Talk:Juris Doctor/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

US Government Source is Overstated

I looked at the US government source regarding the Juris Doctor, and (a) it is not a general categorization for government purposes, but rather the rules particular to a 2005 summer student job program (b) doesn't actually purport to draw a line between doctoral degrees and law degrees but rather between two more complexly-defined categories, both of which include some juris doctor degrees.IntLiGrll (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, why is this being described as a debate when (at least) the vast majority of the sources don't actually describe a debate. Most just describe features which aren't exactly parallel to a "doctorate vs. non-doctorate" distinction, and most, rather than describing any particular event of disagreement, just describe a single person or group in one particular context for one particular purpose (except Bar Assoc) referring to the degree either as a doctorate or in other terms. It seems to me like syntheses to simply arrange these incongruities together, and present them as a "debate". This is kind of like splicing together clips of Britons describing an Oreo as a "biscuit" and Americans describing an Oreo as a "cookie" and entitling the film "Debate Between British and Americans Over Whether an Oreo is a Cookie or a Biscuit" ). It's not a debate unless each speaks with an awareness of the opposing argument.IntLiGrll (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before. It may be that "Disagreement" is better than "Debate" as there is clearly documented disagreement on the matter, including some of the newspaper sources showing a Board of Trustees trying to appoint a J.D. to an academic administrative position and faculty disagreeing as to whether the person has a doctoral degree, and the U. of Michigan spokesperson describing the degree as not a doctorate while other schools appear to think of it as such. No one has come up with a better way to put it yet. JJL (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that originally the section was neither titled "debate" nor "disagreement" but something like "Academic Status of the JD". Wikiant (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the general gist of "academic status of the JD". The problem with either "Debate" or "Disagreement", is that both these words can refer (perhaps more commonly) to an particular incident of conflict (e.g., the 1860 Wilberforce-Huxley debate. My wife and I had a disagreement last night) in addition to functioning description of an abstract inconsistency or even a mere difference. IntLiGrll (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My remaining concern is that many of the subheadings don't refer to academics, per se. Further, with respect to the second-tier subheadings, some of the sources listed under "Discussion of the Juris Doctor as not a doctoral level degree" merely state that it is not a "research doctorate" or a "Ph.D" equivalent", which is not the same thing as saying it isn't a doctorate. Others under that heading refer only to first professional degrees generally.

