other countries, but also within the US as well. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to prove that the use of the doctor title is an "american practice", because it is impossible to round up all the US lawyers and to get them to admit that they have used the doctor title before. Furthermore, this is not helpful to the goal mentioned above: to provide an uncontroversial description of the JD degree.

3. The U.S. Dept of Education has stated J.D. and other "professional doctorates" are not research doctorates and not equivalent to the Ph.D. This is their opinion not mine.

this point is not disputed. and it is also stated in the paragraphs that are already in the article. However, in choosing to present a piece of information, you have already gone through a selective process of reasoning which deems which piece of information as worthy to present for your purpose. In selectively picking which fact/opinion/information to present or express, you have practically expressed your opinion. Thus, whether a message is objective or not is not decided by its sender, but by its recievers. We can only strive to achieve objectivity with the best intention possible.

4. The titling of first professional degrees as "doctorates" is mostly an American practice that is not utilized in most other countries. In many other countries, the equivalent degree is often a bachelor's (even if it is a second bachelors degree) or master's degree. Many countries award doctorates only for academic research degrees.

Nothing here is unknown. You are correct that LL.Bs are common, however, if you have read this article carefully enough, you would notice that postgraudate professional law degree is quite common in other countries across the globe. And I will not address other parts of your statement due to the lack of necessity.

5. As for LL.B vs J.D. I believe it is fair to say that these are equivalent degrees. But if you Americans want to insist it is different or imply it is "superior" then I'm not going to fight over that but the clarification of the J.D. as a "professional doctorate" and how/why it can be called a "doctorate" stays.

Again, the current version exists as it is to avoid giving off an impression that Americans are making JD more superior to LL.Bs. I refer you back to the article: "U.S. attorneys who hold the J.D. do not often use the title "doctor", a term reserved by custom mostly to physicians (who, like lawyers, hold professional doctorate degrees) or a holder of an academic doctorate of a research program, usually a Ph.D. One explanation for the restraintive behavior might be that the former rules of professional conduct prohibited self-laudation."

I am going to leave your paragraphs in the article for a few hours, but I do have the intention of reverting the article back to its previous form. Justicelilo 19:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you remove it, then I or others will reinsert it. I think that the addition by 192.88.165.35 is fine. The paragraph doesn't challenge or claim that the J.D. is not a doctorate, it merely states the context in which it is a doctorate in a clear and objective way and let's people decide for themselves.

There's nothing factually incorrect (which you Justicello have admitted above) about the paragraph. Does it somehow "lessen" the claim that the J.D. is a "doctorate" in some way. I guess you could say that if you people want to claim the J.D. is equivalent to a research Ph.D degree or if you want to claim that the J.D. is superior to other first professional degree that don't pretentously call themselves "doctorates". That paragraph obviously challenges those claims explicitly with facts.

But without the paragraph, the article is allowed to state that the J.D. is a "doctorate degree of taught program" which assumes of course that the J.D. is a "doctorate" degree at all. A lot of people don't think so. A lot of people consider it a professional degree which uses the word "doctor" in its title, not a "doctorate" degree.

With the additional paragraph, it provides a balanced description. The following paragraph about it described as a "doctorate degree of taught program" is not removed but the preceding added paragraph does make it more clear on what basis the J.D. can claim it is any kind of "doctorate" at all. It is a "doctorate" in the same sense as all other first professional taught degree programs which have chosen to call themselves "doctorates". It is not a "doctorate" in the sense that it is superior to other first professional degree that haven't chosen to call themselves "doctorates". Nor is it a "doctorate" in the sense of being a degree showing substantial original research as its requirement.

To wikiant: What exactly about that paragraph is "hyperbole" and uncited claims? The US. Dept of Education specifically says that the JD is a first professional degree not equivalent to a research doctorate. Why don't you read it yourself:

[7] It is also important to recognize that first-professional degrees in these fields are first degrees, not graduate research degrees. Several of the degree titles in this group of subjects (see Degrees Awarded below) incorporate the term "Doctor," but they are not research doctorates and not equivalent to the Ph.D.

The J.D. is a first professional degree which has "doctor" in its title. In most other countries, first professional degrees are bachelors and masters not doctors degree. Most countries don't have JD and MD they have bachelors of law and bachelors of medicine. Nor do most countries outside the U.S. have degrees like "doctor of chiropratic" "doctor of physical therapy", etc. Sorry that you pretentious lawyers don't like facts that diminish the "doctorate" status of the degree but the paragraph is written factually and in a neutral tone.

As I noted in my comment, I was taking issue more with the style than the content. For example, the first sentence of the deleted paragraph said, "After the end of the first semester, one final, monolithic challenge remains..." "Monolithic" certainly makes for interesting reading, but is hardly NPOV. Plus, stating statistics (e.g., "About 10% of students will make the law review journal...") without citation contributes to the perception of fluffery. Wikiant 12:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The comments about pretentious lawyers are misguided and rather lacking in maturity. The difference between a U.S. J.D. and an LL.B in other countries is that U.S. J.D.'s have to complete a full course of undergraduate study before they can pursue a J.D. In the UK, an LL.B does 3 years of undergraduate work to become a solicitor or 3 + Bar to become a barrister. The J.D. requires 7 academic years of study to complete, which includes both more general study as an undergraduate and rather focused study as a graduate. Further, while the J.D. is a First Professional degree, it is also an academic specialization, which lends further credence to the argument that it is a true doctoral degree. People here seem to miss that there is a significant academic community surrounding the law and a very large number of the learned in the law do not go beyond the J.D. in order to enter that community or be taken serious in their research study.

Your description of the UK system of legal training is not accurate. A 3-Year BA in Law/Jurisprudence (sometimes also called an LL.B) is not a sufficient condition to practice Law in the UK. Individuals who want to become barristers still have to complete the Bar Vocational Course and go through an internship period ("pupillage") in a certified barrister's chambers. Prospective solicitors on the other hand must complete the equivalent Legal Practice Course and also take an apprenticeship (known as a "training contract"). Adding all up, it normally takes something like 2 or 3 years of additional training beyond the BA to practice Law in the UK. On the broader discussion of JDs x PhDs, please see my comments above where I basically agree with previous posters who claim that the American JD is not a doctoral qualification (the only true doctoral degree in Law in the US being instead the SJD). 161.24.19.82 20:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess the source of the confusion is the somewhat convoluted history of the use of the terms "bachelor", "master", and "doctor" within the English university system. As far as I understand it, back in medieval (en-GB mediæval) times, university studies always began with the study of the seven "liberal arts" (grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music). After completing a liberal arts education, a student could then move to a "higher faculty" to study e.g. law, medicine, philosophy, or theology. Following this medieval model, the first (undergraduate) degree awarded by the universities of Oxford and Cambridge was typically the degree of "Bachelor of Arts", as it is still the case today both in Oxbridge and in a few American universities like Princeton. The so-called "higher (or second) bachelor's degrees" such as the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery, the Bachelor of Civil Law, the Bachelor of Divinity, and, later (starting in the 19th century), the degrees of Bachelor of Letters, Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Philosophy, were in turn graduate degrees, available only to candidates that already held a BA. A doctor's degree on the other hand (e.g. Doctor of Divinity, Doctor of Laws, Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Sciences, Doctor of Letters, etc.) was awarded only to senior members of the university, usually after many years of professional activity, to certify that they had reached a distinguished and eminent level of scholarship in their respective fields.

In the 20th century however, the English degree system underwent several changes while still retaining some elements of the old medieval system. First, the graduate bachelor's degrees in letters, science, and philosophy ceased to be awarded and were replaced by graduate master's degrees like the MLitt, the MSc, and the MPhil. The Bachelor of Science degree on the other hand (BSc in England) was downgraded to an undergraduate degree in most English universities (with the notable exception of Oxbridge where the BSc simply ceased to exist and either BAs or so-called undergraduate master's degrees like the MSci, MPhys, MChem, MMath, MEng etc. are now awarded as the first academic degrees in the natural sciences and engineering). Likewise, the Bachelor of Law was also downgraded to an undergraduate degree in most universities, although, once again, not in Oxbridge (Cambridge only awards BAs in Law, not LLBs, and in Oxford, the BCL remains a graduate degree, equivalent to a Master of Laws/LLM in other UK universities). The Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery degrees retained however a graduate nature in the sense that they normally require 6 years for completion (3 years of pre-clinical studies and 3 years of clinical studies attached to a university hospital) and, at least in Oxbridge, students are also awarded a BA "in cursu" towards the MB/BChir, normally at the end of the pre-clinical course. At the graduate level though, the most important change in the English system was the introduction in the 20th century of the PhD (or DPhil) as a research degree conferred not upon senior scholars based on the ensemble of their work, but awarded instead to resident students, necessarily by examination, upon submission of a single research thesis representing an original, albeit perhaps narrow contribution to a certain field of knowledge. The older "higher doctorates" like the LLD, ScD, LittD, etc. continue to be awarded in England, usually based on the recommendation of an ad hoc committee of experts based on the analysis of a portfolio of publications/works, but the PhD, with its distinctive structure of university residency requirement, submission of a research thesis and a final oral exam, has become by far the most commonly awarded doctoral degree in the UK. Whereas the PhD is usually awarded to junior scholars (normally in their mid-20s in the UK, or late 20s in the US), the higher doctorates are only rarely conferred upon someone below 40 years of age. Toeplitz 13:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: In modern US universities, the structure of the PhD program has been further refined to include coursework requirements and approval in preliminary qualifying exams in addition to the traditional submission of an original research thesis and approval in the final oral exam.

To say the JD is only a doctorate by name is circular, and such is the case for all degrees that have been created by academicians. There are some similarities among other doctorates, just as there are similarities among masters. But there is variation among all countries for requirements of academic credentials, which makes comparison useless. E.g. in Europe you need only 3 years of study to earn a B.A. vs. 4 years in the U.S. And what is the US equivalent of a M.Sc. in the UK, if a M.Sc. is only a year and does not require a thesis? Finally, remember that at the University of Bologna, the mother of all universities, all first degree holders were called dottore (in Italian, doctor in English). The professors at U. of Bologna might take issue with the professors at Cambridge and Oxford for creating the Ph.D., just as the professors at the U. of Toronto might take issue with the professors at Harvard for creating the J.D. But they generally do not. Because it is a senseless discussion. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Stepping stone

Lawman15 inserted the comment, "Thus the J.D. degree is not a stepping stone towards a PhD, and therefore, in the academic setting, it is the normal doctoral degree in the field of law." Following this argument, the MFA is a doctoral degree because it is not a stepping stone toward a PhD. So too is the master electricians license, etc. I'm replacing the word "doctoral" with "terminal." I am not making a statement about the status of the JD. Wikiant 11:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

After further research, I'm deleting the entirety of the comment. The SJD is the highest research degree in law. The LLM is required for admission to the SJD program (see www.law.ucla.edu/home/index.asp?page=1721). In turn, admission to an LLM program requires a law degree (www.llm-guide.com/llm-faq). Hence, the JD clearly is a stepping stone to a higher research degree. Wikiant 11:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Terminal degree

The article says that the JD is a terminal degree. There are two facts that contradict this: (1) it is also called a *first* professional degree implying that the LLB, a professional degree for which the JD is a prerequisite, is a more advanced professional degree; (2) the JD is a prerequisite for the SJD, which *is* a terminal (academic) degree. Wikiant 22:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The J.D is not a prerequisite for an LL.B as you claim above. The LL.B and the J.D are both first professional degrees in Law. In fact, the LL.B used to be the standard first degree awarded by Law Schools in the US before the J.D. was introduced.

The J.D. or an equivalent first degree like a foreign LL.B are however prerequisites for an LL.M ("Legum Magister" or "Master of Laws"). The fact that a master's degree (the LL.M) ranks higher than a degree of "Doctor of Jurisprudence" is yet another evidence of how misleading the J.D title is and another good reason for Law Schools in America to go back to awarding LL.B's again instead of J.D's. 161.24.19.82 18:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, those LL.B holders must be really sore about the fact that American lawyers spend three years completely focused on law while LL.Bs are juggling undergraduate studies! Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that American lawyers dominate the global legal services industry. We hear all the time about U.S. firms taking over French, German, Japanese, and Chinese firms, not the other way around. --Coolcaesar 19:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

They would probably prefer their situations to seven years of university education without necessarily gaining any meaningful practical experience. -Rrius (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Title

Wikipedia tends to list the English form of degrees rather than the Latin. For example, the article for Medicinae Doctor (M.D.) is Doctor of Medicine, the one for Philosophae Doctor (Ph.D.) is Doctor of Philosophy, and so forth. Shouldn't this article be then called "Doctor of Law"? I find it unique that we are sticking with the Latin form here when no other degree or article tends to do so. What do you think?

I strongly disagree with your proposal. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Juris Doctor is overwhelmingly used by the vast majority of law schools in the United States as the common name of their first-professional law degree. The diploma on my office wall is "JURIS DOCTOR," not Doctor of Law. Also, neither Doctor of Law nor Doctor of Jurisprudence are literally correct translations; the literal translation is Teacher of Law (I studied Latin in high school), and there is a lot of disagreement among the few law schools awarding a law degree named in English as to which translation is correct! It makes no sense to rename this article to a name that the vast majority of Juris Doctor holders would not recognize. --Coolcaesar 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, in Germany, the research doctorate in Law (equivalent to a Ph.D) leads to the degree of Doctor iuris (Dr.iur.), that is, "iuris" with an "i". The alternate spelling "juris" with a "j" would be incorrect in classical Latin, as our German friends were very kind to remind us in the Doctorate article! 161.24.19.82 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

J.D. Thesis

Could someone with access to current American law school regulations explain what kind of thesis or dissertation is normally required for the degree of Doctor of Law? NRPanikker 17:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean these regulations? I dunno what field you're in, but in law almost everything important is online nowadays. The law school approval standards are all online at the ABA Web site. Each chapter is a separate PDF file and then there's a link on the right side to download the whole book at once.

I think what you're looking for is covered in Standard 302 (look at this pdf and scroll down to the page numbered 17 on its bottom margin). All the ABA requires is "one rigorous writing experience in the first year and at least one additional rigorous writing experience after the first year." Interpretation 302-1 sets out some factors for evaluating the "rigor of writing instruction" including number and nature of writing projects, opportunities to meet one-on-one with a writing instructor, number of drafts per project, and form of assessment used by the instructor. Yes, this is a really, really vague standard that gives law schools a lot of room to maneuver. There isn't any requirement for a huge formal thesis or dissertation in the sense of a Ph.D. thesis or dissertation. Hope that answers your question.--Coolcaesar 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The J.D. is not a research or academic degree, and therefore like other professional doctorates there is no thesis or dissertation requirement for the degree. Many law schools require that a large research project be completed for graduation, on the scale of a thesis, but this is not a generalized trend, nor a requisite for the J.D. being considered a doctorate. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistant.

As an Australian lawyer, I was very interested in learning more about the whole 'JD' thing and why the US have decided to 'move the goal posts' for non-US educated academics. I found a supreme court document that was most enlightening on the matter[8] yet have subsequently found that this article is quite contrary in both intent, times, dates and purpose to that outlined in the supreme court document dealing with JD's.

Perhaps this is a NPOV issue? Given that the document I have linked to above cites the universities jealousy of independant law schools 'doctorate' programs. Further perhaps some explaining is in order, or direction perhaps, in relation to D.Juris and JD's being granted honoris causa to LL.B graduates. The whole 'your first degree is your doctorate' is abstract not only to me, as an Australian, but even to most American lawyers I know. The downside is, they shrug and say "That's just the way it is." when I question them on it, so trying to pin it down and describe something which, at first sight, may seem irrational allocation of title is very difficult.

Either way, I find this article to be NPOV along the lines of advertising for a law school, there's no critical examination of it, there's loose tie in's such as mentioning the history of the PhD tracing back to ye olde England and tripe such as that which tries to draw the reader into effect that the JD is ancient when it is, in fact, a modern conception that is purely located in the US and mirrored in a few countries to save their lawyers, solicitors and barristers having drama if they choose to be lawyers without borders.

