Jump to content

Talk:Juris Doctor/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

ABA law school approval standards

Here is a link for the ABA law school approval standards, I think some of the stuff in this article might misrepresent them. [1]. Peyna 11:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Four factual errors: The AAALS does not requires a bachelor's degree for admission to law school. There are many good, legitimate universities that are not regionally accredited; Rockefeller University is perhaps the best example. There are no law schools that require a JSD/SJD for tenure. A JSD/SJD is not even remotely comparable to a British higher doctorate.

Proposal for restructuring around WHAT a J.D. represents

This entire article focuses way too much on boring, petty technicalities and not enough on what people actually do to get a Juris Doctor (that is, the requirements to earn the degree).

For example, there is no mention that the first year curriculum is relatively standardized (semester-long courses in Contracts, Torts, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, and Property and a year-long course in Lawyering Skills/Legal Research & Writing), or that there is a upper-division writing requirement, or that Professional Responsibility is required, etc. There is too much focus on procedure over substance. I would think that most people interested in reading about the Juris Doctor would want to know WHAT kind of academic coursework it actually represents.

Also, length of time to get the degree is discussed in two separate places in the article, which makes no sense. That needs to be consolidated.

Do we have consensus that these aspects need to be fixed? --Coolcaesar 08:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Coolcaesar's approach. Yours, Famspear 12:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
When you get down to it; exactly what is supposed to be the difference between the legal education article and this? Peyna 14:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Although it was my bright idea to do a four-way merge a few months ago (which failed to gain consensus), I now see the benefit of keeping this separate from Legal education in the United States. We should restructure this article around the actual technical requirements for the degree and then keep the best parts of the criticism/commentary/comparison stuff. For example, the stuff in Legal education in the United States about Moot Court, law review, clerkship, and career path information is clearly beyond the scope of an article about the Juris Doctor degree. At nearly all schools Moot Court and law review are optional extracurricular activities and clerkship and one's career path are things that happen outside of law school. Also admission to the bar is something that happens outside of law school — that's what BarBri's for! --Coolcaesar 16:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
So, what we really need to do is narrow the focus of this and the other articles to reduce the overlap. Feel free to help out fill out the list below as to what should go in which article:
  • Different types of law schools/programs available
  • ABA accreditation
  • Degree requirements
  • Bar exam
  • Reading the law
  • Waiver/reciprocity
  • Admission
  • Course of study

Okay, so given that the four-way merge failed; can anyone justify why we have Legal education in the United States and Law school separate? Peyna 17:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Terminal, professional, research doctorate revisited

I am left unconvinced as to the status of the JD. I understand the arguments with respect to the status of the JD to be as follows (where ' indicates the counterargument, as I understand it):

1. The JD is a (terminal) doctoral degree because it is the highest degree in its field.

1'. Other degrees are higher than the JD inasmuch as the JD is a prerequisite for those degrees.

2. The JD is a doctoral degree because it enables the recipient to conduct research.

2'. Preparing one to conduct research does not qualify a degree as "doctoral" (i.e. anyone who can read can conduct research). Rather, doctoral degrees typically prepare one to generate *new and significant* knowledge to a field.

3. The JD is a (professional) doctoral degree because it is the highest degree required for the practice of law.

3'. It is also the lowest degree required for the practice of law because it is the only degree required for the practice of law.

4. The JD is a doctoral degree because the ABA says it is a doctoral degree.

4'. The ABA is a trade association, not a degree granting institution. Following this logic, the UAW can, with equal authority, claim that all autoworkers are doctorally prepared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiant (talk • contribs)