There are some points that don't refer to academics per se. For example, one could argue that, as the government is not an academic institution, how the government regards the JD relative to the PhD is irrelevant to the question of the academic status of the JD. Two problems here: (1) some of these points, prior to a careful reading of the sources, have been used here and on other pages to argue *for* the equivalence of the JD and PhD; (2) the opinion of the ABA, the ABA not being an academic institution, would have to be removed also. Perhaps an easier approach is to alter the section title so as not to exclude opinions of non-academic institutions. Wikiant (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of removing the reference to "academic" status specifically. However, the other part of my point was that some of the opinions don't even purport to take a position on any "doctorate" or "not a doctorate" dichotomy. They purport only to establish discrete "treatments" of the Juris Doctor, which, depending on one's opinion or purposes, may or may not be relevant to an abstracted question of whether the Juris Doctor is a "doctoral" degree. Some of the "treatments" are with respect to the title a Juris Doctor may use in the context of her everyday employment. Some describe how holders of professional doctorates generally are "treated" as compared with holders of research doctorates when they apply for scientific research funding. Some describe how Juris Doctors are treated in situations where honors are due to persons with doctoral degrees. Some of the treatments are with respect to how the Juris Doctor is treated by the administrative branches of academic bodies. Some describe how a particular student summer job program treated Juris Doctor candidates with less than three years of studies completed as compared with PhD candidates and JDs etc. with three or more years of successively-higher studies. Perhaps the heading should be "Treatment of the Juris Doctor", and the subcategories should be "Use of the Title "Doctor"", "Scientific Research Funding", "Student Summer Jobs Prior to Graduation", "Eligibility for Management Positions within Universities", an "Entitlement to Doctoral Honors Within Academic Contexts", etc.IntLiGrll (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wikiant, I've adjusted subheaders to reflect fact (which I think we agree on now) that most of the sources under the second subheading aren't intended to oppose the position of the ABA, convocations etc. on issue. They do not purport to speak directly about whether JD "is a doctoral-level degree" per se (though some do), but rather about various features which the person who added those sources felt were inconsistent with the JD beign a doctorate. I've left the first heading intact because the enclosed sources do seem to me to address whether a doctorate (rather than a research doctorate or a PhD-equivalent etc.). I would prefer the approach of not arranging these as an opposition at all ,and I think Zotigrillo, Urbanistio, Deep Purple, Norwood etc., and several of the unnamed editors would agree (at least as a compromise vs. deleting section altogether). However my understanding is that you and JJL wanted to maintain some form of opposition. I think, given the concerns of the above editors, and the actual substance of the sources described as indicating "not a doctorate" that this is a reasonable compromise, if not overly generous to the anti-doctorate advocates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IntLiGrll (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a reorganization of the material, it's an attempt to undercut the message with which you disagree by diluting it. It's a POV-based approach rather than a neutral one. JJL (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that .126 wanted to remove the not-directly-on-point sentences from the section altogether, and JJL simply reverted the delete without addressing the valid underlying concern (which was that the sources removed were not statements that JD "not a doctorate" per se). I edited the title as a compromise (JJL and .126 are equals, after all) to address .126' concern without actually eliminated the content that JJL wanted to keep in. (Yes, I'll admit actually agree with it in substance.) We can't have this continuing pattern of various individuals, in succession, taking issue with the debate section, and then having their changes reverted outright (as though it were vandalism), with the editors treated as though they are the sole, belligerent dissenters. We have had Zoticogrillo, urbanisTo, DeepPurple, .59, .176, .253 Rick Norwood, a few other numbered editors, and arguably to some extent X-factor taking (at mildest) the position that it is inaccurate and arbitrary to label or to structure this section as a disagreement over whether the Juris doctor really is a doctoral-level degree (rather than a list of treatments), and (at strongest) the position that the section AND the sources should be removed entirely. On the other side, as far as I can tell, has been JJL (and to some extent, I have to say, yourself, though I appreciate your engaging in discussion now), who has succeeded in maintaining the dichotomy through sheer persistence and aggression in undoing the edits by Zoticogrillo, urbanisTo, .59, .176, .253, and yours truly et. al. We don't think the section should be here at all, we certainly don't think it should be organized under two oppositional subheadings. SURELY it is not too much to ask to at least adjust the subheadings to reduce the implication of symmetrical, dichotomous positions.IntLiGrll (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the title changes gave the appearance of POV. I'm not sure I completely understand IntLiGrll's distinction regarding "treatment." I've put in some new titles that, hopefully, capture the spirit of IntLiGrll's argument while maintaining a neutral balance. Wikiant (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The point I'm making (above)is that most of the citations don't directly take a position on whether the Juris doctor is or isn't a doctoral degree (The exceptions are the formal position taken by the ABA,and the statements by the Washington Times Newspaper and the student club at Windsor U). Most of the sources just describe disparate treatments of the J.D., which are being assigned to one side or another of the same argument only in the context of this page. Zoticogrillo, urbanisTo, DeepPurple, .59, .176, .253 Rick Norwood and myself think there's so little overlap in what the sources actually say that it is unnecessary and misleading to place all of these points under a single heading. (There's all kinds of information about that JD that doesn't merit its own section - e.g., list of actors who had JDs, the fact that juris doctor backwards is "rotcod siruj"). We (or at least I) am willing to compromise by having a section on the "Treatment of the Juris Doctor", which lists the various sources, but does not compose or arrange or label them as opposing arguments on a SINGLE question (whether JD is "real" doctorate or not). Citations which do not in themselves purport to be evidence for or against the juris doctor being a JD should not be labeled as though they do. The content of the sources should be left to speak for itself, without any higher-level editorial comment. This is not my singular, belligerent position, but rather a position (at minimum) shared by Zoticogrillo, urbanisTo, DeepPurple, .59, .176, .253 Rick Norwood and others IntLiGrll (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

