Jump to content

Talk:Academic degree/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

A doctoral degree is not a doctoral degree?

Dear fellow editors: EEEyikes! Will everybody please settle down?

First of all, the statement that a doctor of jurisprudence degree is not a doctoral degree is not only incorrect, it is nonsensical. A doctorate is not a doctorate? I think maybe we're confusing terminologies here.

A doctorate is a doctorate, by definition. (The fact that this statement is tautological does not make it any less true.) Whether a JD is considered a "terminal" degree is of course a separate and more technical issue (the answer to which depends on what is meant by a terminal degree) and depends on the varied and technical use of the term "terminal."

A JD is a professional degree, not a "research" degree like a Ph.D. However, a JD is a doctorate. An MD is a doctorate. A DVM is a doctorate. This is not rocket science.

Persons who have a JD are, I believe, properly addressed in academia as "doctor." When I earned my undergraduate degree in accounting, the head of the department of business administration at the university had a JD (and no Ph.D. or other doctorate), and everyone at the university --including all the Ph.D.s in the other departments of the business school -- referred to him as "Dr."

The statement that the American Bar Association is a professional and not an academic body is patently incorrect. Not only is the ABA a professional body, it is also an academic body in the sense that it is the only national accrediting body for law schools in the United States. Not only is the ABA the accrediting body, but many if not most state supreme courts will not even allow you to sit for the bar exam unless you have attended an ABA accredited (i.e., ABA "approved") law school, or you are already licensed in another state. (California is one notable exception, and California also has its own accrediting body for California law schools, including those schools that are not ABA-accredited.)

The ABA also promulgates model rules for professional conduct for lawyers, which rules are adopted in modified form by many states. I haven't looked lately, but I believe the editor who stated that the ABA has a pronouncement about lawyers using the term "doctor" was correct. The fact that JDs outside academia do not usually refer to themselves as "doctor" is irrelevant to the question of whether a JD is a "doctorate," as is the fact that even in academia many JDs might not use the appellation either.

For an example of how the JD is treated in academia, please refer to the AACSB accreditation rules (for business schools). Yours, Famspear 20:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As a post-script, I think it's a bit interesting that when I was in law school neither the students nor the professors referred to the professors as "doctor" so-and-so, even though almost every professor had at least a JD. Many had multiple law degrees, and a few also had SJDs (or JSDs). Interestingly, one of my law school professors was not himself a lawyer at all. He had no JD -- only a Ph.D. in history. Despite his Ph.D., nobody in law school (that I remember) ever referred to him as "doctor" either. (I hadn't really thought about this until just now.) And I had a professor who had a Ph.D. in sociology (and a JD, too) -- and nobody referred to him as "doctor." Everybody in law school seems to have used the appellation "professor." I doubt, however, if anyone would have had the temerity to openly contend that a "doctor of jurisprudence" degree was somehow not a doctoral degree. Indeed, I don't know that the idea would ever have occurred to us. I guess the term "doctor" as applied (in the academic world) to the holder of a JD is more common in business schools, etc., than in law schools.
By the way, I myself am not in academia. With my JD degree, I have only one person in the whole world who refers to me as "doctor" -- she's a paralegal at a law firm with whom I deal quite a bit.
Any other JDs out there who want to share a perspective on this? Yours, Famspear 21:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