Perhaps this article needs a bit more work?  :/ Jachin 01:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I read that document. It's simply the personal comments of a solo practitioner that were filed with the Supreme Court of Florida. Do you have caption pages in Australia? The caption page simply indicates which court the document is being filed with and by whom. It does not indicate that the writer of the document is directly affiliated with a court, or can bind that court with his statements, in the sense of serving as a judge, law clerk, or staff attorney. A document published by a court in its official capacity is recognizable because (1) the caption is much shorter and usually does not take up a full page; (2) it contains opinions by multiple judges, who sign their names as "J., [last name]" and don't include their address or state bar number after their name; and (3) it orders something to be done and gives the rationale rather than trying to persuade a judge to do something.

But anyway, I agree with you that the article as it stands is still rather messy. --Coolcaesar 08:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Some professional fields of study require the student to first complete a undergraduate degree program before he or she can be admitted. These field include Chiropractic, Dentistry, Law, Medicine (Allopathic, including surgery), Optometry, Osteopathy, Pharmacy, Podiatry, Theology (ordination qualifications), and Veterinary Medicine. There are many more professional fields of study in the United States, but those listed here are unique in that they are not offered at the undergraduate degree level.

It is also important to recognize that first-professional degrees in these fields are first degrees, not graduate research degrees. Several of the degree titles in this group of subjects (see Degrees Awarded below) incorporate the term "Doctor," but they are not research doctorates and not equivalent to the Ph.D. Master's degrees and research doctorates in these fields of study are awarded, but they have different names and students enroll in those programs after having earned a first-professional degree. -U.S Dept of Education.

-K. Lewis 09/10/2007

Wonders will never end; the equivalent degree to a JD is a Bachelor Degree in Law LOL. What kind of mess up doctorate is this LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.60.194 (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the age of something make it more truthful or valid? At what year is the line between ancient and modern drawn? The J.D. is not a creation of some online community or a correspondence school, but a creation of a enormous group of world respected scholars, just as all degrees are. Your argument is with those scholars, and not with American lawyers who you suspect of self-aggrandizement. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently figured out something about Robert B. Stevens

In my ongoing research for Attorney at law, I discovered that Robert B. Stevens, the Yale law professor whom I cited in this article, actually expanded his writings on the history of law schools to a full-length book that was published in 1984. And then he became Chancellor of the University of California, Santa Cruz for a few years.

One of these days I will have to get that book and then we will finally have a good source for this article and for Law school in the United States. Or if anyone else lives closer to a library that has it, and could get the book, that would be great too. --Coolcaesar 23:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Supreme Court of Texas permit a lawyer who is a graduate of an accredited law school with a Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence degree to use the titles "Dr.," in social and professional communications.

The Supreme Court of Texas permit a lawyer who is a graduate of an accredited law school with a Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence degree to use the titles "Dr.," "Doctor," "Doctor of Jurisprudence," or "J.D." in social and professional communications so long as such use is not false or misleading in the specific circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.102.144 (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Language regarding "license" to grant graduate degrees

Regarding this verbiage:

As neither the ABA nor the Supreme Court of Texas are licensed to grant graduate degrees, their opinions are meant merely to clarify what they consider to be legal and professionally permissible.

First, Wikipedia is not in a position to render its own unsourced judgment as to what the American Bar Association or the Texas Supreme Court "mean" when those bodies issue pronouncements. We can, however, report on what reliable, third party published sources say the ABA or the Texas Supreme Court "means." If a reliable third party source has made this statement or has made a statement fairly close to this, then I suppose this statement could properly be added without violating the rule on Verifiability.

In the case of a court of law (such as the Texas Supreme Court), saying that the court is not "licensed" to do something is nonsensical. A court of law does not need a "license" to "grant graduate degrees," or indeed to do anything else.

Next, neither having nor lacking a "license" to grant a degree is necessarily a qualification or disqualification for determining the proper use of the title of that degree. For example, the State Legislature of Idaho could pass a law tomorrow that says: "No one with a Master of Arts degree in sociology can use the title Master of Arts in this state." The State Legislature does not have a "license" to grant the degree, and does not need a "license" to grant the degree in order to pass a law about it.

Similarly, a court of law does not need a "license" to issue legally binding rules about the use of titles by officers of the court (e.g., persons licensed as attorneys).

Of course, it may well be correct to say that that the Texas Supreme Court (or, more specifically, the Ethics Committee of the Court) was indeed intending to clarify what it considers to be legally and professionally permissible. That's just my personal belief, and it may be editor Wikiant's personal belief as well. Our personal beliefs, as Wikipedia editors, are not, however, a proper basis for inserting that statement in the article. Insertion of the statement sounds a bit like POV pushing in my personal opinion. Yours, Famspear 17:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Famspear. Common law courts of sovereign states are able to regulate the use of titles, or any other aspect of the legal profession, because it is an inherent power of the court to regulate those who practice before them. It is original research, as well as silly and downright wrong, to assert that they need a "license" to do so. Whomever wrote that is clearly not a lawyer. --Coolcaesar 18:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the disconnect here lies in the difference between "naming as convention" and "naming as description." Clearly, the court (and any other organization) can issue opinions as to what titles it will and will not recognize as a matter of convention. Such opinions, however, have no bearing on the reality that the title represents. Therein lies my issue. It seems that these opinions are being quoted in an attempt to obfuscate the distinction between the naming of a thing and the reality of the thing. What neither the ABA nor the Texas court can do is to claim that the J.D. is equivalent to degrees that traditionally carry the title "doctor." Wikiant 22:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: I haven't visited this article in a while, but with all due respect, it appears that this article continues to suffer from the battle among editors over whether a J.D. degree is "really" a "doctorate," or whether it is really "equivalent" (whatever the editors think that means) to a Ph.D. or some other doctorate, or whether a J.D. is "really" a "terminal" degree, or whether a J.D. is "really" a "research" degree, etc., etc. These comments are in response to what fellow editor Wikiant has wrote, but I'm not picking on Wikiant in particular.

Although I have a J.D. degree, I am not in academia and I feel like an outsider reading and contributing to this talk page sporadically for the past year and half. As I have said before, I may be wrong but the debate appears to me as an outsider to be a debate between some people with J.D.s who are resentful (if that's the right word) of those who have Ph.D.s and people with Ph.D.s who are resentful of people who have J.D. degrees. I realize that it's probably more complex than that -- but unfortunately that's how the debate comes off. I am at a loss to explain why anyone mature enough to have earned either degree should care this much whether the one degree is or is not equal to the other degree, etc., etc. Maybe both J.D.s and Ph.D.s in the academic world have too much time on their hands??? I don't know.

Whether the American Bar Association and the Texas Supreme Court can or cannot "claim" that the J.D. is equivalent to degrees that traditionally carry the title "doctor" is not for us as Wikipedia editors to say -- and Wikiant has cited no source for that assertion, anyway. In my opinion, stating that the ABA and the Court cannot "claim" this does not appear to be a meaningful objection under the rules of Wikipedia.

Academically, the American Bar Association is the accrediting body in the United States for law schools. I don't recall off hand to what extent the ABA gets into the niceties of the question of whether a J.D. is "equivalent" to a Ph.D. The point is that the ABA or a committee thereof is probably within its legal and moral rights (and academic right, if there is such a thing) to make pretty much whatever statement it wants to make on the topic, and the ABA is sufficiently near the center of the academic aspects of U.S. legal education that the ABA statement may properly be quoted in a Wikipedia article on the topic of the Juris Doctor degree. As Wikipedia editors, it is not our job to decide who can or cannot pontificate on the topic, except to the extent that the material may violate the rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research, etc.

Similarly, under American law the highest court of a jurisdiction has what is called inherent power to impose rules on those persons licensed by the jurisdiction to practice law, including rules on uses of titles such as "juris doctor." If the Texas Supreme Court, or a committee thereof, issues a formal ruling that says that it's OK for persons with a Juris Doctor degree to use the title "doctor," there is no Wikipedia policy that prohibits a mention of that ruling in the Wikipedia on "Juris Doctor" -- regardless of whether editor Wikiant or I agree with that ruling, and regardless of whether Wikiant or I personally feel that the ruling has "no bearing on the reality that the title represents" (as Wikiant put it).

The article would not be materially harmed by the exclusion of the references to the pronouncements of ABA and the committee of the Texas Supreme Court. Likewise, I personally see no valid "Wikipedia" reason for preventing the inclusion of the material. Yours, Famspear 23:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Name of degree

An anon keeps adding "Doctor of Jurisprudence" at the beginning of the article without comment, and reverting other editors who remove it. I think the article should show both terms (Juris Doctor and Doctor of Jurisprudence) near the beginning of the article, but I have reverted the anon anyway.

I haven't read the entire, extensive talk page for this article. Should the introduction be changed to something like "Juris Doctor (or Doctor of Jurisprudence)" etc.?? I know the term "Doctor of Jurisprudence is mentioned further down in the article. Any thoughts, anyone? Famspear 01:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know but my initial feeling is against mentioning Doctor of Jurisprudence in the lead. It depends on how many schools actually use Doctor of Jurisprudence, which is an incorrect translation anyway, and it's also simply the wrong name (most J.D. holders do not specifically study jurisprudence, the study of law as a science or philosophy). My understanding is that Doctor of Jurisprudence is still very much a minority usage, because lawyers as a group tend to be conservative. Even the University of California awards the Juris Doctor, though all its other schools and colleges award degrees with English names and English honors rather than Latin names and Latin honors. --Coolcaesar 17:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm no Latin scholar, but I was thinking that "juris" (IURIS) in Latin roughly translated "philosophy of law" as opposed to merely "law." I'm at work right now and my copy of Black's Law Dictionary is at home, and maybe a Latin dictionary would be more appropriate anyway. My diploma says "Doctor of Jurisprudence." I guess I have always thought of "juris doctor" and "doctor of jurisprudence" as the Latin and English translations for essentially the same thing.

Also, I don't know how your law school was, but mine was pretty "theoretical" and I would argue that the philosophy of law more accurately describes my experience than merely the study of "law." However, I consider the "philosophy" of law to be a broader concept than what we would probably find in a specific course in "jurisprudence." I do agree that most J.D. holders (myself included) probably did not take a course in "jurisprudence" (as more narrowly defined as the study of the science of law, or the study of the form, as distinguished from the content, of systems of law).

Anyway, I don't have a strong position one way or the other.

And I can't make up my mind.

But I'm not sure either.

Can I go home now? Famspear 18:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

At Harvard the diploma reads "ad gradum Juris Doctoris" and the commencement program lists the J.D. as "Doctor of Law". Overall, I think that "Juris Doctor" is the most popular form of the degree offered, but "Doctor of Jurisprudence" and "Doctor of Law" do occasionally show up. I agree that the article should mention this early on. Sawagner201 06:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The name of the degree is "Juris Doctor". Who said so....the The American Bar Associations (ABA) that’s who. The degree is not called a Doctor of Law, Juris Doctorate or Doctor of Jurisprudence. I do not know "one" American educated lawyer who has a diploma that reads anything other than Juris Doctor. Philosophy in Law...LOL. Don’t make me laugh. No matter what you doctorate degree wanna-be’s call the JD, the degree is still only equivalent to a Bachelor of Law (LLB).....Doctorate degree indeed lol. Pleaseeeeees lol -K. Lewis 5.00 PM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.60.194 (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear K. Lewis: Thanks for sharing your feelings with us. Famspear 21:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

K.Lewis does have a point; from what I have read....it does seem that some people are trying to make the JD more than it is. Why can't we just stick with the ABA's degree title instead of grabing for straws?

Uh, no, sorry, K. Lewis does not have a point. And "grabing [sic] at straws"? Hello? Get serious.

I believe that in the Middle Ages universities were granting doctorates in canon law long before anyone had the faintest idea of using the term "doctor" to describe, for example, a "physician." Clue: The terms "Doctor of Jurisprudence" and "Juris Doctor" are used extensively by ABA (American Bar Association) accredited law schools in the United States. The abbreviation for both is "J.D."

And as far as the rant by our anonymous contributor about "jurisprudence," here's a clue. "Jurisprudence" means:

The philosophy of law, or the science which treats of the principles of positive law and legal relations. In the proper sense of the word, "jurisprudence" is the science of law, namely, that science on which legal rules are based, so as not only to classify those rules in their proper order, and show the relation in which they stand to one another, but also to settle the manner in which new or doubtful cases should be brought under the appropriate rules. Black's Law Dictionary, p. 767 (5th ed. 1979) (bolding added).

Similarly:

Jurisprudence [ . . . ] the course of court decisions [ . . . ] the science or philosophy of law [ . . . ] Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 628 (G.&C. Merriam Co., 8th ed. 1976) (bolding added).

Similarly:

Jurisprudence [ . . . ] the science or philosophy of law [ . . . ] Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 766 (World Publishing Co. 1970) (bolding added).

Similarly, Surya P. Sinha, Professor of Law at Pace University writes:

Jurisprudence has two meanings. In the civil law tradition of Europe it means the collectivity of decisions of a particular court. In the common law tradition of England, United States, and other common law countries it means legal philosophy. Surya P. Sinha, Jurisprudence: Legal Philosophy in a Nutshell, p. 1 (West Pub. 1993) (bolding added).

Cheers, Famspear 06:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And would you like a list of ABA accredited law schools where the degree is "Doctor of Jurisprudence?" Just google the term for starters. This isn't rocket science. Famspear 06:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hint: Based on a quick google search (I haven't checked the schools' official web sites, though), the law schools at the following institutions just might qualify as grantors of the "Doctor of Jurisprudence" degree: Stanford University, Georgetown University, Columbia University, University of Texas at Austin, Drake University, University of Houston, Texas Tech University, Southern Methodist University, George Washington University, Baylor University, Indiana University, Willamette University. Famspear 06:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Famspear...I see you forgot to add University of Pittsburgh to your list...even though it appears as the second entry on google when you search for the Doctor of Jurisprudence. Why would you ignore this... I wonder lol. The degree on your wall says Juris Doctor and not whatever you wish it said. Doctor of Jurisprudence.. indeed lol. You wish lol. Your Juris Doctor is equivalent to a Bachelor Degree. No matter how you try to spin it, no one is going to call you Dr. "Unless you get a real doctorate degree and not some degree that decided to change its name and add Doctor to it. The real degree call the Doctor of Jurisprudence is a research doctorate….follow this link to get educated http://www.law.pitt.edu/academics/jsd.php

K Lewis 10/03/2007 12.12 PM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.60.194 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear IP64.190.60.194/K Lewis: Actually, no matter how you try to spin it, the diploma on my wall says "Doctor of Jurisprudence." You may want to ask yourself why you seem so hung up on the issue of whether a "Juris Doctor" is the same thing as a "Doctor of Jurisprudence." (As a general rule, the two terms mean the same thing. There may be exceptions.)

By the way, if you believe that a J.D. is "equivalent" to a bachelor's degree -- as in a bachelor's degree in accounting or sociology or history or mathematics, I have a big orange bridge in San Francisco that I'll sell you.

A J.D. is or may be equivalent to an LL.B., which of course is denoted as a "bachelor's" degree. However, nobody really cares (at least nobody in this office cares) whether the degree from a particular law school is called "Juris Doctor" or "Doctor of Jurisprudence." Both terms mean the same thing. And nobody cares (at least nobody here in my office cares) whether someone is going to call me or any other person with a J.D. degree a "doctor" or not. I'm not in academia, I'm in the real world. In the real world in the United States, very few people refer to a lawyer as "doctor."

In some universities, however, some J.D. holders are in fact called "doctor" -- for example, the professor who was the head of the Department of Business Administration at the university where I received my accounting degree had an M.B.A. and a J.D., and no Ph.D., and every professor referred to him as "Doctor".

Sell your arguments to someone who cares. And let's keep this talk page reasonably related to a discussion on how to improve the article. Yours, Famspear 19:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Dear Famspear what Law School did you attend? Please don't mention any top ten Law Schools because you and I know that is not the case. You are ranting around the issue; the issue at hand is… what is the correct title for the JD? I don't care if some third rated Law School calls the JD "The Holy Moses Degree" I only care about the official (ABA) recognized title. I see you once again failed to mention the University of Pitt's Doctor of Jurisprudence degree; I hope you don't practice law the way you debate :). The Doctor of Jurisprudence and Juris Doctor are not the same degree, nor is the Juris Doctor the same as the Doctor of Law (L.L.D). Please call the ABA and have a real legal scholar advice you on the difference between a first profession law degree and a research law degrees e.g (LLM, J.S.D, and LL.D). Teacher of Law LOL, Philosopher of LAW...Please stop...you killing me LOL....really...what Law School did you attend LOL ? :- K. LEWIS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.60.194 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 64.190.60.194/K Lewis: So, you think you want to have a debate with me? No, I don't think you want to have a debate with me. To effectively debate others, you need to be taken seriously. You are not going to be taken seriously on the tack you are taking.