IntLiGrll, I disagree with your edits. Your opening sentence is telling: "The J.D. is a professional doctorate. Its treatment is sometimes similar to that of research doctorates such as the Ph. D. However, it is sometimes treated differently." No, it is sometimes treated as a masters degree. You are pushing POV by hiding the reason for the two lists. I'll delay reverting pending comments from others. Wikiant (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. This is POV-pushing by shifting the weight given to various positions. Many of the items discussing the view that it is not a doctoral degree are undercut by weasel-words spliced throughout them already. There are clear statements that have been sourced saying the degree is not a graduate degree and not a doctoral degree. The approach on WP is to present both sides. This muddles the two sides. I favor a revert. JJL (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying about "The J.D. is a professional doctorate", and I've removed that (Please recall the reference to professional doctorate was already at the beginning BEFORE my edit). However removing the two lists does not amount to POV, it simply removes any high-level editorial comment, and lets readers form their own opinion based on the sources. The "reason for the two lists" is not a referenced piece of information itself. The "reason" is that "Wikiant and JJL take the editorial position that the sources suggest there is ambiguity about whether the JD is doctoral". Aside from that, the "reasons" are left intact in the substance of the list. Most of the sources themselves relate to the same kind of difference. With respect to the J.D. being treated like a masters degree, I assume you are referring to that summer job posting from D.C. in 2005, which is only one of the multiple sources, and which refers to it only as an incident rather than a primary point (in the context of a more context set of rules.IntLiGrll (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

The change doesn't improve. The issue is not that the JD is treated "differently" -- the issue is that the JD is regarded as equivalent to other doctorates by some and is treated as equivalent to a masters degree by others. I suppose I can live with a single list (though I don't see how leaving it to the reader to figure out the categorization of "doctor" and "master" contributes clarity), but the introductory sentence needs to clearly state why the list exists. I'll make a change to that sentence and leave the "single list" issue for further discussion. Wikiant (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Also...I didn't realize how much weaseling had been introduced to the points (though, only to the points addressing one side of the discussion). I have endeavored to remove the weaseling. Wikiant (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to characterize the information you removed as weaseling! Everything you removed was entirely accurate! It is not weaseling to include information relevant to the reader's evaluation of whether the source cited actually has authority to pronounce on the standing of the J.D. in any global sense. It is not weaseling to group sources of the same nature (i.e., statements that attest only to the understanding of the author, rather than that of an organization as a whole) under the same heading. Also, it is patently inaccurate to claim that any of the websites you link to (except, in a sideways sort of way, that one summer job ad) assert that the Juris doctor is equivalent to a Masters. They say what they say and nothing more. UrbanisTO (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the sources themselves that are there to allow the reader to make an informed judgment. We don't need to explain the sources to them, just report them. They had been heavily diluted by editorial comments meant to under-cut them on one side. JJL (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made a compromise solution. Wikiant wants to draw attention to his view that a JD is in some respects like a Masters. Urbanisto doesn't want to have sources cited as support for a position they don't expressly support, or to have them represented as saying something more broad or definitive than they actually say. Rather than having sources in, and labelling them in a misleading way, and rather than denying Wikiant the opportunity to argue that some treatments are like a masters, let's just keep Wikiant's section on point. (this is same person who was making numbered comments elsewhere)ManishKottayam (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not the numbered person who deleted all of the material other than the ABA determination. However, I do agree that with the substance of what that person did. It is only the ABA statement which actually purports to make a GENERAL pronounce directly on the question of whether the Juris Doctor is a doctoral degree. I've in fact reintroduced the Washington times source, despite the fact it talks only about the Michigan JD, because I didn't want to wipe out JJL / Wikiant position (they might feel that was uneven). I've also reintroduced that Masters JD comparison to try and satisfy them. In the same way, however, I don't think it would be fair for Wikiant / JJL to simply revert to the overgeneralized descriptions and outright mislabelling that was in the article a while ago. ManishKottayam (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you should at least put in the part about doctoral robes. I don't think this debate section even belongs here, because there is not for practical purposes any single question of whether a JD is a doctorate or not (as with other degrees). It depends why you want to know. The focus of this debate seems to be whether J.D. holders should be given the same honor as holders of the Ph. D. in society generally. (Personally I suspect the average American would deride a Ph. D. or a "doctor" of any kind, other than an M.D. as a useless egghead rather than honor him, so perhaps the utility of this website is to inform the general public as to who they should spit on in the street). Given this overall focus, the fact J.D. holders in the originating jurisdiction have the express honour doctoral robes in ceremonial contexts is directly on point. This said, I'll leave it out, at the risk of upsetting your compromise. Wik and JJ seem really leery of any meaningful change, so I'd rather just sit pat and support you than confuse things further.IntLiGrll (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that when you say "I think you should at least put in the part about..." that you're getting on the slippery slope that always leads back to a.) needing a section like this, and b.) keeps it growing. The drastically chopped section, with its lengthy and awkward title and lack of a lede, will just bring us back there. JJL (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That is why I'm NOT insisting on adding it. I am NOT happy about having this section in here at all, because I think that itself creates the false impression that there is something of relevance here. However, at least I have the ovaries to accept this as a compromise. The lack of a lede is helpful, because then neither you and Wikiant, nor Zoticogrillo and my self and the 10 or so other people who contributors who feel there is no actual debate over whether the J.D. is a doctoral degree, can use the lede to spin the sources one way or the other. This version is also helpful in defusing the conflict because it doesn't attempt to "spin" the individual sources by imposing its own interpretation of what the sources mean, or generalizing beyond the precise bounds of what the source says. The title seems akward only because it doesn't presume that there is or that there isn't a conflict among the underlisted sources; a title without a thesis is less catchy. (Compare "Conflicting Testimony on Substantial Interference" with "Comparison of the Testimony of Symes with the Testimony of Richarton On the Regarding the Emotional Impact of the Landlord's Correspondence") IntLiGrll (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