After edit conflict.
Famspear is mistaken in his first claim, I'm afraid; a Juris Doctor is no more a doctorate than a rubber duck is a duck. He seems to be assuming that the name makes the thing, but it doesn't; "doctorate" signifies a degree at a certain level, and a J.D. isn't at that level. That people at his university called someone with a J.D. "Dr" is interesting, but tells us nothing; they might have misunderstood the nature of his dgree, or have been being polite (or sarcastic)... Besides, people tend to assume that their colleagues have doctorates even when they haven't; I've often heard a colleague of mine referred to as "Dr" even though his D.Phil. is as yet unfinished. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mel Etitis: Considering your erudition regarding the proper translation of the Latin term "doctor" into the English term "teacher" (with which I totally agree), I'm a bit surprised you and I disagree on this point. Saying that I "seem to be assuming that the name makes the thing but it doesn't" is like saying that a "book" is not a "book" even though it's called a "book." By the way, the professor I was referring to had his name with the initials "J.D." appended to it on the door of his office; he was the head of the department. He was there for many years. Your statement that the Ph.D.s in the other business departments (most of whom, by the way, were his fraternity brothers) "might have misunderstood the nature of his dgree [sic]" sounds a bit like whistling past the graveyard. No, a juris doctor is not a "rubber" doctorate. It's a professional graduate degree and a doctorate, regardless of what you or I believe about it. Sorry. Yours, Famspear 21:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
If someone said that the "book of nature" and a book run by a bookmaker should be included in a library would be making a mistake; they bear the name "book", but aren't books in the usual sense, nor in the sense relevant to libraries. The point about someone's colleagues calling him "Dr" is evidence, but in the absence of knowledge as to why they called him that, it's far from conclusive. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Post-script: By the way, if you would want to contend that a juris doctorate, as a professional degree, is not considered a research degree, then I would totally agree. If you would want to contend that a Ph.D. is a research degree but is not a professional degree, I would again agree. Yours, Famspear 22:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, another point: regarding the statement that the term doctorate "signifies a degree at a certain level, and a J.D. isn't at that level" -- I have a few questions.
First, where is the documentation to support the statement that the term doctorate "signifies a degree at a certain level"; second, what exactly is that "certain level" and where in the literature is that "level" described; and third, what is our documented source (not merely our belief) that a J.D. degree is somehow not "at" that "level"?
If a J.D. is not really a doctorate, and we want to say that in an encyclopedia, what is our authority for saying so? Doctor in Latin is translated as "teacher" in English. The J.D. degree is called "juris doctor" or "doctor of jurisprudence." Holders of the J.D. are considered "academically qualified" (to use a term of art) under AACSB accreditation standards to teach business law in a business school in the same sense that holders of the Ph.D. in accounting are considered "academically qualified" to teach accounting in the same business school. If the holder of a J.D. (with no Ph.D.) can not only teach at an AACSB accredited business school in the United States but also be the head of an academic department in that school and be referred to by students and Ph.D.s in his own and other departments as "doctor," exactly what is our support for saying, in an encyclopedia, that in the United States "despite its name, the J.D. degree is not a doctoral level degree [ . . . and that the J.D.] is a first professional degree and does not confer the title of 'doctor'"? If we're going to make these kinds of statements in Wikipedia, let's cite to some tangible, written support for it first. Yours, Famspear 23:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Famspear, I'm not seeing a logical argument here (which surprises me given that you are a JD). Your argument that others call JD's "doctor" is ad verecundium. Virtually all U.S. students refer to their teachers as either "doctor" (regardless of whether they hold Ph.D.'s or MS/MA's) or "professor" (regardless of whether or not they are full professors, instructors, adjuncts, or T.A.'s). Similarly fallacious is your argument that your department chair is/was a JD. Frequently, the main requirement to be chair is that one isn't doing any meaningful research or teaching. You've asked for some tangible written support, so I quote from Encyclopedia Britannica: "In the United States and Great Britain...The bachelor's degree marks the completion of undergraduate study, usually amounting to four years. The master's degree involves one to two years' additional study, while the doctorate usually involves a lengthier period of work." According to this description, the J.D. is a master's level degree. That's more than I'd be willing, prima facia, to grant given that the JD is a pre-requisite for two further degrees, the second of which is, truly, a doctorate of laws. Wikiant 00:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wikiant: Well, no, when fellow editor Mel Etitis says that "despite its name, the J.D. degree is not a doctoral level degree [ . . . and that the J.D.] is a first professional degree and does not confer the title of 'doctor'" and I point to actual instances where people in an academic setting do refer to a person holding the JD as "doctor," I am simply giving an instance that negates the statement by Mel Etitis. That is not an argumentum ad verecundiam. An argumentum ad verecundiam is an inappropriate appeal to authority. If people refer to the man as "doctor" I am not making an inappropriate appeal to authority, I am pointing out an actual situation where Mel Etitis' statement does not hold true. Maybe it's the only example in the whole universe (and maybe you or Mel Etitis or somebody else can show that the example was an anomaly). By contrast, if I were to say "a juris doctorate is a doctoral level degree simply because professor so-and-so says it is," that might be a fallacious ad verecundiam argument.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and acts like a duck, and people are actually calling it a duck, then those facts are at least "some evidence" (as we say in law) that it is a duck. Doesn't necessarily mean that it really is a duck -- but pointing out the evidence is not an argumentum ad verecundiam. What we are saying is that we have "some evidence" it is a duck, and if anybody has evidence to the contrary then bring that evidence in, and let everybody look at it.

The diploma reads "doctor." If the term "juris doctor" contains the word "doctor," and you say it's not a doctorate, then pointing out the fact that it says "doctor" right on the diploma is not a fallacy. Further, the burden of proof is not on me to prove that the "juris doctor" degree is a "doctoral" level degree or that the "juris doctor" degree does not "confer" the title of "doctor." I didn't insert the verbiage into the article. My brother Mel Etitis inserted the statement, into the Wikipedia article, that a juris doctor degree is NOT a doctorate, etc. Under the rules of Wikipedia (specifically verifiability), the burden, so to speak, is on him, not me.