The comment "I hope you don't practice law the way you debate" is what we call a personal attack. Please refrain from personal attacks.

The differences among J.D./LL.B.s on the one hand, versus LL.M.s and S.J.D.s (or J.S.D.s)? Hello -- that's not what I've been discussing. Stay on topic.

The rest of us here don't need to "call the ABA". We already know what we're talking about. If you want other people to believe you really know what you're talking about, try actually reading the relevant material. It's easy; some of it is even on the internet! Instead of trying to set me up as your Authority Figure as you have done, and then trying to tear me down, why not consider thinking about ways to try to improve the article?

Clue: A "real" scholar cites sources. If you want to be taken seriously by me and other editors, then cite your sources, stop engaging in personal attacks, and in general treat the topic seriously. Good luck, Famspear 01:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Famspear :) I did not level any personal attack on you; I simply said I hope you don't practice law the way you debate. My statement is neither an insult nor was it an attempt to vilify you. The proper response to my question would have been a simple yes, I practice law in the same manner that I debate, or No, I do not practice law in the same manner that I debate. By the way, once again you failed to mention my University of Pitt's Doctor of Jurisprudence link :). Dear Mr. Famspear did you go to Night School? “This is not a personal attack. I am simply asking a question” I mean was your JD program a part-time evening program? I am beginning to even doubt that you even attended Law School. In one of your posting you refer to your “Office”. Office! What practicing Attorney refers to his place of work as his “Office”. Dear Mr. Famspear Wiki is full of fakes or…. people with diploma mill degrees trying to pass around fake information. By the way….what is the name of the Law School you attended :)Come on...you cane tell me :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.60.194 (talk • contribs)

Dear IP64.190.60.194: Sorry, that's not good enough. Concentrate on the article. Famspear 20:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Famspear aka Doctor of Law...... LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.60.194 (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Still not good enough. Try harder. Famspear 02:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Famspear LOL...how old are you 12 LOL. Sorry Old man....Doctor of Law LOL LOL LOL LOL. Dude...you killing me LOL. No wonder they have second rated schools in TX...lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.60.194 (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear IP64.190.60.194. You're not even close. Famspear 21:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Our anonymous loller has delighted us for long enough. Time to give it a rest, don't you think? NRPanikker 12:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok NRPanikker...I will stop now. I am sorry if my antics offended you….. Famspear just makes me laugh LOL; this guy (Famspear) is obviously not a Lawyer, or even worse, he maybe the product of a lousy jurist education...Go Texas Night School's LOL. Nevertheless I will stop now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.60.194 (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

ABA and Use of "Dr."

Two arguments were offered in the edit summaries that require discussion. Both refer to the deletion of the text, "Although neither the American Bar Association nor courts of law are degree-granting institutions, both have taken formal positions on the use of titles by lawyers."

First argument (paraphrased): "Many jurisdictions agree with Texas' court's opinion regarding use of 'Dr.'" I don't recall seeing references to these other opinions, but that is neither here nor there. The *number* of opinions is irrelevant to the excised text. The text states, factually, that courts are not degree-granting institutions. Quoting more courts doesn't address the argument.

Second argument (paraphrased): "The ABA accredits law schools." This argument is also irrelevant to the excised text. One might argue that, as the ABA accredits law schools, it is capable of commenting on the nature of the JD (though I'm not certain that this follows). However, as the ABA only accredits law schools, it is not an authority on the *comparison* of a JD to degrees that traditionally carry the title, "Dr."

Evidence that is not given that would, IMHO, carry the day is that of a university sanctioning the use of the title for those to whom it awards the JD. Wikiant 22:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the reason for prefacing the verbiage about the ABA and courts of law taking formal positions on the use of titles (e.g., "J.D.") by lawyers with the statement that neither the courts nor the ABA are "degree-granting institutions"? It is a correct statement, but what is its purpose in the Wikipedia article?

What does the granting of degrees have to do with the actual, direct regulation of lawyers, including the use of titles like "J.D." (which regulation is done by the courts and their official agencies, following rules of law) and the indirect, de facto regulation of lawyers (which is arguably done to some limited degree by the ABA, by issuing the model rules later adopted as law in some revised forms by the courts in various states)?

Since when do colleges and universities regulate lawyers? Does a university that grants degrees have any legal authority itself to punish someone who, for example, falsely claims to have a degree from that university? The answer of course is no.

The university would instead have to go to a court of law and sue the offender, and would have to cite a law supporting its position. Only a court of law, interpreting rules of law, has the power to issue orders that protect the university's interest in seeing that someone not falsely claim to have a degree from that school, or that someone not misuse a title, etc., in some way.

Being a "degree-granting institution" does not give a university itself the power to punish someone for using a particular degree or title in a particular way. Being a degree-granting institution does not in and of itself give the institution the legal power to regulate lawyers and the way lawyers use the title "J.D."

Therefore, it seems that prefacing the applicable verbiage with the statement that the courts, etc., are not "degree-granting institutions" -- while correct -- misses the point. Indeed, the verbiage incorrectly implies (1) that you would normally have to be a degree-granting institution to make and enforce rules about how the J.D. title can be used, and (2) that degree-granting institutions could somehow have such a power. As far as I know, neither proposition is correct.

Does anyone have any contrary information on this? Famspear 23:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If the article is going to cite the ABA and the courts as authorities for deciding whether or not lawyers can use the title, then those authorities need to be seen in perspective. The use of the title "Dr." is meant to imply an equivalence with doctoral degrees. All I'm saying is that the only entity with the authority to speak to the *equivalence* is an entity that grants *both* the JD and doctoral degrees. Universities are an example. Courts are not. The ABA is not. Wikiant 23:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikiant: No, the use of the title "Dr." is not meant to imply an "equivalence with doctoral degrees." For example, when someone uses the title "Dr." to refer to someone with a Ph.D. in history, the use of the term "Dr." is not meant to imply that the Ph.D. in history is "equivalent" to a Ph.D. in mathematics, or physics, or sociology. Instead, the use of the term is meant to recognize the fact that the person being addressed holds a "doctor" degree. Similarly, when someone uses the title "Dr." to refer to someone with a J.D., the use of the term "Dr." is not meant to imply that the J.D. is "equivalent" to a Ph.D. in linguistics. The purpose is to recognize the fact that the person being addressed has a "doctor" degree.

You are slipping back into the hackneyed argument about whether "this doctorate" (in this case, a J.D.) is "equivalent" to "that doctorate" (say, a Ph.D. in history, or physics, etc., etc.) -- which is a separate question. It's a separate argument. Forget about your own viewpoint on the subject. Your viewpoint, and my viewpoint, and the next guy's viewpoint, are unimportant.

If it will make you feel better, why not just assume that the J.D. is an "inferior" degree with respect to a Ph.D. Then, assume that the issue of equivalence is not going to be addressed in the article at all. Then, just edit the article. Forget about a particular viewpoint.

The contention that "the only entity with the authority to speak to the 'equivalence' is an entity that grants both degrees" is another statement that can be transmuted into still another separate question: Namely, whether the only entity with the authority to speak to the "equivalence" is indeed "an entity that grants both degrees." I haven't read this talk page in full or the article in full, and I have no opinion as to whether this particular contention is correct. You should set the question aside, and deal coldly and objectively with the article itself.

As I have said over and over, this article continues to suffer, as it has off and on for at least a year and a half, from the continuance of this silly argument over the relative worth of J.D. and Ph.D. degrees. Famspear 00:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree. The battle over whether the J.D. and Ph.D. are equivalent will be of limited interest to someone searching for this article and is better buried at some sort of page on Academic degrees. It's very distracting here. JJL 03:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the issue of equivalence is of limited interest to most people who would search for this article. However, the existence of the section on using the title "Dr." merely brings the issue to the fore (and requires the notation we're now debating). I suggest removing the section discussing use of the title. Wikiant 14:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the proposal for removing the distracting section discussing the use of the title, I'm leaning slightly toward agreeing with editor Wikiant on this point. Also, as editor JJL said, maybe the material could fit better in another article?? I don't have a strong opinion on how to fix this, though. (I know, really helpful, right?) Yours, Famspear 15:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Titles subsection discusses "Persons licensed as attorneys" and of course not everyone with a J.D. is a licensed attorney and vice versa. Removing it is OK by me. It might be better to simply refer to a discussion of "Is the J.D. a doctorate" at Professional degree or the like. JJL 17:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Today's changes are helpful in this regard! JJL 18:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Juris Esquire?

Now that the question of lawyers putting "doctor" in front of their names has been settled, what about the older practice of putting "Esq." after the name? This seems to be restricted to lawyers (formerly only males, and now also females) in some states of the U.S.A. This practice goes back to the days when lawyers had LLBs, or no degree at all. Does esqireship start on obtaining a law degree, or does it have to wait for entry to the local bar? In the U.K and Ireland, "esquire" is never used together with a title in front of the name, such as "doctor," but would an American J.D. making full use of his/her doctorate put "Doctor" in front of and "Esquire" after the name to avoid being mistaken for a physician? NRPanikker 08:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for a U.S. lawyer to use "Dr." as the J.D. is not a doctorate, though it's sometimes done in some very formal academic settings in order to avoid embarrassing a faculty member (such as a law school professor) who lacks a doctorate. You do see Esq. sometimes to clearly indicate "lawyer" but more often you'd see Attorney-at-Law or the like following the name. JJL 13:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In answer to NRPanikker's question, the general convention is that attorneys don't use the Esquire until they have been admitted to practice before the bar. Technically speaking, anyone can use it - even non-attorneys - it is just an odd holdover from the times when there was an aristocracy.

In response to JJL's comment, the term Doctor comes from the Doctorate, regardless of the form. Your disagreement appears to be whether universities should have changed it to a doctorate in the first place, which is a very different question. 23:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

From an academic perspective, above the Juris Doctor (JD) is the LLM degree (Master of Laws) and then the SJD, JSD, LLD, etc., the true research based doctor of Laws terminal degrees. Still, it should be noted that in a few counties the JD is actually starting to displace the LLB degree, for example Canada , Hong Kong, and to an extent Australia .

Notwithstanding, the official word, according to Merriam Webster's Dictionary, the Juris Doctor is “a degree equivalent to bachelor of laws”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.139.136 (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In general terms, that definition is correct - you usually need either a LL.B. or a J.D. to practice before the bar. In specific terms, that definition is incorrect. When you look at universities that offer both the LL.B. and the J.D., you will see that the requirements for the J.D. are rather noticably different. 23:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The B stands for bachelor and the D stands for doctor. That is a difference. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Mirriam-Webster website does NOT describe the JD as a bachelor's degree. It says: J.D.Function:abbreviation 1[New Latin juris doctor] doctor of jurisprudence; doctor of law;[New Latin jurum doctor] doctor of laws 2justice department 3juvenile delinquent I'm thinking there will be a lawyer/juvenile delinquent joke here pretty soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.191.14 (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

J.D. "Titles" and Chinese characters

I don't understand why you (Wikiant) have removed the section. What facts specifically are you disputing? All factual claims have been supported with generally accepted and non-disputed sources.

As for the J.D. title in Chinese and Japanese, your request for evidence of a correct translation is also unusual since it is a simple non-controversial fact that is easily verified with any English-Chinese-English dictionary. One possibility, for your convenience, is to check Google Translate (of which I am sure you are aware). Here is a list of profiles in Chinese of the attorneys at Morrison Foerster, one of the most well known firms in the world. It, like all other firm websites in China, translates J.D. to 法律博士 (Fa3 lv4 buo4 shi1). Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm disputing the unspoken implication. This article went through a long back-and-forth on JD's using the title "Dr." The agreement was to leave out discussion of titles as it is irrelevant to the article. This paragraph reintroduces the contentious topic. Whether or not the JD title in Chinese and Japanese translates as "doctor" is irrelevant to the article. Further, the translation is denotative, not connotative. Hence it is not clear that the translation (assuming it to be factually correct) carries the same implications as does the title "Dr." in English. Wikiant (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your doubts are not factually based, that is, you have not provided any reasons or evidence on which your doubts are based, and the evidence presented is very credible to the general public. Your burden is to provide contrary evidence, which you have not met. Since the J.D. degree exists in China and Japan, the title is relevant. Until you "play fair," I will continue to undo your edits. Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the "titles" section of this article is very relevant and important. The J.D. is the only doctoral degree whose holders, in English speaking countries, do not use the title of "Dr." I think it is an interesting social and historical story. It would be enriching to the reader if we the contributors would be allowed to expound on this more. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please go back and read the extremely lengthy discussion on this topic. The discussion spans more than a year and includes contributions from many editors. The discussion ends with the agreement to remove discussion of titles from the article. Wikiant (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if that were sufficient reason not to discuss it further, why would you only erase part of the section you dispute? Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This contradicts the article Japanese titles. That article states that the honorific for "lawyer" is bengoshi (弁護士) which (according to Google) translates as "lawyer." Wikiant (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a professional title applicable to all lawyers, even if they have no academic titles whatsoever. Titles for lawyers and holders of a doctorate are different. As a holder of a doctorate, a JD holder uses the doctor title in a Japanese academic environment. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you're making a circular argument: "The Japanese title for a lawyer is 'Dr.' because the JD is a doctorate." This, as I argued when you first made this edit, re-raises an issue that has been already settled following much discussion by many editors. Wikiant (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As the holder of a doctorate, a J.D. holder can use the appropriate academic title in Japan and China. I have studied and commented on the text above to which you refer. I see no evidence of consensus. How does an old conversation close the book on any further discussion? J.D. still stands for Juris Doctor, no matter how long you discuss it. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You've restated the circular argument: "as a holder of a doctorate, a JD is a doctor." I'd like to think that any conversation does not close the book on further discussion. My problem with your edits was that you were making them *without* the further discussion you now invoke. Wikiant (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You have paraphrased my statement, and in my opinion you were not precise. However, the center of the circle you describe is still the term "doctor," which definition I am still suprised you are grappling with. You have also pointed out my arrogance: I didn't add to the discussion above because I thought it was senseless. I had no deceptive intentions. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Opening defintion