To all the lawyers on this post trying to justify their degree (by the way, how many of you dare use the title Doctor in public lol), there is a major debate about the JD academic standing, and there was a major disagreement that blow up in DC a few years ago. Some woman tried to get a doctoral level job with her JD. That did not work out well for her :) The ABA even stepped in and said the JD was not a doctoral level degree. Here is a link : http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/11/20030711-102314-3668r/?page=2 . Even the ABA does not dare call if a professional doctorate, they always refer to the JD as a first professional degree. And when I am talking about the ABA, I mean the ABA as an organization and not the opinions of a writer or a non binding board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.228.210 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Source on the not-a-doctorate issue

From "The challenge of change in Africa's higher education in the 21st century" by Kenneth Kaoma Mwenda, Gerry Nkombo Muuka (Cambria Press, 2009; [1]) we have on pg. 87 (available via [2]): "However, the U.S. law degree program is neither a master's degree nor a doctorate." He quotes from Pappas (2004): "The J.D. is not a doctorate degree." The authors go on to argue that the J.D. does not fit easily with the other professional doctorates either. This source has several pages on the matter and I encourage all to read it. It also clearly addresses the issue of a disagreement (which I went looking for once again after my last edit). The first author works for the World Bank in D.C. and the second author teaches at a Kentucky university. JJL (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