So your position is what exactly? If you're saying it's a first professional degree, I agree. That's what most sources say, as far as I know. I don't know why some people keep pushing the view that it's a doctoral degree when the J.D. is clearly not the true equivalent of a Ph.D. because it lacks a true dissertation requirement. --Coolcaesar 18:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a doctoral degree; but not a research doctorate. Much in the way of the M.D. or a D.S. Peyna 22:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I claim that the JD is not a doctoral degree. The arguments I've seen offered along with compelling counterarguments are listed above. I have heard no compelling reason why the JD qualifies as a doctoral degree. Wikiant 12:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a master's-level degree. But look at the 3-year DPT that's now being offered, with a 1-year conversion doctorate for those with the MPT...doctorates are being watered down to nothing. JJL 13:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I just did some more reading online. It looks to me like Peyna is right. The UC system calls it a doctoral first professional degree. So it's a professional doctorate rather than a research doctorate. --Coolcaesar 18:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
From your argument it appears to me that an M.D. (in the U.S.) would also not be considered a doctorate? It's a very comparable situation, except that a J.D. is three years in school; whereas an M.D. is typically 2 years of school and 2 years of clinical work. Lawyers get their "clinical" work at their first job and don't have the formal requirements of doctors. So, I think you either have to take the approach that they're both doctorate degrees or they're both not doctorate degrees. Peyna 22:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you have mischaracterized the arguments. I have numbered my comments to correspond with those above:
  1. No one is saying that a J.D. is the highest obtainable degree in its field; nor is being the highest obtainable degree in a field a prerequisite to being considered a doctorate degree. The J.D. is almost always a prerequisite to practicing law in the United States.
  2. The better argument is that a J.D. is pretty much the prerequisite to teaching at a law school. No higher degree is required. The research statement is off base, since lawyers constantly "generate *new and significant* knowledge to a field."
  3. The same goes for the M.D./D.O.; I don't see how this is persuasive against considering it a doctorate.
  4. The ABA is a voluntary professional organization. They carry considerable weight regarding the regulation of the practice of law and in Congress in general. The ABA is responsible for drafting countless laws. While they certainly have an interest in promoting respect for the profession; I also think their position is due some deference.
Peyna 22:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. According to doctorate, "a doctorate is an academic degree of the highest level." By that definition, your argument #1 implies that a JD is not a doctorate.
  2. Being a prerequisite to teaching does not mean that the degree is a doctorate. In most US colleges, a masters degree is the minimum prerequisite to teaching.
  3. I believe that your comments regarding the ABA are moot wherein the academic status (i.e. "doctoral" or not "doctoral) is concerned as the ABA is not an academic body.
Wikiant 13:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
"[O]f the highest level," to me, reads like a superlative, especially if you see the other contexts that doctorate and related articles use it in. A masters degree may qualify you as adjunct or staff but most colleges and universities want faculty (and definitely those eligible for tenure) to hold a doctorate. The only classes I had at undergrad not taught by Ph.D.'s or D.S.'s were labs. Finally, the ABA is the accreditating body for law schools. Peyna 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Only California allows graduates of unaccredited law schools to take its bar exam. Everywhere else, the only schools recognized by the state bars or the state supreme courts are the ABA-approved ones. --Coolcaesar 02:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention the horribly low passage rates on the California bar exam for non-ABA approved grads. Peyna 04:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What is "new knowledge"?

For purposes of this article, what exactly is "new knowledge"? I have seen a distinction made at various times between research by a Ph.D. that generates "new knowledge" and research by a J.D. in connection with the law, which presumably somehow does not generate "new knowledge." What exactly is the distinction? Any thoughts, anyone? Yours, Famspear 20:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Post-script: I want to point out that my query above is a trick question.

Let me give an example with 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, from a legal standpoint, on these facts. 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 the answers.

It is possible to discover a solution to each of the two questions (trust me on this).

So, can a legal adviser provide answers to the above two legal questions -- without performing research to discover something new -- without creating "new knowledge"?

Can we (or should we) define "new knowledge" narrowly enough so that whatever answer the legal adviser "discovers," it's not considered "new knowledge" for purposes of the on-going Ph.D-J.D. discussion? And, if we strain to define "new knowledge" so narrowly, so that whatever a J.D. discovers is by definition simply not considered "new knowledge," what does that say about our Ph.D.-J.D. discussion?

How is our discussion complicated by the fact the Committee on Ways and Means of the U.S. House of Representatives held hearings in July of 2006 on the reported developing practice -- of the United States Patent Office -- of granting patents for tax reduction strategies inherently based on original legal research? Yours, Famspear 21:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Post-post script to my fellow editors:

The following is the kind of language in the article that goes to the heart of my questions:

Note that the term research in the context of legal education refers not to the generation of new knowledge, but the discovery and analysis of jurisprudence and statute laws.

The thrust of the quote seems to be that "law" is somehow different from other fields -- that the discovery of "new knowledge" by a J.D. in connection with the law is somehow (qualitatively?) different from the discovery of "new knowledge" in, say the field of history, or of psychology, or of linguistics, by a Ph.D. in one of those fields. Am I missing something? Yours, Famspear 22:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something. The U.S. law school "comparable" to a Ph.D. is the S.J.D.; both those degrees involve preparation of and defence of a dissertation presenting "significant" original research. The U.S. law school comparable to a Ph.D. is _not_ the J.D. Generally speaking, any paper, essay or note that is prepared to meet the requirements for a J.D. degree wouldn't satisfy the dissertation requirements for a S.J.D. The issue is not whether new knowledge is discovered and presented in the J.D. paper, essay or note; the issue is whether that paper, essay or note is enough to present "significant" original research. --Aquarius Rising 22:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So, if the issue is not whether the paper, essay or note is enough to present "significant" original research, but the statement "[ . . . ] the term research [ . . . ] refers not to the generation of new knowledge, but the discovery and analysis of jurisprudence and statute laws" is accurate, doesn't that mean that S.J.D. candidates are being granted their S.J.D. degrees merely because they prepared and defended a dissertation on jurisprudence -- even though the S.J.D. isn't really discovering "new knowledge", because the study of "jurisprudence" cannot result in "new knowledge"? Yours, Famspear 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

An SJD dissertation can be on highly theoretical issues of law or on more pragmatic issues of law, depending on what the SJD candidate chooses to present. I'd imagine, for example, that there have been SJD dissertations on areas of tax law or intellectual property law. --Aquarius Rising 22:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If a particular S.J.D. dissertation is on a highly "theoretical" issue (whatever you meant by "theoretical"), can the research the candidate performs result in "new knowledge" about the law? Can there be legal topics so esoteric, so theoretical, that the result of research on those topics be "new knowledge" as the term is used in the article?