I find the opening statement a little silly, as it does so little to describe the degree. This is because of the debates above about the nature of the degree. I still don't understand how anyone could think that this degree CANNOT be called a graduate degree or a doctorate. I think that this article needs a section dedicated to this debate. Nonetheless, the simple name, J.D., says it all. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Professional degrees are not graduate degrees. For the most part, graduate degrees are those under the Dean of the Graduate School. (There are exceptions.) Hence medical/dental/law/etc. degrees are not graduate degrees. They are professional degrees, intended to prepare one for a profession rather than to educate a person broadly. As to 'doctorate', compare the DPT degree. Are they doctors? JJL (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the DPT degree is a doctorate. Why not? I don't understand your unique definition of graduate education, which seems to contract all other sources as well as common knowledge, and seems to be self-serving. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you follow that link to graduate education? It links to Graduate school, which says The term "graduate school" is primarily North American. It also does not usually refer to medical school (students are called "medical students"), and only occasionally refers to law school or business school. I think that's consistent with what I said (some business schools are considered to be part of their school's graduate school) and hence your sense of "common knowledge" is perhaps...self-serving. JJL (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I, like yourself, am an intelligent person, so of course I checked the article. In my universe, the link routes to the article "Postgraduate Education," and there is a relevant section under "Modern times" which does not support your statement. Not sure why the same link is routing to different articles. I can't find the article you are referencing, nor any content that supports your statement. I can't believe I'm arguing with someone over whether a medical school or law school is a graduate school. You are obviously more interested in splitting hairs, and have more time on your hands than I. You didn't answer my question either, which would have been more interesting and less time consuming. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, graduate education redirects to Postgraduate Education, and the lead paragraph there contains a link to Graduate school which has the text I quoted. Try going directly to Graduate school. Medical and law schools are not graduate schools, and their students are not graduate students. I grant that it's a fine distinction; certainly, my dentist thinks he went to graduate school just like I did (for my Ph.D.). JJL (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, so I didn't link to that article. Is that an appology then? Thanks for pointing out the article. You've mis-quoted the article. It does not say that medical and law schools are not graduate schools. It says, "It also does not usually refer to medical school (students are called "medical students"), and only occasionally refers to law school or business school." Note the terms "usually" and "occasionally." Not definitive, as you claim. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The following quote comes from http://www.sheeo.org/network/presen2004/Focus%201_04.ppt (slide 16). The link is not the primary source. I have seen the quote before (it appears in previous discussion on this page) and its primary source can be found there. “It is also important to recognize that First Professional degrees in these fields are first degrees, not graduate research degrees. Several of the degree titles in this group of subjects incorporate the term 'Doctor,' but they are not research doctorates and not equivalent to the Ph.D." Wikiant (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What it does not say is that they are not graduate degrees. This contains a proposed definition of "first professional degree," and is not a sample of a widely used definition. It is from a non-profit connected to education institutions, but is not a faculty at a university. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It says that they are not graduate *research* degrees. The definition of "first professional degree" is not proposed; it's quoted. The definition (at least in the US) is established (I believe there is an article in Wikipedia on First Professional Degrees). Wikiant (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a definition from a government department that defines categories for statistical purposes--it is not a defintion of a law degree, nor does it try to be. According to that category, it is possible to have first degrees that are undergraduate degrees, therefore there is the wording of that category. It does not state that the J.D. and M.D. are not graduate degrees, it says that degrees in this category are not graduate research degrees. I don't think that the J.D. is equivalent to a Ph.D., and I don't think that comparison is useful. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this so important to you both (Wikiant and JJL)? Are you struggling against popular perceptions in favor of greater specificity, or do you have some strange envy/disgust of "American" lawyers who engage in self-aggrandizement? Or is it something else? You seem quite passionate. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ad hominem. Wikiant (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Experience shows that this leads to arguments that distract the page from the J.D. to a comparison between degrees. The matter is contentious and it's likely best to downplay the matter. Trying to infer that someone disagrees with you because of foolish reasons is not likely to be helpful. JJL (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I say foolish? I don't think either of those reasons for opposing some of the proposed changes are foolish. Why do you think so? I am not "attacking the individual" (ad hominem)--I have laboriously addressed all of your comments. I am just inquiring into motivations or perceptions. Mistakenly attributing comments to me and falsely accusing me of psuedological reasoning is indeed not helpful. I agree that comparing degrees is contentious, and I would add not useful. Many of the arguments seems to counter popular perceptions and definitions (e.g. defintion of graduate degree), and the extensive research required to make some of your arguments is evidence of this. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OIC, JJL you must have been refering to my "some strange envy/disgust" comment, and the either/or questioning. You are right, that is an inference of foolishness. Although, most people would agree with you if you had a disgust for American lawyers ;) Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Germany reference in "the J.D. elsewhere"

I propose that the reference to legal education in Germany be removed, as it is not directly relevant to this subtopic. That is, Germany does not have a J.D. It could be put under "other law degrees" which could also include discussion of the LL.B., LL.D. and degrees in civil systems (France, Italy, etc.) There are other wikipedia articles which provide good info on this. Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly rename the section "Law Degrees Elsewhere" or "Legal Education Elsewhere" or "Other Professional Law Degrees" or the like. Isn't the name of the German degree formally the same as the J.D., regardless of whether they're equivalent? If so then having something about it here makes some sense but perhaps less info. JJL (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO a very small section on "other law degrees" is more appropriate, since the article is about the J.D. only. I think that much of the information in "the JD elsewhere" is misplaced, since it doesn't mention the JD in those countries at all (eg the three paragraphs after "Specific national examples include.") The paragraph on germany states that the degree it discusses is an academic degree, therefore it is more similar to a JSD than a JD. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This article needs a section dedicated to the disputes raised on this talk page. The section would discuss the reasons and evidence for each of the viewpoints. Then all content in the article which solely advocates one viewpoint over another should be removed. It is proposed that when the neutrality of a clause or statement is not clear, the popular public perception should be given preference, with the alternate viewpoint or interpretation following in another clause or in parenthases. This would include labels of this degree as a graduate or post-graduate degree, and as a doctorate. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's a bit too vague for me. Discussing on the article page whether or not it's an actual doctorate is reasonable. However, "the popular public perception" is a questionable standard for an encyclopedia to take. JJL (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought it more polite than labeling yours a fringe theory ;) Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

huh, don't know what happened to your reply JJL (see talk history). Yeah, of course I read the archives. There are still a couple of questions I raised to which you did not respond. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is a dispute as to whether a J.D. is a doctorate and whether it is a graduate degree. Even though it (debatably) fits both definitions on its face, there is some debate on the issue, which debate is not reflected in the article content. Please comment on how to represent the debate in a neutral manner in the article content. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a graduate degree that does not provide a "Doctor" title. The name is misleading as it is from Latin. --Niyant (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The J.D. is a graduate degree in the U.S. and the treatment of the LL.B. as a graduate degree in times of yore was one of the driving factors to eliminate the LL.B. and replace it with the J.D. The American LL.B. and the American J.D. are equivalent. The program of study in the first 1.5 years of the J.D. is very similar to that gained in the LL.B. in the U.K. The 1.5 years of practical study in the American J.D. is in addition and optional to academic study. The un-sourced statement in the opening paragraph is too general. The program of study between students in the same American J.D. program can be remarkably different in terms of focus (practice seminars, scholarship, history, philosophy etc.) The opinion that that the J.D. is a doctorate degree is up to debate and not uniformly accepted. It is not one of the "also termed" definitions in Black's Law dictionary 8th edition: "juris doctor Doctor of law -- the law degree most commonly conferred by an American law school. -- Abbr. J.D. -- Also termed Doctor of Jurisprudence; Doctor of Law." I would not consider my J.D. program to be a doctoral program, and our professor with a juris doctor, master of laws and doctorate of laws does not style himself "Dr.", although with 7 years of graduate study in the law and several dissertations and books, he probably could. I think the term juris doctorate is a misnomer. We generally do not mix Latin and English words in clearly Latin abbreviations. It may have come from use, but those of us who are Latin teachers would raise-a-ruler-to-the-wrist in response to such a translation. Latin is never misleading, only missing from an education. ignoratia linguae Latinae non excusat! Legis Nuntius (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In the United States, you cannot obtain a JD from an accredited law school unless you have first obtained an undergraduate degree. Therefore a JD is certainly a graduate degree. As for whether a JD is a doctorate, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a doctorate as "the highest degree awarded by a university faculty".[ http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/doctorate?view=uk] In the United States, a JD is the highest degree in law offered in most universities providing a legal education. Therefore, a JD is both a graduate degree and a doctorate, although a person who obtains a JD is not accorded with the title of Doctor. --Ian Struan (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, in the US, the JD is a pre-requisite for the LLM (Master of Laws). The LLM, in turn, is a pre-requisite for the SJD (Doctor of Juridical Science). This would suggest that the SJD, not the JD, is the highest degree in law. Some (on this page) have made the argument that the LLM and SJD are different "tracks" from the JD thereby making the JD the highest degree in law. However, the fact that the JD is a pre-requisite to the higher degrees appears to make the "different tracks" argument merely one of semantics. Wikiant (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. My mistake. One could make the "different tracks" argument, but I think that this is more than mere semantics. It is important to point out that the vast majority of law professors (or judges for that matter) in the US do not have either a LLM or a SJD. It is doubtful that the lack of a LLM or SJD would act as the same barrier to a career in academia that the lack of a Phd would (i.e. possession of a mere Masters). The majority of accredited law schools do not offer a LLM or SJD (though this is changing). Of the top 20 law schools in the country, not all of them offer an SJD and at some of those law schools the LLM is designed for international students or for special legal areas such as tax or intellectual property. This is quite different that the situation in other academic areas, like History or Physics. One would have virtually no chance of ever obtaining a position as a professor without a Phd in those fields. Whereas possession of a LLM or SJD is not a prerequisite to enter legal academia. Thus there is certainly a difference between the law and other academic areas. How this effects the question of whether a JD is a doctorate is up for debate. I for one am not convinced either way. It is clear that a JD is a graduate degree, I think we can all agree on that. How about simply call it a graduate degree and try to steer clear of the doctorate argument, or perhaps incorporate the fact that 1) there are higher degrees offered; 2) a JD is the highest degree offered by most accredited law schools; 3) that LLM and SJD are not prerequisites to academic careers as PhD's are in other academic areas. --Ian Struan (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We've tried to steer clear of the doctorate discussion entirely (and were successful for about a year). However, as new editors come on board (or old ones come across new information), the issue comes up again and we end up rehashing all the arguments. Many editors have come to the same conclusion as you -- no conclusion in either direction. Yesterday, I inserted a section offering arguments for and against the JD as a doctorate. My hope is that we can (via a *short* list) represent the major points on both sides thereby bringing the reader to the same point as the editors -- no clear conclusion. Your "different tracks" argument is good. I encourage you to pare it down and include it as a bullet on the list. Wikiant (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments previously posted and placed in RFC section

In the U.S., the Department of Education categories a J.D. as a first professional degree and defines a first professional degree as: "An award that requires completion of a program that meets all of the following criteria: (1) completion of the academic requirements to begin practice in the profession; (2) at least 2 years of college work prior to entering the program; and (3) a total of at least 6 academic years of college work to complete the degree program, including prior required college work plus the length of the professional program itself." (see http://165.224.221.98/IPEDS/news_room/trp_technical_review_02072006_18.asp). Wikiant (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeating things you have already entered above only adds to clutter. This is how I responded to this comment before

What it does not say is that they are not graduate degrees. This contains a proposed definition of "first professional degree," and is not a sample of a widely used definition. It's a definition from a government department that defines categories for statistical purposes--it is not a defintion of a law degree, nor does it try to be. According to that category, it is possible to have first degrees that are undergraduate degrees, therefore there is the wording of that category. It does not state that the J.D. and M.D. are not graduate degrees, it says that degrees in this category are not graduate research degrees. I don't think that the J.D. is equivalent to a Ph.D., and I don't think that comparison is useful.

And you will remember this comment made during "mediation" on 8/28/06

(Dept. of Ed - Research Doctorate) states in the final paragraph at the bottom of the page: "You should remeber that first professional doctoral degrees are not research doctorates in those fields." This clearly recognizes the existence of professional doctorate degrees. Similarly, (Dept. of Ed - First Professional Studies) simply indicates that first professional degrees with the word "doctor" in them "are not research doctorates". Neither article indicates that there are not doctoral level first professional degrees. In fact, when read in conjunction, they indicate just the opposite. I agree that the J.D. is not a research doctorate. However, there is simply no basis to say that it is not a professional doctorate. As mentioned by 68.74.13.174 above, it is recognized by the University of Michigan as an earned doctorate. Obiviously, there are some first professional degrees which are awarded at the Master's level (M.Div., M.H.L.), the J.D., M.D., D.V.M., etc., are clearly not.Drdouma 19:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

To underline a point made by Drdouma and apply it to your repeated citation, the source of that statement is from a government department and not a university faculty. Universities are the ones that create and define degrees, not governments, and the University of Michigan is not an insignificant university. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the RFC did not ask for comments about the debate, but how to reflect this debate in a neutral manner in the article, to which proposal I can't imagine you would object. Perhaps you intended your comment to be under the NPOV section? Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that there are three ways to proceed: (1) debate the whole thing (again), (2) leave all reference to comparisons and titles out of the article (as per the resolution of the previous debate), (3) include evidence from neutral sources and allow the reader to weigh the evidence as he will. I offered you the DOE's definition as one example of how to reflect the debate. Others may offer other definitions. But, if we're going to debate the definitions then it seems that we're back at option (1). Wikiant (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As Drdouma points out, DOE documents do not support the definition you are reaching for.

Wikipedia is an organic process. It is likely that this issue will be debated again and again among other editors. The mediation process is not a final decree, particularly for non-participants. Welcome to the world of wiki. Perhaps you could instead attempt to respond to the issues raised with your suggestions?

I don't think that you would oppose a section in this article addressing this debate (the debate is very real, as evidenced by the plentiful comments), but you have not really said one way or the other. Your comments seem to just continue to push a perspective. I don't think it's your intent. Perhaps you could address some of my proposals more directly, so we could discuss them and find a resolution? Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with including a section addressing the debate regarding the academic nature of the JD. To avoid OR, wikipedia policy favors external validation. What ground rules do you propose for external validation? Discounting sources like, for example, the DOE is in itself debatable. For example, the same argument for excluding the DOE's definition can be applied to exclude the ABA's definition. Wikiant (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There could be a section that presents the evidence from both sides. Wikipedia standards would apply.

As for continuing the debate with the DOE - ABA issue you raise... I don't think there is any issue there. There are statements from the DOE which contradict your interpretation, and the ABA definition is not really useful, because the ABA did not create the degree, universities did. The practice of institutions can be cited. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

How about a one-sentence acknowledgment of the difference of opinion? Experience shows that every drive-by editor adds something to this and it grows by accretion until it overshadows the rest of the article. That's the concern. JJL (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true, it would be bad. However, it's not inevitable. We can play it by ear. You and Wikiant caught my subtle changes to the article, and corrected them. You would probably catch more expansive changes. Also, from this discussion page we can see that there is a lot that can be said about this debate. If I believed that the J.D. were not a doctorate, I would want some good space to explain why it is called a "Juris Doctor". Lastly, there are some wiki characteristics which simply can't be completely changed without sacraficing its virtues. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new content

I looked for some verifiable sources, of which this article lacks a great deal. Please see the following proposed content.

The J.D. is a graduate degree

UC Berkeley general catalog lists the graduate degrees offered at Berkeley. The list includes the J.D. and states that "The J.D. (Juris Doctor) is the basic law degree. It is a graduate degree." [9]

The USC catalog includes the J.D. under its list of graduate degrees [10]

University of Melbourne JD degree site, states that the JD is "a fully graduate law degree" [11]

A J.D. is a professional doctorate

Association of American Universities Data Exchange, Glossary of Terms for Graduate Education, page 9.

Time to Degree of U.S. Research Doctorate Recipients, NSF 06-312, March 2006. Under "Data notes" mentions that the J.D. is a professional doctorate.

[12] under “other references” and differences between academic and professional doctorate, and statement that the J.D. is a professional doctorate

[13] The J.D. degree is listed under doctorate degrees.

The J.D. is distinguished from a research doctorate as a professional degree, and is also classified by some as a first professional degree.

There is such a thing as a professional doctorate, it is different than a research doctorate, and comparing it to a research doctorate is not valid. Task Force on the Professional Doctorate, Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (June 2006), page 8

Department of Education article about first professional degrees [14]

Definition of a research doctorate, as opposed to a professional doctorate, such as a M.D., DD.S., etc.: "A research doctorate is any doctoral degree that (1) requires the completion of a dissertation or equivalent project of original work ( e.g., musical composition) and (2) is not exclusively intended as a degree for the practice of a profession." Lori Thurgood, et al., U.S. Doctorates in the 20th Century, National Science Foundation, June 2006 (117).

Creation of the J.D.

James Parker Hall, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Dec., 1907), pp. 112-117. Commentary by James Parker Hall of University of Chicago (who was the dean when the UofCh was the first law school to offer a J.D. exclusively) on the process of creating the J.D. degree, and extant degrees at the time (1907). The J.D. was established as the equivalent of the J.U.D. in Germany to reflect the advanced study required to be an effective lawyer. It was not a conversion of the LL.B. degree, but a graduate degree to be distinguished from undergraduate programs. The J.D. was established by the faculty of law at Harvard for this purpose, and while it was pending the approval of the administration, the degree was introduced at all the best law schools in the nations, such as Stanford, Pennsylvania, and Berkeley. Subsequently, other law schools tried to also implement the degree in order to boost the prestige of their universities, but the programs did not meet the rigorous standards of those at the better law schools.