An earlier version of the 4th chapter (by Mwenda)in which this material appears as a refereed article in Journal of Commonwealth Law and Legal Education 3(1), 17-38 (Nov. 2004): "A new paradigm for Commonwealth African law schools: The decline of the LLB and PhD, and the ascent of the JD and SJD". JJL (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble locating a copy without waiting a 2-3 weeks... Any help with the full citations? (Cromwell and the others) The limited google view doesn't allow a peek at the bibliography or footnotes. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm in the same boat I'm afraid. JJL (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Pappas is also quoted on pg. 18 of "Comparing American and British legal education systems: lessons for Commonwealth African Law Schools" by Kenneth Kaoma Mwenda (Cambria Press, 2007; [3]). (See [4].) The content is clearly the base for Mwenda and Muuka (or vice versa), but this book quotes from Cromwell at length on the history of the matter and Cromwell's rejection of the J.D. as even a graduate degree. Mwenda states (pg. 23): "The J.D. is, therefore, not a 'true Doctorate'." He goes on to argue against considering it even a professional doctorate--a view with which I substantially concur but that I have given in on as a matter of compromise in this page. Several other sources are cited in the several pages he devotes to this. It has a lot of redundancy with the source above but also some different material. JJL (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Note Sec. 2.5: "Is a JD a Professional Degree in a Real Sense?". JJL (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That was a very interesting read, JJL. I'll spend more time digesting it later, but I wanted to respond to the argument that the JD isn't even a master's degree. First, is that what you believe? I ask because I want to narrow down for what you are arguing. I think there is some legitimate debate about the JD academic status, but it seems to be a fringe belief that it is below a master's degree. For example, if you look at resumes or post-nominal letters of people who have both a master's and a JD, they usually list the JD higher indicating they believe the JD is a superior credential. Further, when I attended law school I had many classmates who had earned master's degrees in a variety of disciplines prior to law school. There was universal agreement that JD classes were more difficult both in terms of content and in terms of intensity of classmate competition than their master's degree classes. Finally, I don't really have any evidence of this, just my own experience (and perhaps bias), but I think most people believe the JD's status, both academically and in terms of prestige, is somewhere above most master's degrees and below the Ph.D and MD. Mavirikk (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My personal belief is more-or-less in line with what you state: A J.D. is comparable to the more demanding master's degree programs, like the 3-3.5 year M.Arch., or 2-3.5 year M.F.A., or 3-year M.P.H. for physician assistants, etc. Certainly it tends to be a more intense experience than those programs, although on the other hand they generally require at least a few specific undergraduate courses on which to build. In general, then, it's above most master's degrees and below the doctoral degrees. That makes it sound like a Specialist (degree) or Engineer's degree or certain varieties of the License#Academy...which once again it isn't. I place it as equivalent to a (lengthy) master's degree, myself, but would of course agree with the quoted material in that it isn't a master's degree proper. JJL (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can't count how many times I've wanted to learn about the J.D. degree, and I really hoped to find not cited material, but JJL's personal opinion. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I was asked what I believe, and I responded. No one is suggesting that that goes in the article--you're simply stirring up trouble by intimating that that was the idea. JJL (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think these are indeed helpful sources that present the existence of a debate far more directly than the present citations. I support their inclusion among the "con" portion of the section. Sk75 (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

From [5]: "JD – Abbreviation for the Latin term Juris Doctor, used in the United States to refer to professional law degree that the vast majority of LL.M students acquire before embarking on their LL.M. degree. Although it is mostly considered to be a postgraduate degree -- completed after undergraduate studies -- it is not actually a doctorate degree as the name might suggest." From [6]: "The term creates considerable confusion as distinct from the doctorate-level doctor of law or LL.D. degree. The attempt to solidify the basic law degree to a doctorate level failed and even American law schools have had to re-invent first a master's degree in law (LL.M.) and then a Ph.d. or doctorate-level law degree program with the awkward name of Doctor of Juridical Science or J.S.D." JJL (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

From [7]: "It was William Shakespeare who advised that “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Unfortunately, this age-old wisdom does not seem to apply to a law degree. In the United States and many other countries, law graduates get a JD, but in Canada, it’s called an LLB. It’s the same thing[...]At the end of the day, the whole JD v. LLB issue may seem like a classic case of form over substance. After all, whatever the name, the law school curriculum remains the same." From [8], a court case in Mass.: " The bachelor of laws (LL.B., from the Latin "legum baccalaureus") degree, technically an undergraduate degree, is the principal law degree in many common-law countries, including Nigeria. In the United States, it has largely been replaced by the juris doctor (J.D.) degree, which is a graduate degree. This difference in name and form masks a substantive similarity in legal education." Form to request that the GWU LL.B. be administratively changed to a J.D. with no additional coursework: [9]. JJL (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Those citations are not useful for anything other than as tools for SYNTH to promote a fringe theory because they are non-authoritative or irrelevant, and all but one make no clear statements about the status of the JD degree. In fact, the court decision and Duhaime article provide support for the JD as a doctorate.

The LLM guide is an unathoritative commercial website which provides solicited and non-solicited advertising for law schools offering LLM programs. As compared with other more authoritative citations, it is clearly in error.