I'm a little puzzled by your statement that "Virtually all U.S. students refer to their teachers as either "doctor" (regardless of whether they hold Ph.D.'s or MS/MA's) or "professor" (regardless of whether or not they are full professors . . . ] Obviously I don't know where you went to school, but I can tell you that my experience is just the opposite. In college, most students referred to those holding doctorates as "doctor" and those holding only master's degrees as "Mr." or "Mrs." The term "professor" in college was used relatively rarely in most of my classes (even with instructors who held the title assistant professor, associate professor, or full professor). Most of the time it was either "Dr." or "Mr." or "Mrs.", as applicable.

In law school, by contrast, despite the fact that every instructor but one held a J.D. and some also had a Ph.D., the term "doctor" was almost never used. Go figure. If anything, that fact at least partially supports the argument of my brother Mel Etitis -- although perhaps not really, since the Ph.D.s weren't referred to as "doctor" either.

My "argument" that the department chair at my business school was a J.D. was not fallacious, for the simple reason that it was not my "argument." It was a fact. Brother Mel Etitis contends that "despite its name, the J.D. degree is not a doctoral level degree [ . . . and that the J.D.] is a first professional degree and does not confer the title of 'doctor'. I simply pointed out at least one instance where his statement does not hold true. Saying that the main requirement to be chair is that one isn't doing any meaningful research or teaching completely misses that point.

I argue that the statement that "despite its name, the J.D. degree is not a doctoral level degree [ . . . and that the J.D.] is a first professional degree and does not confer the title of 'doctor' has not been verified for purposes of Wikipedia. It's not up to me to verify it, and it's not up to me to prove it's not true; I didn't insert it in the article in the first place.

Just as a helpful hint, and aside from anyone taking on the task of providing support for the position that "despite its name, the J.D. degree is not a doctoral level degree [ . . . and that the J.D.] is a first professional degree and does not confer the title of 'doctor', a better way to attack my "arguments" -- if you want to do that -- would be to show that the example I gave (of the JD who was called "doctor" in a business school setting) was really an isolated case, and that in the vast majority of cases JDs outside law schools are not referred to as "doctor," even when they teach business law in a business school, etc. Hey, that might actually be the case. In other words, I might be wrong and Mel Etitis might be right! The point is, let's not put statements in Wikipedia like "despite its name, the J.D. degree is not a doctoral level degree [ . . . and the J.D.] does not confer the title of doctor" unless we add something to Wikipedia to verify the statement. Yours, Famspear 05:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot -- thanks for the quote from Encyclopedia Britannica. I'm not sure that the quote is "some evidence" that a juris doctor is not really a "doctorate" but at least it's in the record now. I don't agree with your reasoning, though. A master's degree is one to two years, according to the quote. A juris doctorate is three years (about 88 to 97 semester hours at most law schools in the U.S.) So it doesn't seem to follow that "the J.D. is a master's level degree." If anything, the quote supports the argument that the J.D. IS a doctorate, since "a doctorate usually involves a lengthier period of work." (A J.D. ALWAYS involves a lengthier period of work than one or two years.) But, thanks for the quote, anyway. Yours, Famspear 05:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The evidence for doctorates being at a certain level is etymological and historical. As we agree, "doctor" means "teacher"; a first degree doesn't qualify one to be a teacher. The process was originally that one became a bachelor, then a master (which entitled one to lowly and usually temporary positions in the academic hierarchy), and finally a genuine doctor, which meant that one was a fully-fledged teacher. For the most part the doctorate wasn't a formal degree, and the mediæval usage underwent a number of changes in various respects (differently in different countries) — but the basic pattern was retained: bachelor, master, doctor in rising status. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Putting aside etymological issues, the term "doctor" has come to be associated with the highest degree awarded in a field. Following Famspear's lead, I offer as evidence virtually all fields of study. In no field of study (of which I am aware, and under the U.S. system), is there a degree beyond the Ph.D. (among researchers), the MD (among medical practitioners), etc. (Note: There are instances in which the highest attainable degree in a field is not a doctorate -- e.g. the Masters of Fine Arts.) So, the issue is the following: The title "doctor" is conferred on those who have achieved the highest degree in a field (with a few exceptions), yet there are two degrees that are higher than the JD (the LL.M. and the S.J.D.). Wikiant 13:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The J.D. is not a doctoral level degree. That someone chooses to call it that means nothing. There is at least one college that calls all of it B.S.-level alumnae "doctor" because of some tradition, akin to the Italian use of Dottore. Everyone agreed that the old D.Pharm., before the recent changes, was a master's-level degree. When I see surveys of "highest level of education completed" I often see the J.D. lumped with professional master's degrees like a M.Arch. (usually 2-3 years) or M.S.W. or the like. The D.C. was often lumped in there, but they're made an effort to get more people to have completed a B.S. first to raise their standing, as pharmacy is trying to do. As mentioned, in many fields the terminal degree is a master's, for example in many artistic fields (M.F.A.). I clearly recall arguments, reported in The Chronicle of Higher Ed., over whether a J.D. holder should be a university's president given the lack of a terminal/doctoral degree. I also point out that following a J.D. one still takes a master's or (higher) doctorate as the next step, if desired. In my experience, J.D. holders occasionally use "Doctor" in very formal settings in academia--if speaking at a graduation ceremony--but for the most part, no. Certainly, I consider them to have a degree that is the equivalent of a 3-year M.Arch. Since there is no pre-law curriculum, it just isn't comparable to a Ph.D. biologist who took a B.S. and M.S. in the same subject. JJL 15:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I restored the DPharm footnote. About half of the students do the whole program in 5 years--18 year olds just out of H.S. JJL 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This matter has been settled with authoritative research in the current J.D. article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Some suggestions to the Degree systems section