And what about a dissertation on a highly "pragmatic" group of issues -- issues that are so complex and require for their resolution extensive legal research and analysis, and for which no statute or case expressly provides an answer? Can a group of issues -- although "pragmatic" -- require for their resolution research that is so extensive that "new knowledge" would be discovered? Yours, Famspear 23:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

For determining whether the research would be sufficient for SJD dissertation purposes, the question should really be whether the dissertation on the group of issues you mention embodies significant, original research to merit the conferral of an SJD (equivalent to a PhD). I could imagine that the written analysis of certain groups of pragmatic issues could be a dissertation embodying significant, original research. --Aquarius Rising 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So, looking back at the statement in the article:

Note that the term research in the context of legal education refers not to the generation of new knowledge, but the discovery and analysis of jurisprudence and statute laws.

Taking this statement from the article and paraphrasing your comments, are we saying that research by an S.J.D. candidate would be sufficient, for S.J.D. dissertation purposes, where the dissertation embodies significant, original research that merits the conferral of an S.J.D. (equivalent to a Ph.D.), even though the research -- discovery and analysis of jurisprudence and statute laws -- by definition would not involve generation of new knowledge? Yours, Famspear 01:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There are countless PhD dissertations in, say, philosophy which don't generate new knowledge in the pragmatic sense, though they add to academic literature and provide new perspectives. --Aquarius Rising 02:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think any S.J.D. dissertations generate new knowledge in the pragmatic sense? Yours, Famspear 02:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

SJD/PhD/LLD dissertations that generate new knowledge of use or interest to practising lawyers are, from time to time, published in book form by law publishers. --Aquarius Rising 02:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So, the statement in the article should be modified to read something like this:

Note that the term research in the context of legal education refers not to the generation of new knowledge, but the discovery and analysis of jurisprudence and statute laws, except that S.J.D. dissertations generating new knowledge of use or interest to practising lawyers are, from time to time, published in book form by law publishers.