The selection of the portion of the duhaime.org could easily be misleading, as the entirety of the article makes clear the history and context of the J.D. degree (created to emulate the continental doctorates of law), while the selected portion quoted out of context suggests some ambiguity, and isn't even relevant since the selected paragraph discusses the JSD and not the JD.

The Canadian Lawyer Mag citation is an op-ed piece that makes references to experiential anecdotes but gives no authority, and is clearly in error when compared to authoritative historical and academic articles on the topic. Namely, it is clear from authoritative and primary sources that the curriculum in the US law schools changed substantially to create the doctorate-level JD program, and there are academic papers which examine the numerous differences between the Canadian and U.S. curricula. Nonetheless, the purpose of the article is to discuss the difficulties experienced by Canadian lawyers outside of Canada because of common misunderstandings of the Canadian educational system (e.g. the Canadian LLB is a second-entry degree), as not to examine precisely the history of the LLB and JD in North America. That is, it was never intended to be authoritative, and the mis-statements in the article have little impact on the purpose of the article.

The court case is not authoritative because it deals with a small county court in Mass. (not even at the state level) and the decision of the court is related to bar admission only and not educational policy. The quotation given is from a footnote in the opinion, and the status of the J.D. as a graduate degree does not seem to the a decisive factor in the opinion anyways. Nonetheless, the opinion merely states that the LLB and JD are similar, clearly affirms as an aside (footnote) that the JD is a graduate degree and the LLB is an undergraduate degree, and makes no statement that would cast doubt about the status of the JD as stated in authoritative materials. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Terminal degree?

Indiana University [10]: "The S.J.D. is the terminal degree in law". Harvard U. [11]: "The Doctor of Juridical Science (S.J.D.) is Harvard Law School's most advanced law degree". Stanford U. [12]: "The Doctor of the Science of Law (JSD) is the Law School's most advanced law degree." (They also call it "postdoctoral", however.) From NALP [13]: "J.D./JURIS DOCTOR - Degree awarded after three years of prescribed study in a U.S. law school." and "J.S.D./S.J.D. – Doctor of Juridical Science, a 3-5 year program where candidates must submit a dissertation of significant legal value that is an original contribution to the scholarly field. The S.J.D. (or J.S.D) is typically the most advanced (or terminal) law degree that would follow the earning of the LL.M. and J.D. degrees." It seems there's some disagreement as to whether the J.D. is the terminal degree in law. JJL (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any disagreement on that. Are there any sources you can find that say that the J.D. is the terminal degree in law? The article lead calls it a "first professional degree" so I don't see where this disagreement is coming from. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I posted a source that stated the JD is the terminal degree for the practice of law. This source was from George Mason University, an ABA-accredited law school. GMU also offers LL.M degrees. That would be seem to directly contradict JJL's sources. Mavirikk (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Terminal "for practice" isn't terminal "in the field." Applying the same sort of definition, a bachelors degree (in the US) is a terminal degree for the practice of education in public schools. Wikiant (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, silly me. I checked the source again and it appears I misquoted it. The source states, "The JD in law is considered a terminal degree." My apologies. Mavirikk (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that GMU is more authoritative on this matter than IU is, or just that opinions on this degree...vary? JJL (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's terminal or not. The definition of "Doctoral Degree" isn't "That degree which is terminal in a field or profession." (FYI, there is no formal definition of "doctoral degree"). If anything, the fact that the JD isn't terminal can be one factor in considering whether it is doctoral. One factor of many. Personally, I think the hours of study, research, course time, and writing are the most important aspect. But I digress. Varus2319 (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

From Dictionary.com for "doctor's degree" [14]: "doctor's degree  –noun 1. any of several academic degrees of the highest rank, as the Ph.D. or Ed.D., awarded by universities and some colleges for completing advanced work in graduate school or a professional school." Is the J.D. of the highest rank? For "doctorate" []: "doc·tor·ate –noun 1. Doctor of Philosophy (def. 1). 2. doctor's degree (defs. 1, 2)." JJL (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