Hi, I was just wondering if we should add more information such as the New Zealand degree system under the Asia and Oceania for Degree systems by regions section or at least expand on it. Also, I was wondering, for the degree J.D., is it more appropriate to call it 'Juris Doctor' or the 'Doctor of Jurisprudence'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConspiracyMonkey (talk • contribs) 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Juris Doctor is the standard usage. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


Request for Review of the History Section

It looks like several Wikipedia articles that cover the history of academic degrees (e.g. PhD, doctorate, academic degree, postgraduate education) have been cut and pasted or edited from a reference mentioned as "the Catholic encyclopedia", and sometimes contradict each other.

For example, it is stated in some of those aforementioned articles that the Master's degree in medieval times was awarded as the terminal degree in the Faculty of Arts, after which one could proceed to the higher faculties (Theology, Law, etc.) where the terminal degree was that of Doctor. However, the postgraduate education article at the same time implies at one point that master's degrees were also awarded in the higher faculties (prior to a doctorate) and that practice actually varied from country to country. On the other hand, although there appears to be a consensus in the various Wiki articles that the master's degree conferred the right to teach in th Faculty of Arts, it is unclear whether a doctorate was actually required to teach in the higher faculties (which doesn't appear to be the case in England for example where doctorates were rare). There is also conflicting information in the different articles on the number of years required to earn a bachelor's, master's and doctor's degrees in the medieval universities and on what the requirements were for each degree (again, practice probably varied from country to country).

That seems all confusing to me and I suspect that there may be inaccurate information in some of the Wiki articles. I suggest someone who is an expert on the topic review the "History" sections in all relevant articles and clean them up, preferably using more than one reference and avoiding cutting and pasting. 200.168.20.118 (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Medicine?