Is that what we're saying? Yours, Famspear 02:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that a previous editor's previous focus on "new knowledge" is a dead end. Earlier today, I edited the passage in the article to read:
"One of the generally-accepted definitions of a doctoral research degree is that its holder has written and defended a dissertation that embodies significant, original research in his or her field; the doctoral research degree in most academic disciplines is the Ph.D. degree. Law schools prepare their graduates to perform legal research, as practicing attorneys must be able to do so as an important part of their jobs, regardless of which degree (J.D. or LL.B.) is awarded. Typically, legal research in the J.D. program and in the practice of law refers to the discovery and analysis of jurisprudence and statute laws. A J.D. is not a doctoral research degree; it is a professional doctoral degree. For example, in contrast, the S.J.D. requires the writing and defence of a disseration and is a doctoral research degree in law. Even where a paper, essay or note prepared as part of the J.D. program contains original research to some extent, its extent would generally not satisfy the S.J.D. dissertation requirements that parallel the Ph.D. requirements."
--Aquarius Rising 02:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Famspar invited some of the patent editors to come over and contribute to this discussion. I'm not quite sure what the issues are related to what is or isn't knowledge. As far as patents go, however, I think there is an implied misunderstanding in the phrase reported developing practice -- of the United States Patent Office -- of granting patents for tax reduction strategies inherently based on original legal research . Patents are granted for new and useful inventions. A patent might be granted, for example, on a process for reducing taxes that is both new and not obvious. The patent office does not take into account how an invention was made. They would not care whether or not the invention was the result of original legal research. Is this at all helpful?--Nowa 03:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that a large number of DJS and LLM candidates are people from countries outside the U.S. DJS's will often return to their home country to teach law after receiving their DJS in the U.S. Peyna 03:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nowa, and thanks Peyna! Regarding the comments about patents and legal research, one question is whether the article's assertion -- that "the term research in the context of legal education refers not to the generation of new knowledge, but the discovery and analysis of jurisprudence and statute laws" (the implication apparently being that discovery and analysis of law is, by definition, not "research" in the sense of the discovery of "new knowledge") -- is weakened by the practice of granting patents for tax reduction strategies. If patents can be granted only for new and useful inventions, and if tax reduction strategies are generated by legal research, then how can legal research not be the discovery of new knowledge? Further, if S.J.D. dissertations generate new knowledge of use or interest to practising lawyers and are, from time to time, published in book form by law publishers, aren't those dissertations the result of legal research that has generated significant, new knowledge? If not, then is an S.J.D. degree "equivalent" (whatever that means) to a Ph.D.?
On still another note, let's put the S.J.D. aside for a moment. What about law professors (the majority of whom do not hold the S.J.D., as we know) who write lengthy legal treatises? Can Professor Laurence Tribe at Harvard Law School be considered to be doing legal research that results in significant new knowledge? Does some of the scholarly legal work of this kind -- outside the framework of S.J.D. programs -- qualify as generating significant, new knowledge? Yours, Famspear 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion addresses the difference between "research" and "professional" with respect to research. Left unaddressed, however, is why the JD should be considered "doctoral." Wikiant 12:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Some consider the JD to be "doctoral" because the degree has "doctor" in the title. Others don't consider the JD to be "doctoral" as it is essentially a coursework degree which, if it has dissertation requirements, are minimal in extent compared to the PhD. I don't have as much objection to the JD degree being called "doctoral", but what I have problems with is people then making the jump and equate the JD with the PhD as research doctorates, while they should realize full well that the SJD (rather than the JD) is the research doctorate equivalent in the U.S. to the PhD of other academic disciplines.
In Canada, for example, it goes further; the JD issued by the University of Toronto isn't even considered by it to be a "graduate degree". A big part of the reason is the Canadian university traditional attitude towards MD and DDS degrees. The JD is essentially a coursework degree like the MD and DDS. Interestingly, the Canadian and U.S. MD degrees are considered equivalent by both Canadian and U.S. medical licensing authorities for fast track licensure (as opposed to candidates who hold their MD degrees from a third country), yet Canadian universities traditionally consider the MD to be an undergraduate degree, while the U.S. universities consider the MD to be a graduate degree.
--Aquarius Rising 14:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Postscript: Paradoxically, in Canada, the MD is considered an undergraduate degree while the first-professional degree in physiotherapy is a Master of Science which is considered to be a graduate degree. By being a coursework doctoral degree, the JD is put (as far as Canadian universities are concerned) in the same camp as undergraduate doctoral degrees in the medical sciences: e.g., MD, DDS. Canadian universities find it difficult to accept a coursework doctorate as being a graduate degree.
Ironically, if the degree were called Juris Master degree (instead of Juris Doctor) and a bachelor's degree were reguired for admission, it would be a graduate degree in Canada. --Aquarius Rising 15:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and this is one of the arguments that (with respect to this article) is repeatedly advanced: "The JD is a doctoral degree because it is a doctoral degree." Again: I've heard no compelling argument as to why the JD is a doctoral degree. Wikiant 21:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth; the dictionary seems to support such an argument: "The degree or status of a doctor as conferred by a university." Much like the M.D. and other professional doctorates. The NSF seems to recognize this distinction (research vs. professional doctorate).[2] [3] (scroll down to "Data Notes" on first link). Peyna 21:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
So now we're invoking an argumentum ad hominem to support a circular argument? Incredible. My challenge stands: Someone give us a tenable argument as to why the JD is a doctoral level degree. Wikiant 02:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Where was the ad hominem there? Perhaps you need the logic lesson. Peyna 02:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry..."ad verecundiam." Wikiant 02:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Overheard on the street: "Some consider the Toyota Corolla to be a 'Toyota' because the Toyota Corolla has 'Toyota' in the title. Others don't consider the Toyota Corolla to be 'Toyota-ish' as it is essentially cheaper car which, if it has quality requirements, are minimal in extent compared to the Camry. I don't have as much objection to the Toyota Corolla being called 'Toyota-ish', but what I have problems with is people then making the jump and equating the Corolla with the Camry as quality cars, while they should realize full well that the Camry (rather than the Corolla) is the equivalent in the U.S. to the quality car." Yours, Famspear 16:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My challenge stands: Someone give us a tenable argument as to why the Toyota Corolla is a Toyota level car. This is one of the arguments that is repeatedly advanced: "The Toyota Corolla is a Toyota car because it is a Toyota car." Again: I've heard no compelling argument as to why the Toyota Corolla is a Toyota car." Yours, Famspear 16:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a very interesting issue, but how is this relevant to the Juris Doctor degree? --Coolcaesar 17:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Since there seems to be a number of people on both sides of the argument regarding whether the JD is a doctorate; I propose we submit this issue to an RfC. The reason being, that because any of the arguments being advanced for/against the JD apply equally to all professional doctorates (JD/MD/DDS, etc., see Doctorate for a complete list). This resolution issue has the potential to impact 20+ articles if not more, so we really need to bring in other people to the discussion and try to arrive at some consensus. Peyna 17:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC created: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology#Miscellaneous. Peyna 17:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Via RfC:

  • Occasionally, traditional degrees are replaced by newer ones. During the 1960s, for example, most American law schools replaced the Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) with the Juris Doctor (J.D.), even though the actual requirements for the law degree remained substantially the same.

    "Degree, Academic", The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.