By that definition, the M.D. wouldn't be a doctorate either. You should get crackin' on an "Academic Status" section for that article as well. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that you're now correcting the dictionary on a matter of definitions, right? You might consider reconsidering your opinion as an alternative. JJL (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not. The dictionary has no definition for "professional doctorate." That doesn't mean that professional doctorates do not exist. There's mounds of evidence showing that professional doctorates exist outside of the realm of dictionaries and that the J.D. is considered equal to the M.D. in the United States. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is just my opinion: The American MD is not equivalent to the British or the Australian MD. This is what we get for being lazy; We transformed the LLB into a fake doctorate-light ( calling a pig with lipstick Susan does not make it a woman) and the MD into a so-called professional doctorate. The British MD is a PhD level degree for god sake. The fact remains the same....The JD outside the US is equivalent to a f-ing LLB, and the British MD will laugh in the American MD face. Jesus. Why are we arguing over this. Easy come, easy go. If you think your JD is a doctoral level degree, please feel free to start addressing yourself as Doctor. Just don't hold it against me or anyone else if we laugh our ass off when you do. --Viscountrapier (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What are the entrance requirements for the British JD and MD? Are they the same as the American JD/MD? Varus2319 (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In the U.K. you enter a law or medicine program initially, as a 'freshman' as we would say in the U.S. The medical degree is a bachelor's degree(s), usually written MBBS (a bachelor's in medicine and in surgery). The M.D. requires that or equivalent for entry under ordinary circumstances and is intended for researchers. So, the U.K. M.D. is somewhat analogous to the JSD for lawyers--a higher research degree rather than minimal qualification for licensing. JJL (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If that's true, how can it be said that the UK MD makes the American MD appear laughable, when the UK MD is actually an undergrad program but the American MD requires an undergraduate degree and upper level testing just to get into? Perhaps they aren't equivalent, but laughable is certainly an egregious error. I'm talking to you Viscountrapier. Varus2319 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

But as a practical matter, the M.D. is considered a doctoral degree, albeit a step below the Ph.D., while the J.D. isn't. That reflects how things are, which is the goal here--not how they should be. JJL (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the Association of American Universities, the J.D. has been equivalent to the M.D. for 91 years. It seems like that's a pretty clear statement of how things are. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What's your source for the claim that they have been equivalent for 91 years? JJL (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

[[15]]. Association of American Universities Conference from 1919 describes it as "a strict analogue to the degree of Doctor of Medicine (M.D.)" and calls it a professional doctorate. So it's been considered strictly analogous to the M.D. for at least 91 years, but it could have been longer. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. In 1919 it was offered by a small number of schools that also offered the LL.B. as a higher degree, and apprenticing to become an attorney was still common. That was a different time and effectively a different degree. JJL (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that document the change over time, or is it merely an opinion? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I knew JJL would come up with a reason not to regard this source as authoritative. Had it been a recent source s/he would have said, "Well, it's so recent! This just evidences credential creep; the J.D. isn't really equivalent to a M.D." Face it, we just fundamentally disagree and no amount of evidence will persuade either side from their respective position. Let's just be amicable about this, agree we disagree, and proceed to arbitration. Mavirikk (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Before jumping into arbitration, I'm curious - are there any policy-based reasons to keep the section as it currently is (or was when the RFC started, whatever)? There are arguments that as it stands it's a violation of WP:OR, in particular WP:SYNTHESIS, being made even by those who aren't opposed to the section's inclusion, but am I just missing an actual refutation of this policy-based issue (or a policy-based counterexample) somewhere? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This format was agreed-to as an outcome of the mediation process. It appears as a consequecne of WP:NPOV and the mediated outcome reflects Wikipedia:NPOV#Balance--that despite the many cries to the common typed here, there are solid sources for each side and hence they both must be addressed in a neutral and disinterested tone in the article. Efforts to do so in a different format have not succeeded, principally because they were used to dilute the not-a-doctorate viewpoint and give excessive weight to the clearly-a-doctorate viewpoint. JJL (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your response. Having not really looked at a mediation before, I didn't realize it was all contained on the talk page when you posted links to it before. After reading that it looks to me like this is really just a fight between WP:NPOV (it needs to be included) and WP:OR (the way it's included is a problem). Sadly, no method of going from there to consensus occurs to me at the moment. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic of re-initiating this discussion (yes, we have already discussed these cites at length a few times before, but the NALP cite is an interesting addition). It is illogical to assume chaos when there merely appears to be contradictions. In this case, for example, it's clear that there are various authoritative sources which could be interpreted differently. Instead of considering how the information could be interpreted as a whole, a logical jump has hasitily been made in interpreting the sources as in contradiction with one another. There are many sources which clearly state that the J.D. is a professional doctorate, and even explain why it is a terminal professional degree in its field. In examining the sources JJL has brought up we can also note that they do not state that the JD is not a terminal professional degree, and in light of all the sources on the topic it is easy to see that the sources above from JJL merely remind us that the J.D. is a prerequisite for the terminal academic JSD degree. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And therein lies the weirdness in calling the JD "terminal". One must first establish that there is a distinction between the LLM/SJD and the JD that causes the former to be "academic" and the latter to be "professional", and then argue that the distinction is substantive. Even if one is successful, you have the further weirdness of calling something that is the *only* degree the *terminal* degree -- it's like me calling my (only) wife my "first" wife. Wikiant (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought that "terminal degree" in academic parlance meant the degree one ordinarily needed to secure a tenure track faculty position in the field. In most fields, that would of course be the Ph.D., regardless of what further degrees, if any, were available in the field. Thus, since law schools require tenure track faculty to hold only the J.D., isn't the J.D. terminal regardless of what might further degrees be available to the JD-holder? Sk75 (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