I'm not sure if anyone noticed but why isn't there mention of the MD or medical degree? I know there is an article on it but the list of academic degrees seems fairly incomplete without such a major degree. Obviously it is not an obscure profession and requires some of the longest training among any occupation. Though it does not follow the usual route of a doctorate, neither does the JD and it has its own section on the list of degrees. So why not medicine? When I mean medicine, I mean physicians. Hitokirishinji 05:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Much like "law" has its own little section on the table of degrees. I propose that medicine does as well. After all, there are different degrees for (physicians) medicine such as MD, DO and MBBS (ChiB). Can anyone edit this and add these? Hitokirishinji 20:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Is an MD considered an *academic* degree? In the U.S. it is regarded as a professional degree -- that is, the recipient is trained to perform a task, not to generate new knowledge. Hence, MD's who want to perform research obtain Ph.D.'s in addition to the MD. Wikiant 03:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I suppose it depends on what you consider professional or academic. I know of many MDs who still do research without PhDs. Though once again this may come down to semantics, many MDs do clincal research rather than lab research as is typically regarded. And there are those MDs who do research without a PhD. On the same note, if this same logic is applied to the other degrees, is a JD considered a truely "academic" degree? Plenty of lawyers practice without doing any further research in law. Hitokirishinji 20:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It would be fair to point out that even the article itself says the JD is a professional degree. Thus would it be more fair to create an entire article on professional degrees with their own catagory box much like the academic degree article has at the bottom and move all the professional degrees there? Unfortunately, I don't think I have power to edit or create that box at the bottom.Hitokirishinji 20:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, some MD's do research (I've published with some -- as a side note, I have noted many cases in which straight MD's don't understand the fundamentals of experimentation and statistical analysis necessary for research work). Whether or not an individual does research, however, is not the issue. My claim is that the MD degree is not *intended* to prepare the student for research. It is intended as a practitioner's degree. Wikiant 17:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, as was pointed out above, an MD is a first professional degree and it is also a professional doctorate. Many MDs also do research, but an MD degree is not a research doctorate. You're right Wikiant, an MD is not a PhD which is a research doctorate. That's the reason that many MDs who do research also obtain PhD degrees. Yes you're right, the MD (like the DDS/DMD, DO, DC etc) is a practitioner's or an applied degree
Tweeker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweeker (talk • contribs) 20:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
In the UK (and I believe in other countries too), the MD degree is definitely a research degree undertaken exclusively by physicians (i.e. graduates of medicine). I believe it can be considered equal to a PhD degree. Although it is not a prerequisite, it gives its bearer a competitive edge around the time of clinical promotions (e.g. from Specialist Registrar to Consultant) or academic promotions (e.g. Lecturer to Senior Lecturer).
Another notable difference between the US and UK systems is that a medical degree in the UK is regarded as a first undergraduate degree, whereas an undergraduate degree is a prerequisite to studying medicine in the US.
In response to the point Wikiant made as to whether an American MD is "professional" or "academic", I thought that it can only be awarded by universities which makes me lean in favour of it being "academic". I would also question the argument that since it does not prepare you for research, it is not "academic" -- I don't believe any undergraduate degrees are designed to prepare the student for graduate or postgraduate research. --Buzwad 11:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
To my knowledge, all of the degrees under discussion (JD, MD, DPharm, PhD, etc.) are issued by universities. The distinction, herein, of "academic" vs. "professional" applies only to doctoral-level degrees. My sense of the arguments to this point is: (1) a "doctorate" is the highest attainable degree in a field; (2) a doctorate is considered "professional" if its main purpose is to enable the individual to work in the field; (3) a doctorate is considered "academic" if its main purpose is to enable the individual to expand the field's body of knowledge via research and publishing. With regard to the JD, the current focus of debate, as I understand it, is whether or not the JD satisfies (1). With regard to the Ed.D. (see earlier discussion on this page), the as-yet-unchallenged claim is that the Ed.D. satisfies (1), and (2) but not (3). Wikiant 13:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The MD is an academic degree, as is any degree issued by a university. But it is a professional doctorate, along with the DO, DDS/DMD, DMV, DPharm, DPM, OD, JD, etc. I've seen people argue Ed.D. both ways. As a rough guide--not accurate in all cases--if it falls under the purview of the Dean of the Graduate School, it's not a professional doctorate; otherwise (Dean of Medicine, Dean of Law, etc.), it may well be a professional doctorate. There are countless exceptions to this. JJL 17:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that this captures the thrust of the preceding argument. Specifically, there is no disagreement over the fact that the MD is issued by a university. The distinction between "professional" and "academic" appears to focus not on the *issuer* of the degree, but on the *intent* of the degree. To my knowledge (and experience), MD's are not trained, principally, to conduct research, but to *practice* medicine. Most (though not all) of those MD's who principally conduct research obtain Ph.D.'s in addition to their MD's. Wikiant 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess it is mostly a matter of terminology, but the distinction you make between "professional degrees" and "academic degrees" should be actually a distinction instead between "professional degrees" and "research degrees". All degrees awarded by a university are, by definition, "academic degrees" whether they are "liberal arts degrees", "professional degrees", or "research degrees". If we used your criteria to restrict "academic degrees" solely to those degrees that are based on original research, then all bachelor's degrees and most master's degrees would have to be considered "non-academic", which would be obviously absurd ! Toeplitz (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