  • Faculty members say Wilhelmina M. Reuben-Cooke, UDC's provost and vice president for academic affairs, should not make decisions about hiring professors who have doctorates because she herself does not have the heretofore required doctoral degree...Mrs. Reuben-Cooke holds a juris doctor degree, or law degree, from the University of Michigan Law School...Mr. Pollard has defended the hiring by saying Mrs. Reuben-Cooke meets a Webster's dictionary definition of an academic "doctor" because she holds a juris doctor degree...However, a law degree is not considered the equivalent of a doctorate by Black's Law Dictionary or by several law schools contacted by The Washington Times, including Mrs. Reuben-Cooke's alma mater..."The concern remains the same as it was: A J.D. is not equivalent to a Ph.D. It is not a terminal degree. And she really has no leadership experience, other than her position as associate dean, which was a rotating position," said a member of the Faculty Senate.

    Miller, S.A. (2003-10-18). "Faculty Questions Provost's Standing; UDC Official Lacks a Ph.D". The Washington Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

EricR 18:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • members include committee Chairman Rachel Petty, dean of the college of arts and sciences; biology professor Freddie Dixon; chemistry and physics professor Norman Kondo; engineering professor Abiose Adebayo; and Vijaya Melnic, director of the UDC Office of Sponsored Research...The committee members submitted to investigators affidavits attesting that a juris doctor degree is equivalent to a research doctorate...The U.S. Network for Education Information, an information and referral service operated by the National Library of Education, draws a distinction between a professional degree, such as a J.D., and a research doctorate, or Ph.D..."Several of the [professional degrees] incorporate the term 'doctor,' but they are not research doctorates and not equivalent to the Ph.D.," according to the network.

    Miller, S.A. (2004-02-07). "Board Clears UDC's Pollard; Says Provost Pick Bona Fide". The Washington Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)EricR 18:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition) defines "doctor" as "2. A title of a person who has acquired an advanced degree in academics." It defines "Juris Doctor" as "Doctor of law - the law degree most commonly conferred by an American law school." So, I'm not sure what the reference in the article above is referring to, unless the definition was different in an earlier version. Peyna 20:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a rehash of the circular argument. "Doctor of law" is not a definition, but a translation of the Latin into English. Wikiant 23:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The following is from the Encyclopedia Britannica. The facts that (1) the JD follows a baccalaureate degree, not a masters level degree, and (2) the JD (at least at Harvard) requires 3 years of study makes the JD (with respect to Britannica's definition) match a masters level degree more closely than a doctoral level degree.

In the United States and Great Britain, the modern gradation of academic degrees is usually bachelor (or baccalaureate), master, and doctor. 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. British and American universities customarily grant the bachelor's as the first degree in arts or sciences. After one or two more years of coursework, the second degree, M.A. or M.S., may be obtained by examination or the completion of a piece of research. At the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, holders of a B.A. can receive an M.A. six or seven years after entering the university simply by paying certain fees. The degree of doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) is usually offered by all universities that admit advanced students and is granted after prolonged study and either examination or original research.
degree. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 13, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9029755

Wikiant 23:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There's ten or so articles in that Washington Times series on the University of D.C. provost, quite a few quotes from various sources stating that Juris Doctor is equivalent to a masters. The only ones supporting the claim that it's equal to a research doctorate seem to be the UDC president and hiring committee, defending against charges of cronyism. Let me know if any more quotes would be helpful.EricR 00:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Most Masters degrees require 1-2 years of study (about 30-60 hours, some of which may be a thesis); most Ph.D. programs do not require a Masters for admission. For ABA approval, a school is required to have students complete 58,000 minutes of "instruction time;" (something like 87 credit hours). Just recently they've changed the rule to allow completion in 24 months; however, to do so you pretty much have to take classes year round. Equating a J.D. or M.D. with a Masters is just as much a problem as equating it with a Ph.D. Peyna 01:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak to the "most" modifier. But, it is the case that in the one field with which I am familiar, while *holding* a masters degree is not a prerequisite for admission to the Ph.D. program, being able to *perform* at a masters level in the discipline is necessary for successful completion of the Ph.D. By contrast, there is no masters-level knowledge that the JD student needs to succeed in a JD program. Wikiant 02:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What am I missing here? The foregoing discussion appears to squarely support the contention that the JD is a masters-level degree. However, a sequence of minor edits over the last days has reintroduced the term "doctoral" in reference to the JD. Third (unanswered) call: Can anyone propose a logically sound argument as to why the JD is a doctoral-level degree? Wikiant 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You apparently have a distinct inability to comprehend logic. The discussion does not support the contention that the JD is a master's level degree unless you are reading the discussion to imply that all professional doctorates (DDS, MD, OD, DC, PharmD, etc.) are master's level degrees. The JD is more than a Master's level degree or a simple professional degree. Their are also master's level professional degrees (MSW, MBA, etc.). Under your logic, how does one distnguish a master's level professional degree from a doctorate level professional degree? Certainly the name of the degree itself is relevant in making this distinction. Maybe we should be contending that a 1 year master's degree is really a 5 year bachelor's degree or that a 5 year bachelor's degree is really a master's degree. In the US, the PharmD is earned in six years with no prior bachelor's degree or master's degree. Thus, under your logic, a PharmD is really a bachelor's degree since it is the first and only degree obtained by would be pharmacists. Drdouma 17:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is less one of comprehension than it is of identification. I'm not seeing the argument. Here's what I heard you say (my comments indicated with '):
1. "The name of the degree is relevant in making the distinction between doctoral and masters."
1.' No the name is not relevant. What you propose is a circular argument: X is Y because X is called "Y."
2. "There are other doctoral degrees that require no knowledge beyond the baccalaureate level."
2.' This is an extended circular argument: X is Y because X is Z and Z is called "Y."
I believe that, to qualify as a doctoral degree, two conditions must be met: (1) The degree requires if not a masters-level degree, then knowledge equivalent to that obtained via a masters-level degree, and (2) The degree is the highest degree in its field. Wikiant 18:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Arguments on the talk page, no matter how well founded are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what can be backed by reliable sources. The following statements can be supported by references:

  1. The J.D. is a professional degree
  2. The J.D. is considered equivalent to a masters degree.
  3. The J.D. is not considered the equivalent of a doctorate
  4. The requirements for the J.D. are substantially the same as for the Bachelor of Laws
  5. Holders of the J.D. are not refered to as "Doctor"
  6. The creation of the J.D. was a bit of "academic pretension"

Based on a quick look at the article references, there is no cite which supports calling the J.D. a "professional doctorate", though one could easily be found. We might also find references which state that: it is not equivalent to a masters, that it is a "doctorate", or that a lawyer's name should be preceded by "Doctor" rather than the more usual modifiers. In that case, with conflicting sources, the article should simply present both sides in a neutral way.EricR 18:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

--There is no factual reference that indicates the JD is equivilent to a master's degree, only various opinions. --The US Department of Education lists the JD with other professional doctorates. --The requirements for an MD in the U.S. are equivalent to the requirements for the English medical degree which is termed a bachelor's degree. This does not result in the U.S. MD being considered a Bachelor's or Master's degree. --It is not true that the U.S. JD is equivilent to the former U.S. LLB. The number of years of required udergraduate course work prior to entry into law school were changed at the time the degree was changed. --Holders of the JD are referred to as doctor, depending on their preference. I know of attorneys and non-attorneys who hold JD's that are addressed as doctor. --Numerous U.S. states have formally stated the those who hold the JD may use the title Doctor. --There is simply no logical argument which differentiates the JD from any other professional doctorate. --The PharmD is not the highest degree in the field of pharmacy. It is a Ph.D. --The MD is not the highest degree in medical science. It is a PhD. --The Field of denistry in the U.S. offers numerous post DDS specialty master's degrees. --To say a degree which is termed "doctor" is a master's degree will appear nonsensical to most readers. --If the term doctor in a given degree is not relevant to the status of the degree, than anyone can contend that a given doctorate is not really a doctorate. I don't think a PharmD should be considered a doctorate. However, this does not suddenly transform it into a Bachelor's degree or a Master's degree. --It is a fact that graduating JDs in the U.S. wear the same type of doctoral robes as any other group of doctoral level graduates. If the universities granting the degree did not consider it to be doctoral level degree, this would not be the case. 69.208.124.146 20:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


You are in error. The US Department of Education does not list the JD with professional *doctorates* -- in fact, the US DOE does not use the term "professional doctorate." It lists the JD with professional *degrees.* The list (in its entirety) includes: DC, DCM, DDS, DMD, JD, MD, OD, DO, DP, DPM, MDiv, and DVM (note inclusion of the MDiv -- an overtly masters-level degree). Further, the Dept of Education states, "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." You can read the document at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-professional-studies.html Wikiant 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

With regard to User:69.208.124.146's comment that "graduating JDs in the U.S. wear the same type of doctoral robes as any other group of doctoral level graduates", I looked up the situation for Harvard University law school. The Harvard bookstore website at http://www.bkstore.com/staticfiles/300_grad_extension.pdf indicates that S.J.D. graduands would wear the red crimson doctoral robes (like the ones the Ph.D. and Ed.D. graduands wear) while the J.D. graduands would presumably wear the regular robes for graduate degree graduands. Anyway, that's the situation for Harvard; I didn't look up the situation in respect of every U.S. law school. --Aquarius Rising 21:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

When I was referring to type of doctoral robes, I was referring to style, not color. JD graduates wear the same style doctoral robes as any other doctoral graduate. As to what the crimson color means at Harvard, I do not know. Most universities utilize standard black doctoral robes for all doctorates, the only usual variations are hood color and tassle color.69.208.124.146 13:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, 69.208.124.146 is in error. The brochure at the link above specifically says that the doctoral gowns are for Ph.D., Ed.D., and S.J.D. degree recipients only. I suggest, based on (1) 69.208.124.146's invocation of the US Dept of Education as an authority, and (2) the subsequent finding (see link above) that the US DOE does not call the JD a "doctoral degree," but a "first-professional degree," that all references to "doctoral degree" with respect to the J.D. be changed to "first-professional degree." Wikiant 13:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring external sources