Albert James Harno. Legal Education in the United States. Lawbook Exchange, NJ 2004. Historically legal education in the United States has taken inspiration from the approach suggested by the famous Judge Blackstone of England. This approach emphasized the importance in legal training of a foundation of broad liberal education in history and philosophy. Legal skills would later be learned in an apprenticeship. However, most law schools in the 19th century did not require any post-secondary education before pursuing legal studies. As a result, these undergraduate programs mixed much theoretical study with their curriculum (16). However, Professor Langdell at Harvard took upon himself the calling of improving legal education in the United States, and proposed that students should start the study of law as a graduate degree. This would allow students to dedicate intensive study of the logic and application of the law through his case and socratic methods. Therefore, a graduate law degree was established, the Juris Doctor, using the case and socratic methods as its didactic approach (50).

Schoenfeld, Marcus. 1963. "J.D. or LL.B as the Basic Law Degree," Cleveland-Marshall Law Review. Vol. 4. 573-579.) quoted in Joanna Lombard. LL.B. to J.D. and the Professional Degree in Architecture. Proceedings of the 85th ACSA Annual Meeting, Architecture: Material and Imagined and Technology Conference, 1997. pp. 585-591. Marcus Schoenfeld, a law professor in the 1960’s, studied the history of the creation of the Juris Doctor, and compared this degree to that of the LL.B. and other graduate degrees, such as a masters degree. He concluded that “the first degree in law should be a Doctorate simply because the very high level of achievement over three years is not sufficiently rewarded by a Mastership” (579). This is evidence that the J.D. has met the goals of Professor Langdell in his establishment of a rigorous graduate law degree. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I contribute to this astonishing talk page only very hesitantly. However, I just wanted to say that this is, from my point of view, the most insightful contribution I've read here, especially the part on the creation of the JD, and I wonder why no one found these sources one year ago. As far as the paragraph on Germany is concerned, it is almost correct, except for the Ass. iur., which is a formal degree, and the First State Exam which is now called First Legal Examination (Erste juristische Prüfung), consisting of a 70 percent share examined by the state, and a 30 percent share examined by the law school. Oh, and the BCL (Oxon.) is still awarded, so: "The comparable higher degree at Oxford was is Bachelor of Civil Law (B.C.L.)"...for students holding a first degree from common law jurisdictions, and MJur (Magister Juris) for students holding a first degree from civil law countries. Fred Plotz (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was written in 1907(?), when the situation in Germany was very different than it is now. Knowledge in the U.S. of the system in Germany, even among professors, might not have been that great, I don't know. The point is, the degree was created with a doctorate in mind. Whether their conception reflected reality or not, it is not as important as the fact that their goal was to create a doctorate in line with their conception. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In the cited article, Schoenfeld does not say that the JD requires the same level of achievement as a doctorate. He merely says that it requires a higher level of achievement than a masters. Further, the article does not say what criteria Schoenfeld employed, nor what evidence he weighed against the criteria. The quote comes off as merely one person's opinion. Wikiant (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true.

I tried to use sources that could be accessed online so that they could be easily verified, since this is a disputed issue. You can find the entire Schoenfeld article in print at your nearest law library.

Yes, it is the opinion of this individual, but this individual is a famous professor of law who was closely involved in the development of the J.D. degree. It is the professors at the various law schools that created this degree, therefore his view weighs very heavily. Nonetheless, the article was not provided as the only evidence. There are many sources that are cited above. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This may be a pretty unqualified comment on this topic, but why can't you just say that it is a professional doctorate like the MD, thus being neither a master's level degree nor a research doctorate, but a degree level sui generis? Fred Plotz (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's exactly correct. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're on the right track. Though, to my knowledge, the term "professional doctorate" does not have an agreed definition. The term that seems most applicable (at least in the US) is "first professional degree" -- a term which does appear to have an agreed definition and which also applies to the MD. Invoking a comparison to the MD vis-a-vis the term "doctorate" is problematic because the arguments re the status of the JD also apply to the MD. The difference is that the MD (in the US) has a history of being referred to as a "doctorate." Wikiant (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's a social angle to the MD that complicates matters. The JD is a first professional degree generally considered to be at the professional M.S. level. But the argument about that will go around in circles here. JJL (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiant, JJL, citations of your POV would enrich this article. Perhaps you didn't see my earlier suggestions for this. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we are all throwing in our 2 cents, I thought I'd say that I'm watching "Office Space" right now, and it's the funniest movie I have seen all month! I don't have any citations for that, and I don't think it should belong in the article, but it's true nonetheless! Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There are citations for most of these claims in the archives. Sorry, but You Are Not The First. JJL (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that, and I've tried my best. It took a long time to study the archives. I made notes of every argument and made a list of every source cited. On this foundation I made the above comments. Our article here would benefit from the citations you feel are most convincing. I don't think I have overlooked anything, and have not included those things that I found unconvincing, or highly secondary. I'm sorry if I have sounded condescending--it was the frustration I've felt in some of our exchanges. For example, I am starving for some more responses to my citations and content. Responding to verifiable sources with opinion is insufficient. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's focus on citations. Preface: I gave a citation earlier from the DOE which Zoticogrillo dismissed on the grounds that the DOE is not a degree-granting institution. As that same argument can be made for some of the citations Zoticogrillo gives above (as well as for Schoenfeld), let's put the dismissal on those grounds aside and look at sources that a "reasonable person" would consider legitimate. I'm going to skip sources supporting the JD as a graduate degree as, IMHO, there's no question on that count (at least in the US).

Sources listing JD as a First Professional Degree

U.S. Department of Education http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt274.asp

Harvard University [The following link says that the LLM is a higher degree than the JD, and that the SJD is the highest degree in law.] http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/degree.php

Yale University [The following link (1) calls the JD a "first professional degree," (2) says that the student can obtain a doctorate by combining the JD with a PhD., (3) says that the student can obtain a masters by combining the JD with a masters degree.] http://www.yale.edu/bulletin/html/law/requirements.html

American Bar Association [JD is a first professional degree in law, see p. 69.] www.abanet.org/legaled/standards/20072008StandardsWebContent/Rules%20of%20Procedure.pdf

Wikiant (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You've created a straw man by misquoting me. The DOE documents you have cited do not say any of what you claim. They only state that a professional doctorate is not the same as a research doctorate. I have not dismissed that citation, but have discussed its contents directly and thoroughly. You still have made no reply to those observations.

The DOE site you found says the same thing as the other webpages from the same source that you have cited, i.e. the J.D. is a first professional degree. So what? So are the M.D. and DD.S., which are also on that site, both of which are doctorates.

The Harvard University cite does not say that the LL.M. is a higher degree than a J.D., it says that the LL.M. provides "expanded understanding of law and legal theory." We already know that the LL.M. provides for specialized study of the law. It does not say that the SJD is the highest degree, it says that it is "is still a more advanced degree." We already agree that the SJD is a more advanced degree than the LL.M.

The Yale site says what we already agree, i.e. that the J.D. is a first professional degree. It does not say that the J.D. is not a doctorate.

The ABA document says more of the same, a claim that is not disputed.

I am not making the claim that the J.D. is the equivalent to the Ph.D.

Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiant, it is playing dirty (i.e. using pseudologic) to allude to information that does not exist. You said that "I'm going to skip sources supporting the JD as a graduate degree as, IMHO, there's no question on that count (at least in the US)." If there is a debate among learned sources outside of the U.S. that the J.D. is a doctorate, then cite them! We are trying to create an article here, not a blog. One of the best law schools in the world calls the J.D. a graduate degree at this site. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. I merely meant that I did not disagree with claim that the JD is a graduate degree, hence I am going to focus my attention on "JD as first professional degree." Wikiant (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi pals, I've found a report from a Commission of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research on the higher education system in the US. It refers to the Almanac of the Chronicle of Higher Education as its primary source, which describes itself as the most eminent source for administration and lectureship at American universities and quotes the federal census agency, the Department of Commerce, the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, the American Council on Education, and the Department of Education. The German commission's report states as follows:

1. the J.D. is equivalent to the M.D., D.O., D.D.S., and D.V.M.;

2. all are "first professional doctorates", and "learned doctorates",

3. there exist two distinguishable classifications of doctoral degrees:

a) research doctorates and

b) first professional doctorates

4. professional doctoral degrees are listed in the doctorates section, just below Ph.D. and Ed.D.;

5. the LL.B. in the USA, as the predecessor graduate degree, is equivalent to the J.D. thus being a doctoral-level degree.

This is the German source: http://www.blk-bonn.de/papers/hochschulsystem_usa.pdf

There are the references of the almanac: http://chronicle.com/free/almanac/2004/notes/notes.htm

Maybe you can use the original sources, which appear to be very authoritative, to settle this dispute once and for all. Fred Plotz (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Great source Fred Plotz, thanks. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fred Plotz' post is consistent with what I discovered (but didn't mention earlier). All of the references I found to "professional doctorate" were from sources outside the U.S. Sources in the U.S. (e.g., Yale University) appeared to prefer the term "first professional degree." Wikiant (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that all sources in the US refer to the term "first professional degree" or that the only sources that use the term are from the US? I listed three citations from sources in the US that say that the JD is a professional doctorate. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that the U.S. sources I've found use the term "first professional." The sources you list above come from (1) the NSF, (2) the AAUSE, non-profit consortium that collects university data, and (3) the San Diego Bar Association. I'm excluding the University of Utah cite as it is simply a listing of the degrees the university offers. Two of the cites I've offered are top (US) law schools. One is the American Bar Association. In terms of credibility, the former trump the AAUSE and Utah. The latter trumps the San Diego bar. Wikiant (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, take a closer read on the Harvard site. It says, "the JD is a three-year program that gives students the foundations for legal study." It then says that, "the LLM is a one-year program (for) students who already have excellent legal training." (Note: cites given last year explicitly list the JD as a pre-requisite for the LLM). Harvard then goes on to say that, "the S.J.D. is still a more advanced degree..." Taken as a whole, this sets up a clear hierarchy: JD, LLM, SJD. Wikiant (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you're still ignoring the dominant paradigm, from which those statements are made. A JD is a prerequisite for pursuing academic study of law, but it doesn't mean that those degrees are in a hierarchy, because they are of a different type. None of the sources you have offered say that the J.D. is not a professional doctorate, regardless of what weight of credibility or relevance we might give them. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's a hierarchy. The JD is pre-requisite for the LLM; the LLM is required for the SJD -- that's a hierarchy. Wikiant (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There are sources that state that the JD is a professional doctorate and that the LLM and SJD is an academic doctorate. You can keep saying otherwise, but you're not giving us anything to chew on. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not something new because the point has never been addressed. Here it is in short: (1) The JD is not a terminal degree (evidence: it is a pre-requisite to other degrees), (2) doctoral-level degrees are terminal degrees. Ergo, the JD is not a doctoral-level degree. Wikiant (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your conclusion is unsupported by evidence. The logic is good, but facts necessary to make the assertions are un-proven. There is evidence that the JD is a terminal professional degree, such as the fact that many university presidents have had JDs as their highest degree, and because there is no professional degree that is higher than the JD. Just because the JD is a prerequisite for another degree in a different category (i.e. the academic degrees) doesn't mean that it's not the highest degree in its own category (professional degree). In addition, what source do you site to support the assertion that a doctorate must be a terminal degree and all non-terminal degrees are not doctorates? The M.D. and DD.S. are both doctorate degrees, but neither is a terminal degree. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You have offered no evidence that the JD is terminal. At Yale, the JD is a prerequisite for the LLM and hence, non-terminal: "An LLM applicant must...have graduated from an approved college and have graduated with high rank from a law school that is a member of the Association of American Law Schools." (http://www.yale.edu/bulletin/html/law/admissions.html) Further, you are incorrect wrt the MD (I have no knowledge concerning the DDS). While one can get a PhD in biomed research, the MD is not a prerequisite for the PhD. In the practice of medicine, there is no higher degree than the MD. In the practice of law, the LLM is higher than the JD. Wikiant (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I didn't make it clear--there is evidence that some people think the JD as being a terminal degree. It is stated in the article that the president of Columbia and the past president of Harvard both had a JD as their highest degrees. This document, in the third full paragraph on page two, is an example of the traditional university policy that a university president must have "a Ph.D. or someting equivalent," i.e. a terminal degree. This job listing for a professor states that the professor should have "A terminal degree in management (PhD, DBA) or law (JD)" (see the fourth add from the bottom, entitled "Division of Business, Economics and Communication"). That is an example of a university that believes that the J.D. is a terminal degree. Nonetheless, I don't believe it is useful to consider a professional degree as a terminal degree, because the principle concern of a professional degree is entering a profession, not obtaining academic distinction.

The first document you cite is the minutes from a faculty meeting at University of Utah in which the faculty give direction to the headhunter. The second document is a job listing from Walsh University. Neither of these are referenceable sources. Again, Yale University clearly states that the JD is a prerequisite to the LLM. That makes the LLM a higher degree, the JD non-terminal, and therefore calls into question the JD's status as a doctoral-level degree. Wikiant (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is evidence nonetheless. Please explain why those sources are not "referenceable," such as citing the wiki article that explains the standards. You have offered what you have interpreted as evidence for your explaination of things (the Yale website), but you have not addressed any of the other evidence offered (such as the univeristy of washington websites below). You have yet to offer one single source that states unambiguously that the J.D. is not a terminal degree, or not a doctorate, etc. etc. etc. Since opinion has no bearing on the article's content, this exchange is merely your personal passtime, and you are not addressing all the evidence I have offered, I will discontinue this exchange. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the LLM programs, at the University of Washington school of law LLMs are under the category of "academic programs". Also, if you choose the "online application" link for those LLM programs (such as this one it directs you to the application process through the graduate school. For their Asian Law program, their website states that admission must be through the graduate school as well as the Asian Law Center. The LLM is traditionally an academic program, and not a professional one. The purpose of it and the SJD is for research and teaching.

Please provide a source for your claim that the LLM is a professional degree.

Please provide a source that "in the practice of law, the LLM is higher than the JD."

Please provide a source for your claim that a doctorate must be a terminal degree.