exclusion of J.D. from article

The article will be enriched, users better informed, and the Wikipedia community benefitted by mention of the J.D. among professional degrees, since it is one of the major professional degrees. An editor has removed content referring to the J.D. from the article, even though that content was relevant and verifiable. Why should the content be removed? Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's just one example among many that could be used. Since it's been contentious at Juris doctor, bringing it here seems unnecessary. We don't need more examples, and if we do, pharmacy would work just as well and not be disputed. JJL (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
In the past, it had been contentious. But I believed that the issue had recently been resolved. The J.D. is more common than the D.Pharm., and one with which many people are familiar. Indeed, I believe that there are more J.D. degrees awarded than any other professional doctorate. Including it here is logical, and it would meet all of the wiki policies, including verifiability, relevance, (general) consensus, etc. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we'd need to hear from more people to claim consensus--isn't it just the two of us disagreeing here? Where's the consensus? In any event, the J.D. is at the very least the oddball of the group--using a DDS, or D.Pharm., DVM, or DO is a better example, while this is at best a corner case. JJL (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
We are discussing a topic fully covered in the J.D. article. Please feel free to view the discussion page of that article. It has gone through more than two months of negotiation and discussion to create he present article, with which Wikiant seems to be very happy (he gave me my first barn star for it [blush]). I'm sorry that you weren't there to contribute. Perhaps you can now?
The oldest professional doctorate in the U.S. is the M.D., and the second one was the J.D. The J.D. predates all those other degrees. There are scholars who have opined that the introduction of the J.D., together with the M.D., paved the way for the creation of those other professional degrees. I would say that some of which you mention are actually the odd balls, since they don't even require a B.A. But all of this is in excess of the "relevance" requirement.
The content to which you are objecting is cited with authority and otherwise meets all other wiki criteria. If you disagree with it, I invite you to initiate further dispute resolution methods. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You're being quite contentious. I refer you to WP:OWN. The fact that you have a citation for the claim isn't the only criterion. I'm arguing that a second example is not necessary and that this is not the most typical example. You seem to feel the rule is "no verifiable information may be removed" but this logic leads to every passing editor adding his or her own favorute example. If a second example is necessary, I suggest we use, say the D.V.M. It's more typical and has fewer issues surrounding it. JJL (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I enjoy the creative and negotiating process of wiki. Thanks for engaging me in this discussion. It seems we both hold our views with the same degree of conviction. I do hope you will re-join the discussion at J.D. I'm sorry that you feel that I've taken ownership of the article. There are many editors who have contributed to the article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I've taken some time to peruse it. While I see that you've marshaled a strong case, the lengthy "Debate about Academic Status" section at the J.D. article underscores the fact that this is still a contentious matter. Three years ago I stood in a room of 100 Ph.D.s and heard the derisive laughter as a J.D. from the Board was introduced as "Doctor So-and-so" and while that's hardly a WP:V fact, I just don't see this as a simple matter. Until it's settled there, I'd rather not have a contested example spread across WP. Why can't another example suffice? JJL (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't remember why I first looked at this J.D. article, but when I saw the debate surrounding it, I started to do my own research. When there was a lot of contention about my comments based on my quick research, I realized that I needed to do more serious research for the purpose of educating myself and contributing to the article. I maintained an open mind through the process, and the issue became nearly obsessive for me when I found no support at all for the claim that the J.D. is not a doctorate. Therefore the article I finally drafted was a drastic change from the previous version, and had a lot of detail. I've continued to ask people for support for the claim that the J.D. is not a doctorate mainly out of curiosity, because after months of intense research and talking to professors, I haven't found a thing. Regardless of the derisive (and appearantly ignorant) disrespect of the audience you witnessed, I still hold my research findings higher than opinion.
I'm sorry that you chose to stop participating in creating the article. I hope you'll add your contributions. From what I think is an objective view point, I can find no reason not to include the J.D. as an example, and it seems that it would be one of the best examples as well.
Wouldn't this discussion be more appropriate and useful on the J.D. talk page? Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
But that's precisely my point. Let's confine it there before moving it to other pages where it's not needed. JJL (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It has been months since there has been any debate about the J.D. article. There appears to be a consensus. I'm sorry that you don't agree. By choosing not to participate, there is an implied consensus. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The "implied consensus contains" a lengthy section on the debate about the degree's status ("Debate about academic status"). There appears to be consensus that such a debate exists. Hence, I think we should use another example. There's no such debate documented at Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, for example. JJL (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
When I say "implied consensus" I mean that no one has raised issues with the article since its last major revision, and it was meant to refer to your lack of participation in that article.
Didn't you read the last paragraph of the "debate" section? "Notwithstanding these arguments, there is historical justification for the J.D.[1] The J.D. was created by one of the world's top universities,[2] it is only a few years younger than the Ph.D. (in English-speaking universities),[3] and there is no contention among U.S. universities that the J.D. is a legitimate professional doctorate.[4]"
This is my last message on this topic. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with JJL and Wikiant that the matter unfortunately has not been settled yet. As mentioned by a previous poster, the specific naming of a degree does not necessarily indicate that degree's level or, equivalently, its academic ranking. It seems clear to me that an American J.D. ranks higher than a B.A. or B.S. to the extent that earning the latter is a pre-requisite for admission into a course of study leading to the former. On the other hand, the J.D. ranks lower than the LL.M (a part-taught/part-research master's degree) and the S.J.D (the American research doctorate in Law ), to the extent that one has to earn a J.D (or equivalent) first to be later awarded an LL.M or an S.J.D. Furthermore, outside the United States, it appears that UK universities for example equate the J.D. with their own undergraduate LLB in ranking, as indicated by the fact that a J.D. cannot be directly admitted into a British PhD program in Law, having normally to apply first for admission into an LL.M program. It would be however problematic, from a US perspective, to group the J.D. with the British LLB, because the J.D. is a graduate-entry degree whereas the LLB is not. US J.D. and British LLB programs also have somewhat different curricula and goals.
In any case, my point, which is quite simple and, I believe, uncontroversial, is that the Wiki articles should classify/group different academic degrees based not on the names different countries use to refer to them (which are completely arbitrary), but rather based on their ranking/status level defined as above, i.e. which degree is normally required to be earned first before one can proceed to admission to another. That criterion would be consistent with the definition of "academic degree" adopted by the Wikipedia itself, namely:
"A degree is any of a wide range of status levels conferred by institutions of higher education, such as universities, normally as the result of successfully completing a program of study."
ChebyFilt (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ See Historical Context section of this article
  2. ^ Hall (1907), 112-117.
  3. ^ Rosenberg, Ralph P. (1962). Eugene Schuyler's Doctor of Philosophy Degree: A Theory Concerning the Dissertation. The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 33, pages 381-86. (subscription required)
  4. ^ Association of American Universities Data Exchange. Glossary of Terms for Graduate Education. Accessed June 10, 2008.