69.208.124.146 has repeatedly reintroduced wording to the effect that the J.D. is a doctoral-level degree. Peyna requested an RfC. The consensus appeared to be that evidence support the contention that the J.D. is not a doctoral-level degree. 69.208.124.146 invoked the U.S. Department of Education and reintroduced the doctoral-level wording. I have provided the link to and quotation from the U.S. DOE that unequivocally states that the J.D. is *not* a doctoral-level degree and, in fact, may not even be considered a graduate level degree. I incorporated this citation and made appropriate changes to the article. 69.208.124.146 has *again* introduced the doctoral-level wording. I'd appreciate others commenting on what appears to me to be a complete disregard for NPOV. Wikiant 14:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The DOE does not support the contention that the JD is not a doctoral-level degree. The DOE includes the JD with other first professional degrees, some of which are professional doctorates and some of which are professional masters degrees. The DOE does not say the JD is not a doctoral level degree, it says it is not a research doctorate. These are two different things. As to Harvard graduation, JD grads wear the same black doctoral robes as MD grads. The crimson robes are apparently reserved for research doctorates. Wikiant has turned logical reasoning on its head. If one is going to contend that a degree which is conferred as a Juris Doctor or Doctor of Law or Doctor of Juisprudence, depending on the school, is not a doctoral level degree, one must have very specific authority stating that it is not a doctoral level degree. Certainly a news article is not such authority. News articles are notoriously inaccurate. I have been quoted in numerous news articles and have yet to be quoted correctly. There is simply no verfiable source that indicates a JD is any different than any other first prfessional doctorate. While it is true that the JD is a first professional degree, this is not the complete story. It is a first professional degree at the doctoral level. It is not named a masters degree nor is it named a bachelors degree. If we are going to say it is something other than what it is named, we must have a clear and verifiable source, not just opinion. We do not need a compelling argument that the JD is a doctoral degree, we need a compelling argument that it is not. Otherwise, we are just giving or repeating opinions. Drdouma 18:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Harvard's website (www.law.harvard.edu/academics) lists the JD separately from "Graduate Programs" in law (the LL.M. and the S.J.D.). If you read the description of the LL.M. (an overtly masters-level degree), it is clear that the J.D. is a prerequisite. So, what I'm hearing is that, by creating a distinction between "professional" and "academic" doctorates (a distinction that I do not see in the U.S. Dept of Education website), virtually any degree can be categorized as a doctorate. Wikiant 18:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A DDS or DMD is a prerequisate for a Master of Science degree in periodontics or orthodontics. This does not mean that the DDS or DMD is not a professional doctorate. Just as with the JD, these masters degrees are post professional doctorate specialty degrees. The DOE website specifically states that the specified degrees are not research doctorates. This statement in no way implies they are not doctoral level degrees. No, any degree cannot be classified as a doctorate. Obviously if the degree is conferred as a bachelor's or master's, it cannot be classified as a doctorate.Drdouma 19:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the favored and oft-repeated circular argument: "A doctorate is a doctorate because it is conferred as a doctorate." How then do you deal with the lawyers who had been awarded LL.B.'s when the name of the LL.B. was changed to J.D.? By your argument, those folk weren't doctors then, presto-chango, became doctors. Wikiant 19:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add a clarification about the Harvard graduation robes. Looking at the Harvard bookstore link mentioned above, the robes for the JD graduands are not the same as the ones for LLD and SJD and instead are the same as the robes for non-PhD/LLD graduate students such as M.A. graduands. --Aquarius Rising 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As to Harvard robes, you are misreading the bookstore link. JD grads wear the same black doctoral robes as MD grads. They are not mentioned on the website for that graduation date since the law school and medical school hold their graduations on different dates than the graduation for academic degrees. 68.74.13.174 23:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To Wikiant: I agree with Drdouma. A degree is just what it says it is unless you can prove it is somehow a fraudulent degree. Only LLBs who met the qualifications for a JD were converted to JDs. Numerous LLBs continue to exist, including a recently deceased US supreme court justice and numerous partners in law firms. This is one reason the use of the title doctor did not become popular, Senior partners with LLBs did not want to call their new associate doctor. 68.74.13.174 23:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The University of Michigan considers the JD to be an earned doctorate for the purpose of post doctoral fellowships. For example see [4] 68.74.13.174 02:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation WP:MedCab

  • I have volunteered to take this case. If there are any problems with this, please let me know. Jon Cates (talk · contribs)
I forward the following compromise for comment.
Paragraph 1, could have no references to 'first-professional degree' and 'doctoral degree' status. In its stead a new section be created ... Degree Status of JD by nation.... I look forward to your comments. --Jon Cates 06:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, good to see you here. My participation in the article has only been minor (thru the RfC), but i encourage the other editors to respond positively to the mediation.EricR 15:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