A Master of Science in Dentistry requires a DD.S., and here is another example from the University of Washington (it's easier to stay on one website than to dig through another school's website). I'm pretty sure that it's the same process for an MD in the US to become a heart or brain specialist, but I'm too tired to do more research on that now. It is outside of the scope of the article. The DD.S. is an example of a doctorate that is not a terminal degree. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is Heidelberg again. I know, normally this topic is simply not my business, but as it seems you are regarding the terms "first professional doctorate" and "first professional degree" as antitheses. I personally think this is not the case: the term "degree" is just a hypernym of the specific degree terms bachelor, master, doctor. If Harvard states "the Juris Doctor is a first professional degree", it implies, from my point of view, that it is a doctoral degree as it is indicated by its name. If it was not a doctoral degree, they would certainly state that it is, despite of its name, not a doctorate. I've looked round a little, and the only source I've found stating that it is not a doctorate is a wikipedia page on latin terms, but it does not cite one single source. Furthermore, I honestly assume that our people in the Federal Ministry are a quite diligent breed. If there was a single sign that the status of J.D., M.D. & Co. as doctoral degrees is disputed among American authorities, they would have mentioned it in a footnote when classifying them, I'm sure. The fact that there exist two different doctorates in law can also be found in the UK, they have the PhD, and the LLD. Nevertheless, both are doctorates. The only difference is, that the JD is a taught degree, but so what? These sources from UCLA and UC Berkeley denominate JD, MD, and such explicitly as "professional doctorates"

1. http://career.ucla.edu/CareerGuide/PDF/2007/Ch6.pdf

2. http://research.berkeley.edu/otheropps/UCLeads/UCLEADSapp08.pdf
Fred Plotz (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This argument then begs the additional question, "what's a doctorate." Harvard (and others) indicate that the JD is a pre-requisite for higher law degrees and that the highest law degree is the SJD. I don't know of any other field in which a doctorate is not the highest degree. Wikiant (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, there are plentiful sources which state that the J.D. is in fact a doctorate. And the idea that there are two kinds of doctorates (a research doctorate and a professional doctorate) is well supported.

btw, the term "taught degree" is used in Commonwealth countries, and is very different from "professional degree." In traditional institutions in the U.K. there is no real equivalent for a professional degree as found in the US, because the UK system still places a great deal of importance on a liberal education and theory, and it is thought that professional skills should be acquired in the field and not in an institution. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the core question I think. Basically, I guess, a doctorate is what a university confers as such. The law degrees can only be compared to other fields which have that "professional doctorate". For instance, a med student who wants to become a scientist in a special area is likely to pursue a PhD, like in biomedicine. In Germany, we have in any subject area a level above the doctoral degree, called habilitation or venia legendi, which requires a second thesis that must be much more substantial than the average doctoral thesis. It normally takes 4 to 5 years to complete. I guess the SJD is something similar, but I've read that almost all SJD students in the US are foreigners, so for US attorneys, judges, law professors this degree seems not to be regarded as necessary to be a doctor. And, from my point of view, they are right. An American law student spends seven years with higher education until he gets his JD. That's more time than in most other jurisdictions a lawyer needs to get his PhD. The Brits get their first professional degree after three years, they take the LLM in one year, and spend a maximum of three years with writing their thesis. That's seven years as well. In Germany we study law for 5 years as an undergraduate degree, and only fools need more than two years to complete the doctoral thesis, thats seven years. And, to be frank, I think research degrees are overestimated. My hardest time was preparing for the First Legal Exam, the second hardest studying for an LLM. I'm currently working on my thesis, and I must say - it is not easy - but I am not that much under pressure as I was when taking the taught courses. I don't think studying law at Harvard, Berkeley and such is easier than it is at Heidelberg, so why not allow them their "doctoral dignity"? Fred Plotz (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the MD/PhD example is applicable. Yes, an MD who wants a research degree can get a PhD in biomedicine, but the MD is not a prerequisite to the PhD. By contrast, the JD is appears to be a prerequisite to the LLM and SJD. Hence, the MD is terminal while the JD is not. That American law students spend 7 years in higher ed is a misleading statement. Four of those years are for the bachelors degree. The JD is only 3 years -- this makes the JD more comparable (in length) to a masters (which is typically 2 years) rather than a PhD (which is typically 5+ years). Wikiant (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have addressed this argument much. However, we are not those that create the status quo, and articles here are about the way things are. Institutions in the U.S. have created a "doctorate" called the J.D., and that's just that. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The J.D. is a graduate degree to the the extent that one is required to hold an initial bachelor's degree (being therefore a college graduate) before being eligible for admission to Law School. However, the J.D. , irrespective of the name US Law Schools choose to call it, is not a doctorate. In the academic order of precedence, the J.D. actually ranks below the LL.M, which is a master's degree. If the J.D. were a doctoral degree, how could it rank below a master's degree ?

BTW, not all graduate degrees are necessarily doctoral degrees. UK universities for example offer several graduate bachelor's degree that require applicants to hold an initial bachelor's degree first. Examples include the degree of Bachelor of Civil Law at Oxford (of equal ranking to an LL.M elsewhere in the world) and the degrees of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (the first professional degrees in Medicine in the UK and comparable to an M.D. in the US). Calling the J.D. a doctorate is one of those American idiossincracies like calling the championship series for the North American professional baseball leagues the "World Series" !!200.177.28.52 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution

Over multiple years, editors have gone back and forth arguing the status of the J.D. A year or more ago, the editors reached an agreement simply to expunge mention of the title "Dr." -- this sidestepped the argument by avoiding to address the issue. Recently, Zoticogrillo has resurrected the debate and we find ourselves back where we started. I suggest a different approach (something which, I believe Zoticogrillo called for earlier). Let us include a section in the article that enumerates the arguments on both sides. In this way, the article can maintain the neutrality we had achieved on our first agreement a year ago while introducing some of the issues Zoticogrillo raises. I suggest the following be inserted in the section currently titled "Titles" (listed arguments to be edited by other editors after the structure is inserted).

---

There has been some controversy as to whether the J.D., regardless of it name, is a doctoral-level degree and so whether an attorney holding a J.D. may refer to himself as "Doctor". Compelling arguments can be made on both sides. Some are:

Arguments that the J.D. is a doctoral-level degree

• The American Bar Association allows lawyers who hold the J.D. to use the title "doctor."

Arguments that the J.D. is not a doctoral-level degree

• The Oxford English Dictionary defines a doctorate as "the highest degree awarded by a university faculty." In the study of law, the L.L.M. (Master of Laws) is a higher degree than the J.D., and the highest attainable degree is the S.J.D. (Doctor of Juridical Science)

• Because the J.D. is a pre-requisite for the L.L.M. which, in turn, is a pre-requisite for the S.J.D., the J.D. is not a terminal degree and, therefore, not doctoral-level. While all terminal degrees are not doctoral-level, all doctorates are terminal degrees.

  An LL.M. is not necessarily a prerequiste to acheiving a J.S.D. see http://www.law.columbia.edu/llm_jsd/jsd
  Also, you have to be pretty damned pretensious to call your self doctor with a J.D. (certainly noone else will).
  I have several law school professors with J.S.D.'s and even they don't have the nerve to call themselves "doctor".
  A lawyer is not a doctor, but maybe a J.S.D. is as close as one can get.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.87.165 (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 

• When a university offers a joint-degree programs in which the J.D. is coupled with a masters degree, the joint degree is a masters-level degree. When the J.D. is coupled with a doctoral-level degree, the joint degree is a doctoral-level degree.

• The original degree, the J.D. was originally called the L.L.B. (Bachelors of Law). The degree was renamed in then 1960's. People who were awarded the L.L.B. prior to the renaming were allowed to, retroactively, claim that they held the J.D.

---

Wikiant (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think you're right to propose such a resolution. I'd prefer to see a shorter statement on it as I fear writing this much gives the debate undue weight, but I'm basically in agreement that something like this is a good idea. Hmmmmm, let me cogitate on this. JJL (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

All other things equal, I'd also prefer to see it short. It may come to pass that "shortness" becomes a function of constantly culling the list. Once there, people are going to want to expand the list on whichever side they support. But then, without the list, people are going to keep inserting POV throughout the article. I suppose the benefit here is that the list collects all the POV in one place. Wikiant (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You've taken all the fun out of it Wikiant. You've totally ignored the best evidence for the JD being a doctorate (numerous citations above), and insist saying that the LLM and SJD are "higher" than the JD, while also ingoring the citations that says this statement is flawed, AND not providing any citations that CLEARLY state that this hierarchy exists at all. You have not provided any citations or evidence that all doctorates are terminal degrees, and ignored the fact that both the MD and DDS are examples of doctorates that are not terminal. And we have already presented citations that state that the creation of the JD was not a simple change of name, but a creation of an entirely new program. Come on, this is practically straw man... be more sincere! You're going to have this SAME discussion with someone else a year from now if you insist on such unreasonable assertions that are so contradictory to common knowledge. If you are going to dismiss all of the citations already given which clearly debunk your assertions, at least be fair and discuss them. Have you even looked at them at all? Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The Oxoford dictionary cite is very good. But it is the OXFORD dictionary, which contains limited usage of the English language outside of England. To my knowledge, professional doctorates that are non-academic in nature do not exist in the UK (which makes sense, given the history of the establishment of the JD degree).

It is misleading to say that the SJD is the highest law degree in the US, because the highest professional law degree in the US is the JD. The correct statement is that the SJD is the highest academic law degree in the US. This has already been discussed, and no evidence to the contrary has been presented, therefore ignoring it is intentional POV-pushing.

The JD was never called an LLB. Yale was the only institution to "rename" their degree. All other institutions had to introduce an entirely new curriculum when they introduced the JD. Before Yale changed from the LLB to the JD, the requirements for the degree had undergone numerous fundamental changes from what it was in the 19th century, so that it would be just as rigorous as the JD. Most of this can be verified with the citations already given. This has already been discussed, and no evidence to the contrary has been presented, therefore ignoring it is intentional POV-pushing.

Wikiant, the proper procedure for editing comments is to use red-line.

Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I don't think the current version of the article gives fair weight to both sides of the argument either. Moreover, I think pointing out the whole range of argumentations would put undue weight at the topic. Therefore, maybe someone should create a fair article on "professional doctorates" using the abovementioned sources and simply refer to it in this article. I think this might be the best resolution as most professional doctorates don't seem to be terminal and one should try to treat equal thinks equal. Fred Plotz (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Japan, the only civil law country to offer the J.D.?

Um, no. The Philippine legal tradition is primarily civil law, with some elements of Anglo-American common law. And we've been conferring the J.D. since 1991, which is an entire decade before Japan. If there's no objection, I'll be editing the paragraph within the next 24 hours. Rmcsamson (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong link

The link to Czech version of the page leads to a page containing information about Czech "JUDr." title, which is of course different to US "J.D.". - Core, Czech wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.93.175.22 (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.pb.uillinois.edu/ cite and "circular argument"

Wikiant commented, in his removal of verifiable content, "http://www.pb.uillinois.edu/aaude/documents/graded_glossary.doc, which in turn cites http://www.answers.com/topic/doctorate, which in turn cites Wikipedia -- circular argument". The citation does not rely on the answers.com cite as authority. Other definitions on that source to not provide citations. It was merely a reference to further materials. Answers.com is not a credible cite. The Association of American Universities is really good authority.

Anyways, there are other citations. I didn't want to clutter the article with citations for something so banal (the name of the degree is juris DOCTOR), but since you demand it...

Again, you can't just claim something is the truth without any verification. Find a comparable source that says that the J.D. is NOT a doctorate, then you'll be playing fair. Until then... come on! Put it in your blog, not here. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is why I proposed the list of arguments for and against. We're talking at cross purposes. You keep asking for evidence; I keep giving evidence; you discount the evidence and offer what (as far as I can see) are fallacious arguments. Clearly, the editors can't agree (after *years* of trying). So, let's put that disagreement before the reader in the form of "evidence for and against." Wikiant (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not offered any source which clearly states "the J.D. is not a doctorate" or that "the J.D. is not a graduate degree" and I have offered many that clearly state the opposite. You are trying to create an issue which in the academic world does not really exist. You are misrepresenting this "debate" by trying to lead people to believe that there is such an issue. That is why your proposal is, as it stands, unacceptable. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Unequivocally it's not a graduate degree. It's not offered by a graduate school. It's a professional degree offered by a professional school (at least in the U.S.). I assure you that in the academic world the J.D. is not considered a doctoral degree despite its name, and the three year D.P.T. etc. are only making things worse. JJL (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Raise your argument with universities such as UC Berkeley, USC, University of Melbourne, or University of Utah University of Utah, not with us. Your crusade is misdirected and assaulting the entirely wrong party in the completely wrong venue/medium. Because it's misdirected, it's forgiveable, but annoying nonetheless. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As a practicing attorney, I concur with JJL and Wikiant and disagree with Zoticogrillo. I have always seen the J.D. described as a professional degree or a graduate/professional degree, but never as a doctorate. As a three-year program, the J.D. is something sui generis, somewhere in between the master's (two years) and the doctorate (four to eight years). Zoticogrillo, I suggest you propose your curious idea to the next attorney you run into in person and see how many quizzical looks you get. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether you are an attorney (or in what jurisdiction) or not is irrelevant. Even attorneys don't know everything, something of which my assistant reminds me almost daily. Just read the citations, because they don't agree with you, and they are what counts. As an attorney you should be familiar with the concept of authority in argumentation. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

btw, siamo piasani--I also went to UCLA, but got fed up with LA and moved up north for my law studies. Since you're an attorney, maybe you could help Wikiant and JLL find some sources for their arguments. Oh, and I'm surprised that while you were "walking" the fact that you were wearing doctorate robes didn't stike you as odd. Adding velvet stipes to your robes probably didn't make the heat any more bearable! Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Restatement of Proposed Resolution

In a nutshell, here's the history of this article: (1) reversion war in which evidence for and against the JD as a doctorate is inserted/deleted; (2) agreement to remove all discussion for/against; (3) arrival of Zoticogrillo who starts inserting evidence for JD as a doctorate; (4) removal of Zoticogrillo's edits with instruction to "see prior discussion"; (5) go to (1).

There are two courses of action: (a) return to the truce wherein all discussion for/against is removed; (b) insert a section listing arguments for/against with citations.