Too much opinion in international section

Hi, The information on individual countries' academic titles, particularly the comparisons to the U.S. system that they contain (see Germany, Russia), is not based on fact, but prevailing opinions held by people within those countries. It would be far more constructive to provide factual information such as that contained in the sections on France, Italy and Poland rather than to describe how one country's academic degree is higher / lower / on the same level as an academic degree in another country. 85.207.119.153 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The section on Mexico is completely inaccurate: reflects the point of view of private education, does not cite official references such as the Ministry of Education guidelines for Degree homologation, has advertising statements such as “The ITAM is one of the best universities in the World”, and mention unregulated education programs such as “Diplomados” which are not degrees and have no international homologation. Regards, C.M. May 11, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.215.25.232 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The entry on Germany simply asserted as fact the equivalency of the traditional Magister and Diplom degrees to what it termed a "master's degree." I changed it to indicate that this is the local, but not universal, opinion, and gave a specific example of such an exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakesnobread (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Equivalence of traditional German degrees

In edit [1] by User:Bakesnobread some changes were done with respect to equivalence of the traditional German degrees (which are now in the process of being phased out and replaced by the Bologna bachelor+master system). However, the statements don't differentiate sufficiently IMO and are unclear.

  • There are several kinds of traditional Diplom degrees: 1. The Diplom from universities (Universität) with the right to grant Doctor degrees. This usually takes one semester less than Bologna bachelor+master in the same subject, but still gives you access to the same jobs as the new master's degree in Germany, so they are de facto equivalent (in Germany). 2. The Diplom from universities of applied science (Fachhochschule). This gives you access to the same jobs as the Bologna Bachelor in Germany. To add to the confusion, the universities of applied sciences have switched to the bachelor/master system, too, and award master's degrees that give you access to the same jobs as corresponding university master's degrees in Germany. 3. Finally, there is the Diplom from universities of cooperative education (Berufsakademie) and those also switched to the Bologna system. I don't know about whether they give you access to the same jobs as the others in Germany. But the old Diplom awarded by these institutions was clearly different from the other two. The article should make a difference at least for a Diplom from a university and a Diplom from a university of applied sciences and say that even in Germany, the second one is not considered equivalent to a master's degree.
  • It is true that many Diplom degrees from universities are cheap to obtain. Quality and difficulty vary significantly, even within the same university. It can be the case that the university has top-notch education on an international level for one subject and offers only very poor education for others. The same is true for PhDs. A university may have internationally renowned professors and the PhD students dominate international conferences for one subject, and have only unknown professors and PhD students that hand in theses providing a literary overview of existing knowledge rather than advancing it. Accordingly, the quality of master's or Diplom theses in one subject may be significantly better than PhD theses in a different one. So it's certainly fair to say that the Diplom from universities is often equivalent to a Bachelor, but it's not fair to claim this to be a general truth.
  • The claim "For example, these traditional German first degrees are regarded by the University of California, the top-ranked public university system in the United States, as equivalent to an American bachelor's degree for purposes of graduate school admission." seems pretty strange. As I said above, it's true that the university Diplom is often de facto equivalent to a US Bachelor. However, the argument refers to the University of California to say it's always considered a Bachelor there. But the university only says that "The minimum graduate admission requirements are: (1) a bachelor's degree or recognized equivalent from an accredited institution"[2] (my emphasis). So how can the university's practice be used as an argument for the claim that a German Diplom is equivalent to a Bachelor? Rather the practice says that it's at least equivalent to a Bachelor, doesn't it? And the statement lacks a source. I looked on the website but all I could find was the statement "International students requiring determination of their degree equivalency, should contact Graduate Admissions for more detail."[3] There's no published list of equivalences there.

So please rethink the changes made by User:Bakesnobread and at least add some qualifications and sources. --rtc (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Africa?