An observation that I have noted, that should be reviewed is the commonplace notation that the J.D. is not a doctoral degree. I believe the contention would be cleared if the article used the proper terminology in that there are research graduate degrees (some Masters and the Ph.D.) and there are 'practical' graduate degrees (a greater number of Masters and the J.D., M.D., D.D.S. and the like). Jon Cates 00:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
As this is part of a government publication (web), I believe that it meets WP:RS and could be adopted as the guideline for this issue. --Jon Cates 00:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that both of these articles should be cited. Here's my issue: The first article (Dept. of Ed - First Professional Studies) states that the listed degrees are "first professional." The article does not say that they are doctoral degrees. Further, the article does not use the phrase that is continually reintroduced into our article: "professional doctorate." In fact, the list includes, without dinstinguishing among them, degrees with the word "masters" and degrees with the word "doctor." The second article's (Dept. of Ed - First Professional Studies) wording supports this. It says, "Doctoral studies may begin after completion of a bachelor's, master's, or first professional degree." Wikiant 13:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to citing to both of these articles. When read in conjunction, they provide support to the contention that a J.D. is a professional doctorate. (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)
If we're going to use the term "professional doctorate," (yes, I see that the DOE uses it, though only once over two articles) we need to make a stronger distinction between research doctorates and professional doctorates. Past versions of this article had the JD on a par with the Ph.D. The DOE articles clearly state that this is not the case. Suggestions as to wording? Wikiant 19:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The degree is a 3-year taught degree, comparable to a M.Div. or 3(+) year M.Arch., and more comparable to 2(+) year M.P.H., M.S.N., and M.S.W. degrees than to true doctoral degrees. It's not equivalent to a M.D., which is itself not a research doctorate. The objections to seeing a J.D. as a university president reflect this fact. No one objects to a M.D. in that role, for example. JJL 20:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
As to University presidents, I am aware of two major universities that have recently had presidents holding only the J.D. as their highest degree, University of Michigan and Michigan State University, and one major university that currently has a president holding only the J.D. as the highest degree, Columbia University. I am aware of no significant conflict regarding the ability or qualifications of these individuals. I am aware of no university presidents holding only the M.D. as the highest degree. However, their may be some. It is true that the M.D. and J.D. are not equivilent degrees. They are clearly different degrees. However, both are first professional degrees conferred at the doctoral level. Both are "taught degrees". The J.D. requires 3 years of course work while the M.D. requires approximately 2 years of course work and approximately 2 years of clinical/practicum work. To say the J.D. is comparable to a degree conferred as a master's degree is absurd. Once we go down that path, are we going to say that certain master's degrees are really not master's degrees since they take only 1 year rather than 2 years? I am familiar with the M.Div. and while it does generally take 3 years, only 2 of those years involve course work, the 3rd year is a practicum. As to the M.Arch., there is currently a movement to convert it to a professional doctorate. Even so, these degrees are currently conferred at the master's level, not at the doctoral level. You contend that the J.D. is not a "true doctorate", but do not define "true doctorate". If you mean that it is not a research doctorate, then you are correct. However, none of the first professonal doctoral level degrees are research doctorates. Thus, this is apparently not what you intend. If you are going to state that the J.D. is not a "true doctorate", I suggest that you provide authority for the definition of a "true doctorate".Drdouma 16:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
As to distinguishing the J.D. from research doctorates, we could certainly incorporate language which clearly states that the J.D. is not equivalent to a Ph.D. or similar research doctorates. I thought the article already makes this clear. If not, I have no objection to making it clear.Drdouma 17:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Informal Opinion 1973-3

I reverted the previous edit for the following reason. The editor made the comment that the ABA has deemed it ethical for lawyers to use the title "doctor." If you look at www.sfbar.org/ethics/opinion_1973-7.aspx, you'll see that the ABA deemed it ethical for a lawyer who holds a doctorate *in addition to the J.D.* to use the title (the example given is a lawyer who is also a practicing dentist). I have not yet found corroborating evidence to the position that one who holds the J.D. alone can use the title. Wikiant 12:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd take "esquire" over "doctor" any day. =] Peyna 12:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, and I don't think you offered this for the purpose of demonstrating that the JD is not a doctorate anyway, but the main reason the use of "doctor" is/was prohibitted is because it might mislead potential clients into thinking either (1) you're more qualified than an attorney holding an L.L.B., or (2) you're a specialist in another field. Peyna 12:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe Wikiant is misreading 1973-7. A fair reading of the entire opinion Indicates that an attorney with a J.D. can use the title Doctor whether or not he/she holds another doctorate.75.13.146.44 14:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I reverted what sounded more like an argument than an entry. Most lawyers don't use it; that's a fact. JJL 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juris_Doctor/Archive_2&oldid=390246638"