I offered (b). Zoticogrillo deleted (b) and resumed the reversion war. I'd rather that we not send flag the article for dispute resolution, but I'm not seeing any "give" on Zoticogrillo's part here. Wikiant (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that leaving it out is the only reasonable approach. It's a complicated matter. But like the British BPhil degree that is often a graduate degree despite the name and the Scottish M.A. that may be an undergraduate degree, you can't always judge the level of the degree by its title. Here's a sampling of the thoughts on this matter available on the web (not all WP:RSs by any means, and in many cases it's the comments that discuss it and not all are relevant): [15] (pg. 14, showing the JD as below the PhD), [16], [17], [18], [19] (pp. 5-6), [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. So, there is certainly disagreement out there, and plenty of people who see the J.D. as either a B.A.- or M.A.-level degree. Leaving it in invited endless WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. JJL (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Great work with compiling discussions. You'll note that most of them contain comments from law students outside of the US (particularly Canada and other Commonwealth countries) arguing that their degrees are equivalent to the US J.D. That kind of debate is much different than one amongst professors and deans debating the validity of the JD as a doctorate and graduate degree. Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find on closer inspection that that's just one of many arguments marshaled on either side of the debate. JJL (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My comment was a generalization, of course (many of the sites you've provided to have a connection with Canada). Many of the arguments have been duplicated here. Wikipedia is open to all verifiable information, as am I. I didn't see anything new, but please feel free to quote here anything you pull from those sites. The department of labor document lists degrees in the order of average years required, so is not really a hierarchy (nor authoritative on academia either). As I have said a few times already, I believe that these arguments are noteworthy. However, as common as they are, they are still opinions or complaints, and not facts. The WP:SYNTH is a perfect way of describing Wikiant's proposed content above, because not one of the claims (JD is not a graduate degree, JD is not a doctorate, etc.) can be supported solely with one single citation or quote. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I proposed a similar resolution with the "NPOV dispute" section, so I share your desire for a fair resolution. But I disagree with the proposed format. There are no credible sources which actually raise the status of the J.D. as an issue, and the preponderance of sources available confirm its appearant status as a professional doctorate. Therefore, the discussion about the validity of the degree should be placed in a subsection, while the predominant paradigm should be allowed to remain throughout the article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just reading through the revised lead. I noted some points made in the paragraph about the ongoing debate as to whether or not the J.D. is a doctorate about the history of the J.D. vis-a-vis Yale Law School. The paragraph says, for example "Another point raised is that when Yale University offers a joint-degree programs in which the J.D. is coupled with a masters degree, the joint degree is a masters-level degree; when the J.D. is coupled with a doctoral-level degree, the joint degree is a doctoral-level degree." The corresponding source cited merely references the Yale website, instead of an actual, external reference wherein the point made is actually stated. In other words, it appears that the edit is a statement of the editor's opinion, showing a reference into which a reader must read the editor's desired meaning. That smacks of being either a wrong or misleading reference, or of being original research. Maybe that can be cleaned up with a different source. Rmcsamson (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The website clearly states that Yale offers the JD combined with other degrees. The site also clearly states that the JD/masters combination is a "masters degree," etc. Now, you won't find a specific sentence on the site that specifically says, "...when the Yale JD is coupled with a masters degree, Yale calls the combination a masters degree." However, if you're going to require that level of specificity, then you'll have to delete 90% of Wikipedia. At some point, editors have to be able state verifiable facts in their own words. Wikiant (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What the Yale website clearly says is "the Law School offers programs leading to a master’s degree and a J.D. (Juris Doctor) or to a doctorate and a J.D." It does not categorize the joint degrees as either "masters-level" or "doctoral-level." This is clearly just the opinion of the editor, not any rephrasing of "verifiable facts" in the editors own words. My problem with that is that it's a statement of opinion, and is based on original research. The argument that one will have to delete 90% of Wikipedia if that level of specificity is required is illogical, and misses the point completely. The point is that the assertion that the article makes about the existence of a debate ought to be grounded in sources pertaining to the debate, not resources individual Wikipedia editors have dug up as a matter of personal research to frame some sort of debate. That's because that will be misleading. Rmcsamson (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Like I told Wikiant before, it requires logic to link together his "sources" to come to his conclusion, and he cannot find anything that actually states unequivocally his assertion. I'm toying with edits now, because I think the "debate" is interesting (and not just because this article gets vandalized by egotistical Canadian LLBs every other week (I'm joking)). Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the misleading reference and tagged it. I've also tagged an earlier statement which states that the primary difference between the Ll.B. and the J.D. is that the former is an academic degree, and the latter is a professional doctorate. This statement is absurd, because the (American) Ll.B. was the forerunner of the (American) J.D., and both were meant to prepare students for careers in the legal profession, and at least for the span of time that both have existed, both have been the first professional degrees needed for that sort of job. Since that statement has no reference, I've tagged it too. Rmcsamson (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and get around to finding a cite for that. I think that one of the extant cites actually has this. You can read about some of this in the history section. Basically, before the turn of the century legal education underwent a fundamental transformation, diverging from the traditional practice of the UK programs. Part of that transformation was the introduction of the J.D. to reflect some of the changes. Some more traditional institutions, such as Yale, took awhile to implement the J.D., but by the early 1900's all law programs approved by the ABA had implemented the didactical changes, which programs were similar to those in the U.S. today. Therefore, even though Yale had the LL.B. until the 1970's, the program was identical to other J.D. programs and vastly different from LL.B. programs in the U.K. Canada also implemented some of the changes that the U.S. system saw, but I don't know very much about the history of that. Nonetheless, the Canadian programs are more similar to those in the U.S. than they are to those in other commonwealth (i.e. common law) countries. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks. Just to clarify where I am coming from, I think we ought to clarify whether or not the (American) J.D. is any less(?) academic vis-a-vis the (American) J.D.. This is especially since the example used, of all law schools in the US, was Yale, which, at least according to its materials, has always seemed to place a very heavy academic emphasis on its program. Maybe we can outline, for example, curricular changes, if we can point to any? (As an example, the Philippine J.D. expands on the Philippine Ll.B. by requiring students to take more electives, as well as write and defend a thesis, all while cramming most of the Ll.B. core subjects into the first 2 1/2 years instead of spreading them out over 3 or 4 like the Ll.B.). Rmcsamson (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You meant American LL.B. vs. American J.D. I assume. I know what you mean, and I think we've got it covered. I'll look at it again, but I'm pretty sure that the sources we already have sufficiently established this, and probably clearly state it outright (i.e. that the J.D. is less academic than the early 19th c. LL.B. and the same as all law programs in the 20th c., Yale included). The ideal of actually comparing the curriculum of 19th century curriculum to that of the 20th c. requires primary source material that will be almost impossible to locate. If this is a lingering question for you after having read the history section in its entirety, then I should go back and revise my wording in that section to make this point more clear. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reindent) Ah. I was just wondering, because if we're going to take Yale as an example, the study of law at Yale seems to have started as something more practical (apprenticeship), which eventually became more structured with the establishing of YLS. But then again, the rest of the article mentions the efforts to reform legal education by Langdell and the others, which seems to show a development towards something which is still academic. What I was wondering about, then, was how it was "less" academic, if ever it was, and if this was really the main difference between it and the older Ll.B., noting of course that the J.D. seems to have been developed to even be more academic than the Ll.B.. What do you think?Rmcsamson (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Like the sources say, Langdell and others lamented at the poor preparation of graduates for the practice of law, therefore they wished to introduce both a more rigorous program as well as the teaching of practical skills. Logic and objective argumentation are some of the main skills, which were to be developed through the case book and socratic methods. The case book method is just as it sounds: it's a book full of cases. The socratic method is implemented in class (and is often the exclusive in-class method) during which students are chosen at random and orally questioned by the professor first about the case, and then examined in an argumentative fashion about the reasoning of the case. These two elements are the foundation of the didactical reformation of Langdell. This effort was later built upon by the introduction of clinics and practicums, which are now a prevelant feature of legal education in the U.S. I'm not sure why you say that the J.D. has developed to be more academic. But one thing that law students from the U.S. learn when they visit a school in Europe (et vice versa), is that the curriculum of a traditional LL.B. program and a law program in the U.S. differ in that a traditional LL.B. spends a great deal of time on the historical development and philosophy of law, which is not required for a J.D. program (but does exist in some schools through elective courses). Therefore it is not uncommon for visiting students to feel like a "dunce" in the foreign institution. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Points well taken. I still fail to appreciate how this method of study is any "less academic," given that the average (American, or even non-American, as in my case) J.D. student still has to do a considerable amount of study and research to get through law school, which involves more than just using case books or the Socratic method. This particular statement, which has no appropriate reference, is what I find particularly problematic: "the primary difference between a LL.B. and J.D. degree is that the LL.B. is an academic undergraduate degree and often requires the study of the history and philosophy of law, while the J.D. is a professional doctorate that concentrates on practical skills and requires no study of the history and philosophy of law." Most law students will be able to tell you that the study of the historical development of law and jurisprudence (legal philosophy, if you will) is a very real part of the study of core law courses such as constitutional law. Or were you referring to courses exclusively dedicated to the study of history and philosophy of law? Anyway, the source used in this article (Harno) does not seem to point at any decrease in the academic nature of the degree program. It does place an emphasis on very practical skills, yes, as this is a rather practical profession. Nor does the source seem to make the comparison that the statement I pointed out makes. About comparing the American and non-American programs, this article points out that it is problematic to compare programs across jurisdictions, since they differ. So wouldn't you agree comparing the American J.D. and the European Ll.B. probably isn't the best way to determine if a J.D. is any "less" academic than an Ll.B.?Rmcsamson (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I explained myself clearly, and I appologize. European law programs have, as their fundamental core certain characteristics, such as it's concentration on theory (philosophy) and history, which differ greatly from the American system. If you read the sources, they will talk about how in the UK there was a fear that addressing professional skills would lead to a mere apprenticeship program, duplicating the role of the Inns of Court, and that they wanted the program to retain its academic characteristics. Yes, having entire required courses dedicated to the study of topics such as history and philosophy (theory) is part of this. A thesis is not a requirement for a J.D. (a 25-40 page writing requirement is a far cry from a dissertation or thesis), but a fundamental characteristic of many law programs in Europe. There are some comparisons that are perfectly valid among degrees, just as we can compare different colors--I think the article takes issue with determining a hierarchy or "equivalency" from such comparisons. The professional training characteristic of the J.D. is a fundamental characteristic, and extremely useful for explaining its existence (e.g. why change from LLB to JD, why have a JD and a SJD, why have a LLM after a JD, etc.). I'll have to check again, but I think the citations which exist are sufficient. The purpose of the article is not to provide proof in a debate, but to provide a minimally sufficient explanation. Further citations may enrich the article, but are not necessary. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Okay, so we've pretty much settled that the European programs, at least generally, require some of these theoretical courses more than most of the American J.D. programs. But for the comparison made by the statement I brought up to make more sense, maybe we can establish the differences between the practices of law in America and in the UK, which, following the line of thinking you brought up, might be why the approaches are different. We'll have to note, for example, that there really is no inns of court in the US, which means that practical training for the legal profession will have to be had, more often than not, in law school. This is not to say that it is really very clear that the J.D. is "less" academic than the Ll.B. It's just that the US J.D. is designed to be practical. And the Ll.M. and J.S.D. are really there for those with a desire to pursue further academic interests in law, such as specializing in a particular field or training for a career in teaching law. Rmcsamson (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would you want to change it? What makes you uncomfortable with the statement as it is? What evidence can you offer to contradict it? I don't believe that the nature of the degree has anything to do with the way law is practiced in the different countries, but the idea is interesting--can you elaborate? I don't see any reason to contradict something stated in sources for something else without any reason. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you are a law student, are you studying in the U.S.? Your ideas are possibly influenced by your experience? Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What I'm not too comfortable with is that the statement asserts that the "primary" difference is that one degree program is more or less academic compared to the other. Both are definitely not as "academic" when compared to other graduate degrees (assuming that we're talking about degrees in law which you have to take after earning a first bachelor's degree). But that depends entirely on what we might mean by "academic." Do we mean spending much time dedicated to research? Do we mean churning out papers? My guess is that it depends entirely on the discipline one's taking up. But law is a practical discipline. Lawyers will probably fuss more about how to apply certain legal principles to a given problem, leaving the job of fussing over the more philosophical aspects of case and the legal principles that ought to be applied to the judges. The case decisions, casually called jurisprudence, are the stuff where the judges and courts get into their philosophical discussions, or render judgment on the particular state of public policy. Then, all law students will, at some point, have to read through case decisions; in fact, more often than not, this is precisely what they read, in most, if not all classes. And this is what they discuss using that Socratic method. It looks to me, then, that law students actually spend a lot of time reading material which touches on the law's more philosophical points, even if their training is practical in its approach. Looking at it this way, then, we can say that the J.D. is no "less" academic than a comparable law degree. Or do we judge being more or less academic depending on the courses taken up in pursuit of the degree, especially if one requires certain courses and the other does not? Again, it's a question of approach: One program might not need separate classes in legal philosophy if material like that already largely taken up within the individual subjects (say, constitutional law, criminal law, torts, etc.).Rmcsamson (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Which brings me to my point about differences in law programs possibly being influenced by how law is practiced there. You earlier made that point about the inns of court in the UK. As I've already said, there's no inns of court in the US (none that I know of, at least), which means that law students there must be trained using an already practical approach (which many law schools today supplement with clinical programs). The same thing can be said of, for example, the Philippines (where I'm from): law's a very practical discipline, and we spend more time taking up black-letter law subjects compared to taking classes in legal philosophy. Incidentally, most programs here are Ll.B. programs, and they more often than not require students to take legal philosophy courses or courses in Roman Law. This, however, is also a requirement in most, if not all, J.D. programs here. In this regard, the J.D. is not "less" academic than the Ll.B. The J.D., incidentally, requires students to take more courses, and to write and defend a thesis. In this regard, can we say that the J.D. is "more" academic? I'll concede the possibility that I have been influenced by my experience, but I don't think that makes my earlier points about the statement being possibly problematic any less valid. Rmcsamson (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

From your statements, and our conversation, I can see that the J.D. in the Phillipines is much different than the J.D. in the United States. This can be addressed in the article. But even though there is variation in jurisdictions, the J.D. is primarily a U.S. phenomenon, and the intention of the degree is that it be a professional doctorate, just like an M.D. or a D.D.S. This is according to the source material. I recommend you find a place to add a description of a J.D. in the Phillipines. You could compare it to this program, which is very typical of a U.S. J.D. program (and my alma mater, incidentally). Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Very interesting. I have placed short descriptions already. A more thorough comparison is found here. Hmm, maybe the question now goes into what a professional doctorate is, but that seems beyond the scope of this article and this discussion. I think we agree on the following things: (1) the J.D. is a graduate degree, (2) it is a professional doctorate, and (3) it has, in some jurisdictions, replaced the Ll.B. as the basic law degree. Rmcsamson (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, there's never been any question regarding its status as a graduate degree. A 4-year degree is a pre-requisite for the JD, hence the JD is (by definition) a graduate degree. Much of the debate on this page would be cleared up if we had a clean definition of "professional doctorate." The only definition I've seen here is that it is a degree that prepares one to practice a profession and which is called a doctorate. The second part of the definition is clearly circular. Wikiant (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There was someone who said the J.D. is not a graduate degree, but I guess that went away. If we accept the statement that a doctorate is the highest degree in that area, then a professional doctorate is a terminal professional degree (as opposed to a terminal academic degree). This also explains why most educators in medical, law and dental schools hold no more than a M.D., J.D. or D.D.S. It could be said that a Ph.D. is preparation for a profession as a professor, but then why do professional schools not have more Ph.D.'s? Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The J.D. is a postgraduate degree, but as it's not under the Dean of the Graduate School but rather under the Dean of the Law School it's a professional, not graduate, degree. Would-be lawyers go to law school, while would-be philosophers go to graduate school. Graduate degrees are offered by Graduate Schools, generally speaking. This is a rather fine distinction and it isn't important to me to see it made; I do think the debate has spilled over much too much into the article, though (especially the lede). JJL (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the LSE in the UK offers a joint LL.B/J.D program in cooperation with Columbia University in the US. The joint program allows an undegraduate student from the UK to graduate in 4 years with a dual J.D degree from Columbia and a bachelor's degree from LSE (not a master's degree like an LL.M or a research doctoral degree like a Ph.D). That seems to underscore that, despite the name, an American JD is viewed in Europe as a bachelor's level degree.161.24.19.112 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

LLB in Canada

This is an interesing article about the debate of changing the LLB in Canada to a JD. Representative of some concerns about a transition to a JD. For example, mentions that the law degrees in Australia and the UK "are not a very sophisticated legal education" because all that is required is three years of undergraduate-level study after high school. Also has a chart comparing the law degrees in the US, Canada and the UK. Note that for admission to an LLB in Canada, only two years of undergraduate education is necessary, whereas in the US a completed four year undergraduate degree is mandatory.

Also note (not in this article, but allusions to this fact in it) that the Canadian LLB is a mix of the academic characteristics of the UK/Australia LLB AND the professional education in the US. They have implemented some of the changes made in the US at the turn of the 20th century, which is why it is a second-entry program. Therefore, even though some Canadian schools are merely changing the name of their degree, the nature of their educational program has already gone through a transformation many years ago (much like the change Yale endured before changing the name of its degree). Yet the Canadian education still puts lets emphasis on professional skills than in the US, so there still remain some differences. The reader will note that the justification for the change at Queens (in the article) is not for academic, but professional reasons. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

New revisions

I will be re-organizing the article and doing some revisions which will actually be minor, but will make the article look pretty different. There will be minimal substantive changes (or so I'm planning). I will be adding a new section for the "debate" stuff. I'll be trying to make it less US-centric. I'll make my changes piecemeal so that if there is an issue, it will be easy to "undo" that stage of revision (or all of them, but Wiki only lets you "undo" and article 3 times a day, so hope that won't cause inconvenience). I'll be disappointed if some of my changes don't prompt at least a little discussion, so please comment or protest freely. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've recently obtained some very interesting books on the history of legal education, which I hope will enrich this article. I've not checked if they have already been cited here. The titles include: The Gladsome light of jurisprudence, Law School: legal education in America from the 1850's to the 1980's, Logic and experience, The history of legal education in the U.S. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Juris Doctor (abbreviated J.D. or JD, from the Latin, Teacher of Law

Seriously, wouldn't it make more sense to call that Doctor of Law?? This is a law degree, not a teaching degree, and translating the Doctor doesn't make much sense. It needs to make sense to people who look up "Juris Doctor." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.88.173 (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? The name of the degree is Juris Doctor and not Doctor of Law. There is another degree called Doctor of Law; the real Doctor of Law. SJD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.104.66 (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Please, begging the understanding of my colleagues out there, as far as the legal profession is concerned, and traditionally speaking of course, whether one obtains an LLB or the JD, these are both considered "undegraduate" law degrees, as the LLM, BCL(Oxford), the JSD or SJD, the PhD in Law, (which can earned just about all over the world) and the LLD (an earned degree usually called a "higher doctorate" in the UK and Europe, as the holder must already possess a PhD or another doctorate degree, and is awarded upon an extensive, well- recognised publishing record), are considered "graduate" law degrees. Regardless, what anyone may say, the curricullum of the LLB/ JD is the same in the US. Only the title, or name was changed in the 60s- 70s. The requirements remained the same under both titles, and in fact, many universities, just simply provided or offered their LLB alumni with replacement "JDs." I personally know various "LLB/ JD converts" and many have served in the US government and still today in our Courts. Other traditionalists refused the change of nomemclature...and yes, I hold the traditional PhD, the LLM, the MA, and the LLB,(by choice!). Moreover, Yale was not the last university to offer the LLB, Duke University also awarded the LLB until not too long ago, in the late 80's, to those qualified applicants who did not initially possessed a Bachelor's degree upon entry, or so did their old catalogue stated then...