This article implies (by ommission) that there are no universities in Africa. Roger (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

One cannot imply by omission. Certainly, you may infer due to omission, but that's your choice. Wikiant (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
And a much better inference is that no one has written about academic degrees in Africa because there probably aren't a lot of English-speaking Wikipedia editors knowledgeable of that topic. I'm not but if you are then please contribute! ElKevbo (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
It's on my to-do list. I'll do some research on South African universities over the next few days. I'll leave other African countries to editors who are more familiar with them. I'll also drop a note about this on a few relevant WikiProjects. Roger (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Brazil

It is written that in Brazil it is necessary to have a brazilian Masters Degree in order to join a PhD program. That is not true. It is actually quite common that one steps into the PhD right after he has completed his undergraduate degree (diploma). Most people don't do that because in the Master (mestrado) they can get a sound scientific basis, which is necessary in the PhD but isn't really the focus in the undergraduate program. Please correct this.

This website http://www.pucpr.br/processos_seletivos/mestrado_doutorado/ (a graduate program from a brazilian university) explains that also. But it can easily verified in the rules of any other graduate program.

--Gabriel NR 17:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


Having studied/taught in many universities brazil-wide, I am pretty sure that most curses take 5-6 year to complete, only the licenciatura degrees taking 4-5 years; I am going to modify that, even though right now I don't have statistics to comprove this claim.

--Lucas Gallindo 23:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hierarchy of Degrees

I am amazed that the hierarchy of degrees section contains no references. I propose that the section be removed entirely. I'm sure that there are plenty of references showing that an associates degree is lower (in terms of hierarchy) than a bachelors and a bachelors lower than a masters, etc. Professional degrees and combined professional/academic degrees present a multitude of problems -- many of which are specific to the specific degree in question. Wikiant (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've put cite tags on several of the degrees listed under the highest category. I'm not sure that the categorization should exist at all given the lack of references. However, the tagged degrees are more in need than others of supporting references. Wikiant (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have found that some of the links in the ref. sec. are non functioning, can you please update the link, cite another source or remove the reference. Thank You. --AbqDez (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get it...

See, when someone wants to be a doctor in Brazil, they do doutorado. But it doesn't seem to be the same in UK or USA. Looking doctorate up in the dictionary, I found: "doctor's degree." So, how's the process of getting the degree called? If doctorate is the term used to describe the degree that was gotten. Asking differently: one that has a doctor's degree is doctorate, but one that is in the process of getting it is what? Another question: if doctorate is to doctor's degree, master's degree is to...???? As a Brazilian, I may say that some terms aren't the same, even if translated. Doutorado in Portuguese means that person that got the title or that person that is studying to obtain it. I don't know if the dictionary wondered it, so I ask for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.100.245.94 (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understood your question as it appears to be written in a somewhat broken English. In any case, a person who is working towards a PhD degree in the US is normally called a "PhD candidate" after he/she passes the required qualifying exam(s) and completes the required coursework prescribed for the degree. The term ABD ("all but the dissertation") is also used to refer to PhD candidates who have fulfilled all degree requirements except the submission of the doctoral dissertation itself.
As far as Brazil is concerned, a person who is working towards a doctorate, but has not been awarded the degree yet, is called a "doutorando". A person who finishes a "doutorado" (Eng "doctorate") is on the other hand referred to as a "doutor" (English "doctor"). 200.168.20.171 (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Besides the terms 200.168.20.171 mentioned we also use the term "graduate student" in the USA. These are usually people with a masters degree working towards their Doctorate degree but sometimes are people with Bachelors degree working towards their Masters or Doctorate degree.
With regard to 200.100.245.94's second question. A person who has been awarded the Masters degree is referred to as having a Masters or "MA." Thus, if you see a name such as "Maria Bosque, MA" then you would know she has a Masters degree though would not know if she has completed her studies for now or is working towards her Doctorate. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.csvs.cz/struktura/sedv/HES_0110.pdf http://www.zcu.cz/study/dokumenty/ECTS_DS/ZCU_DS_022982.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Academic degree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Academic degree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Laws concerning authorized use of degrees

Except for Academic degree#Academic title bearing (which is about Netherlands), the article says nothing about laws that forbid unauthorized use of academic degrees. There's some information implied by Validation of foreign studies and degrees but it hardly touches the core of the subject. I know for sure that such laws exist in Germany, Austria, Switzerland. https://www.audiology.org/publications-resources/document-library/laws-regulations-relating-use-degrees-designators states without citations that many laws exist in US countries, categorized into "Licensure Law", "Deceptive Trade Law" and "Use of Degree Laws". Someone please update the article with information in that respect. --rtc (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rtc: I'll have a look at what I can find - I can start the section off with a description of the UK, but I don't know much about other countries. Robminchin (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Academic degree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Academic_degree/Archive_2&oldid=1185631261"