2) As for the "Graduate Entry" LLB, the MAIN requirement or prerequisite, of the Graduate Entry LLB ("all over the UK",and not only in Scotland, as another article in Wikipedia indicates) is another undergraduate or graduate degree and not necessary in law. It is a second- entry or professional degree, as more training post - law school is still required. Hence, "graduate- entry." It can usually be earned in 2-3 years of law study in a Law School, or Law Faculty, depending on the entry credentials of the applicant. Again, I personally know, as I earned all of the above degrees from both UK and US Universities. I have taught Law School both in the UK and the US, and I have seldom heard so much negligent "mis- information" about the study of law, as in these articles/ pages... Last, and if I recall correctly, NONE of the LLB degrees at my UK Law School, required the study of philosophy or history, and only few sat for a Jurisprudence class...as this Wakipedia article misleadingly indicates. <--autosigned by TempleBarrister-->

I appreciate your comments. I hope you will share more with us so that this article will be improved. It would be useful to have citations for some of the things you have said so, if there are errors in the article, they can be corrected. It is true that the article does need much improvement. It's still to be seen which items should be changed.

I am curious about your statements about the LLB in the UK, because I have had a hard time finding information supporting your view. Can you please share with us why you believe the LLB to be as you described? The most cursory research on the topic has revealed some information contradictory to your statements. For example, in viewing the program description for the LLB at LSE (my personal favorite UK school), there described is a program for which no previous university degree is required. Students must merely have a secondary education (with very high scores as well). Also, in reading the description of the courses, we find descriptions such as, "Criminal Law will give you a grounding in the general principles of criminal law and an examination of its social applications" and "Introduction to the Legal System (one term) will introduce you to the way in which the legal system works." These are not core characteristics of a skills based professional program.

Perhaps we could say that what is most important in understanding the nature of these law degrees is not their status or rank (which is so problematic), but how they are characterized by the institutions and society in the respective jurisdictions. The fact remains that in the UK the study of law is in the context of a Blackstone-ish undergraduate degree, and in the US it is a graduate degree (in the most literal sense).

I'm so surprised to learn about the LLB at Duke, that's great info. I am curious to know what you think about why it is that they awarded the LLB to students without a previous degree; that is, if the JD is an undergraduate degree, why the distinction?

Thanks. I look forward to your reply and future contributions. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is important to point out that the concept of "undergraduate education" differs considerably in the US and the UK. In the US, a 4-year bachelor's degree normally requires that a student take a large number of general education or free elective classes (taken from any area actually) and only a small number (no more than 10 or so) one-semester courses that are specific to one's major. In the UK by contrast, any typical undergraduate degree for example in Law requires 12 or so full-year courses in Law properly (roughly equivalent to 24 half-year classes in an American university) over a period of only 3 years. On top of that, a few British universities like Oxford and Cambridge also make provisions now for an additional 4th year spent abroad in a continental European partner institution, which is increasingly important given the UK's integration into the EU legal system.

In other words, by the time a UK student graduates with an LLB or BA in Jurisprudence/Law, he/she will have covered almost as much or perhaps even more legal theory than an American student graduating from a 3-year, graduate-entry J.D program. The difference is though that, in the British case, the graduating student won't be able to practice Law immediately upon graduation. Instead, he/she will still have to go through a 2-year, graduate-entry vocational course (including an apprenticeship stage), where the focus will be on legal practice, rather than legal theory (hence the name "vocational"). Overall then, I would say legal training in the UK actually compares favorably to that in the US. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I recently stumbled on this page and was very surprised at how heated a seemingly innocuous page has gotten. This talk page did interest me greatly and is the first talk page that I'm participating in, so I humbly apologize for any errors or duplicative arguments, I perused the above but due to it's length, can't promise a lack of redundant comments :). It's absolutely true that the American educational system has made a lot of degrees into doctorate status. DPT, DC, DDS, MD, etc... which would be considered a bachelor degree in schools that follow the UK model.

Someone cited above that the JD is between a masters and a Ph.D in length of time required, with a masters at 2 years and a Ph.D. in 5-8. This is largely true. However, there are plenty of programs in which highly qualified applicants can get a MD(US) or BSc in 6 years, and very rarely in 5. Don't even get me started on the DPT. I'm going to contend that the JD is a first professional doctorate in the U.S., much as a MD, DC, DVM, or any other professional doctorate is, and simply state that it's not a research doctorate.

As it pertains to the U.S. system, doctorates are awarded with a linear degree, generally without a very significant body of writing such as a dissertation which can be well over 100 pages, which is why they are considered professional doctorates and not research doctorates. Is it the "highest degree" in the field. I would argue no, one could get a LLM or SJD. I don't think that the SJD even has admissions except for in one or two law schools which are significantly less prestigious than those listed later, it is my understanding that it is largely an honorary degree, in many ways similar to the D.Litt over the Ph.D. (as noted from the vast minority of law professors at the best law schools in the country such as Harvard, Stanford, Yale who do not hold a SJD). I may well be wrong. The L.L.M is generally for foreign students, and for professional purposes the JD is the terminal degree, much like the MD or DDS. It's true that you must have a DDS to get a Masters in Dentistry (http://dentalschool.umdnj.edu/masters/index.htm), so I don't see how having an LLM as a requisite for the JD makes it any less a doctorate in the United States. Also, one doesn't need a bachelors degree to get a DVM(http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/studentprograms/subpages/faqs.html#q17), nor a DDS(http://www.sdm.buffalo.edu/programs/dds/admission.html). Can't we just put something in that says that the JD is a professional doctorate similar to the MD, DDS, DO, PharmD(yes, I realize this is a relatively "new" doctorate) etc.. and leave it at that?

I apologize if what I've stated above has already been settled, I'm not aware of anything actually reaching consensus, so just my 2c. Demandredz (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I was wondering if there really needed to be six citations to attest to the fact that it is a professional doctorate. Couldn't we simply just cite (http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-professional-studies.html) as a trustworthy source and leave it at that? Demandredz (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Demandredz. We look forward to your contributions. Yes, the things you have brought up have been discussed here, but that's ok. This article will soon have significant revisions which should add some clarity to some of the issues you raise. I've actually been working on them for a month or two, and will submit them when I get around to it (it will take awhile). You are correct that at most institutions the LL.M. is for students trained in other jurisdictions, but the LL.M. and SJD are not honorary degrees, but are research degrees, which require a thesis or dissertation. The reason why the professional doctorates in the U.S. are different than the counter-parts in the UK is because the programs in the US are much more demanding than a BA and are skills based. They are a completely different animal. Yes, I think it's ridiculous that there needs to be so many citations in the first sentence. This is to dissuade POV-pushers from vandalizing the article with arguements that the JD is not a doctorate (which happens at least once a month). Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. The present article, despite any of my prior objections, does seem to be quite objective and neutral. I'll have to confess ignorance to the stringency of the UK LLB or any of the other BA's. I noticed that Stanford Law School does not allow students with a US JD to enter it's LLM or SJD programs, as these are the exclusive domain of students who hold a "primary law degree earned outside of the United States" (http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/degrees/advanced/). I'm not sure how widespread this phenomenon is, however, I do give it more weight that a top school like Stanford has that kind of policy. Since you plan on doing some significant revisions, this may be a point worth raising in those revisions. Thanks. Demandredz (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Zoticogrillo: as I mentioned in previous comments above, I'm afraid you have several misconceptions about legal education in the UK. First of all, as I also explained before, the UK system is characterized by a clear distinction between academic education and vocational training. Academic legal education, which is theoretical in nature and not skills-based, is provided by the universities in the form of a 3 or 4-year initial degree (usually an LLB, or a BA in Law/Jurisprudence in the case of Oxbridge); the one-year LLM (a taught master's course generally specializing in one area of Law); and the 3-year PhD (a research doctoral degree awarded on the basis of submission of an original thesis and oral examination). Vocational training on the other hand focuses on legal practice (lawyering per se) and consists both of a formal taught component, for example, the Legal Practice Course or the Bar Vocational Course, and an apprenticeship stage (pupillage for prospective barristers and the training contract for prospective solicitors). Both academic training, at least up to the bachelor's degree, and vocational training are required to practice law in the UK.

Second, I disagree with the notion that a BA/LLB degree in the UK is not as intense as or somehow inferior to a J.D. program in the US because the latter is a graduate-entry course while the former admits students fresh out of secondary school. The problem with this notion is that it ignores the different concepts of undergraduate education in the British and American systems, see again my explanation above on that specific point. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I fully understand this. The fact that vocational training and an apprenticeship is required after the LL.B. is one of the reasons why saying that it is equivalent to a J.D. is problematic. The J.D. is a professional program which does not require any additional training. I haven't attended an LL.B. program in the UK, so I can't say for sure that it is less intense, but the justification for the J.D. requiring a first degree is that it is an exceptionally demanding program that can only effectively be completed by an experienced student with a first degree (not my own claim). Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The notion that someone without an initial bachelor's degree would be unlikely to complete an American J.D. program successfully seems to be at odds with the fact that the LSE for example now offers a 4-year dual degree program with Columbia University in the US that allows an undergraduate LSE student to graduate both with an LSE LL.B degree and a Columbia J.D. degree. The academic equivalence of the J.D. and the LL.B at a bachelor's level is also underscored by the fact that, either in the US or the UK, both the J.D. and the LL.B are equally accepted as a minimum qualification to apply for a master's program in Law leading to LL.M degree.

Finally, I am not really knowledgeable enough to comment on your assertion that J.D. programs are "skills-based" and, therefore, do not require further vocational training. However, looking at the J.D. curriculum at the Harvard Law School or the Yale Law School, it doesn't look vocational to me. In fact, with the obvious adjustments to account for the differences in the UK/EU and US legal/constitutional systems, the Harvard or Yale J.D. curricula seem remarkably similar to what is taught for example in a B.A. program in Law at Oxford or Cambridge. The fact that American lawyers, unlike their British or German counterparts, are not required to go through an apprenticeship stage before they can practice is not necessarily a testimony to the superiority or "greater intensity" of American legal education; instead, it may signify just the opposite, i.e. that legal education in America is not as comprehensive/through as in Europe !161.24.19.112 (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ref: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/programmes/doubledegree/lse-columbia.htm

Upon reading the reference, which was an interesting read, I think it clearly shows that it applies to the exception as opposed to the rule. While someone without an initial bachelors degree could succeed at an American J.D. curriculum, the reference does make it seem that even at a prestigious and academically challenging school such as the LSE, even they don't believe anything short of a small minority can do so. Some supporting quotes from the reference:

"[T]he programme with Columbia was established in 2002; on average, two to three LSE students have taken part each year. The programme with USC was established in 2005 and, in its first year, three LSE students participated" - "Students should be alerted that studying at a US law school may present challenges, both personally and academically...students will be faced with a very different academic culture, one in which they may find that other students are more competitive than they are used to (eg, in pursuing job opportunities at law firms). Typically, US law students will have completed at least one university degree and often several, and as such LSE students will be part of an older and in some respects more focused cohort of students. In this context, students may find it difficult to perform at as high a level as that which they achieved at LSE, particularly during their first term of study. Given these challenges, students must not take lightly the decision to pursue the double degree programme." - "Competition for admission is usually very tight. In general, students who do not achieve at least an upper second in their first year exams and any essays written in second year (Michaelmas Term) are unlikely to be admitted, and the cut-off may well be much higher than an upper second." - "Candidates will be selected on the basis of academic performance, seriousness of purpose and maturity, and will be proposed for admission to the Receiving Law School conditional on sustained academic performance in their second LLB year. Given the ‘upper degree’ status of law studies in the US, it is understood that there is a preference for more mature candidates who demonstrate a breadth of experience appropriate to undertaking US legal studies at the graduate level."

While I certainly don't question that a handful of bright students at the LSE can and very likely are successful at the graduate level, I think by the cautionary nature of the reference itself that it would appear that the American J.D. and the curriculum of legal studies is in fact more difficult than the L.L.B. While there are those who can get into Dental, Veterinary, or other graduate schools without a bachelors degree, I would argue that those too, are the exception rather than the rule. It would appear from my reading of the reference that the reason these students receive a JD at the end of four years is because they managed to successfully complete two years of law at Columbia or Southern Cal, which by the tone of the article appeared to be much more competitive than the L.L.B. While your reference does support that an undergraduate can handle the rigors of a J.D. program, the content and tone of the reference as well as the extremely high admissions factors required of undergraduates, many of whom are already at one of the arguably best universities in the world, does not seem to support your statement that "The notion that someone without an initial bachelor's degree would be unlikely to complete an American J.D. program successfully seems to be at odds...", but rather the opposite. Demandredz (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The best sources for this information is in the article, which are from (or quoting) the creators of the J.D. What appears to be the practice, and what was intended by the creators are two different things. The citation of the LSE dual degree program is secondard evidence at best, and should be seen in light of the primary sources already identified in the article. Come on!--a pair of kings beats a pair of 3's no matter what day of the week it is. ;) (i.e. the quality of the source really does matter). Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive?

I propose that everything above be moved to the archive. I've never done it before, so someone with experience, feel free to take the reins. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason for this is not just the obvious, but also because I have almost completed some revisions and additions I've been working on, and I think we could use some space for discussion. You can find my working draft here. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait until after reaching consensus on the revisions. Until such time, I'd like to keep the comments above at the fore. Wikiant (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but there are a lot of legal dabblers, and lawyers, in my family so I have read a bit about it. I've just had a look at Zoticiogrillo's draft. It seems quite good, but I would avoid putting very much about the UK into the JD article. The legal history of England is enormously complex, so general statements about it are likely to be wrong in some respect, and probably of limited relevance in this context.

For example, as well as the crown's distinct common law and equity courts, the Church of England's own courts dealt with marriages and wills, and maritime matters were the province of Admiralty courts, which applied a version of Roman Law. Until late in the 19th century there was a small group of "Doctors of Law" trained at Oxford and Cambridge in Roman law who were based at an establishment in London named "Doctors' Commons" and were assisted by procurators, or proctors, who resembled the solicitors and attorneys of the two kinds of non-civil law courts. However, most English LLDs (and DCLs) were given without examination to established academics and professionals. Scotland has a system of legal education more like the American, but it serves a hybrid civil law-common law system historically owing a lot to France and may not have had much influence on the USA.

Although the law applied was different (Roman law overlaid by the Napoleonic Code), the reform of American legal education may well have owed more to nineteenth century Germany than to the UK. Until well into that century, Oxford and Cambridge were sunk in torpor and were no example for anyone. All kinds of British qualifications were by then awarded without examination: the Oxbridge BA and MA, Barrister-at-Law, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and all DD and LLD degrees in the UK. The PhD was directly imported to the US from Germany, and came to the UK only later, from the USA. NRPanikker (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC) (Corrected mistake. NRPanikker (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Great stuff! Can you provide any citations for it, because it would be great for the article. The stuff you say about the UK enriches the article and can be reconciled with it--I don't think there are direct contractions, are there? The article material on English legal education is the material most often discussed and cited by other scholars writing on the topic, hence the choice to include it. Yes, there probably was a lot of influence from Germany, because it is said that the name of the J.D. was created after the J.U.D. in Germany. Are there other similarities between the two systems? I'm really excited about your expertise and potential contributions. Please don't leave us, and please contribute an article or two. Feel free to edit my draft article if you wish. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and to clarify, I agree that the reform of legal education in the US has nothing to do with the UK--it was that system in the UK that the reformers were trying to avoid. But the reasons for their changing was because their point of reference was the system in the UK, from which they drew their laws. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

! Proposed new article ! please comment

I have finished my first draft of a new article for "J.D." and propose that it replace the one currently posted. It can be found here. Please place your detailed comments on the discussion page of that page and save discussion on this page for general comments. The main changes from the current article include: more detailed history, elimination of irrelevant content, organization and ease of reading, verifiability of content, and pictures. I will replace the current article with my proposed article when edits to the proposed article have finished. Unlike with this article, please make very detailed comments to all changes to the proposed article in order to facilitate a useful creative process for all. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wikiant for your contributions. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of editing attempts just occurred. It's too bad that people don't have the patience to read this discussion. Well, it's natural to expect that they don't, actually, considering its prolixity.

Many have commented on the poor quality of the article. I heartily agree. But not many are aware of my proposed edits referenced above. I spent a lot of time on it, and it could benefit from others' enthusiasm to contribute. A week has passed with Wikiant being the only viewer. I think that we need to archive the discussion. Archiving is not erasing. Section that people think are important can be summarized and reposted to a new page. We could use a tightening of the wordy statements above. But more importantly, we need something new to talk about. There's a lot of new content in the proposed article cited above. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should assume that silence is consensus? Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)