People use 'terminal' to mean different things...a M.S.W. is terminal for social workers in that it allows licensure, but there is a D.S.W. The M.F.A. is terminal in the sense you describe, but many will seek a D.F.A. (still somewhat rare) or Ph.D. When one says a degree is 'terminal' you must ask, Terminal for what purpose? The B.S. is terminal in engineering in that it qualifies you for licensure (if ABET-accredited), something that a M.S. or Ph.D. in engineering cannot do (with a slight asterisk on the M.S. in that statement). In any event, my links above were meant to show that opinions on whether or to what extent a J.D. is a terminal degree vary. JJL (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC and revisions to relevant section

JJL suggested that revisions to the debate section be put on hold during the RFC, which seems reasonable although it is not required wiki policy. However, the editor is at the same time using this suggestion to justify his introduction of new material to the suggestion which is out of place. The comments he is trying to insert address arguments given the the next section regarding the JD as not being a doctor. Therefore, even if there weren't a reprive granted from editing the section, the proposed content would be objectionable anyways. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again you're being disingenuous. Deep Purple Dreams called for an RFC late on 28 April, then gutted the section on which input was requested on 30 April. Restoring it to the version on which the RFC was sought is the goal. Apparently your complaint is that in attempting to rerun material you redacted during the RFC it ended up in a different place than before. Perhaps if you didn't attempt to game the RFC this wouldn't be an issue, but it is you and Deep Purple Dreams who are changing it during the RFC. JJL (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So now you only speak up after violating 3R?! Cool. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You're lying. I didn't violate WP:3RR, and you're well aware of that fact. JJL (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My mistake: I miscounted days. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I couldn't touch the article while an RFC was taking place. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that someone had suggested that you couldn't touch the article while an RFC was taking place. I do, however, have difficulty understanding how you could have thought it could be helpful to perform this edit [16] right after you initiated the RFC. Starting an RFC and then turning right around and removing the section on which comment has been requested is hardly productive. JJL (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Deep Purple's actions can easily be interpreted as part of his seeking to initiate discussion and elicit comments on the content, which succeeded. Since an editor can easily "undo" an edit they disagree with, no harm has been done, and mal-intent is merely presumed but not proven.

During previous discussion and dispute resolution it was agreed that the sub-sections of this "debate" section would be more fair and balanced if they include only the material directly supporting the subsection. While complaining about the above mentioned edit by Deep Purple, JJL has tried to introduce content which contradicts the agreement, and opens the door for an editing war. As a result, JJL has reverted four times attempts to remove his content, and only started engaging in discussion after he was mistakenly accused of a 3R violation. I have suggested that the content be moved, as is, to the next section. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving it to the next section is reasonable. You could have done so yourself? JJL (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This entire debate is really sad

The really pathetic thing is that this entire debate about professional doctorate v. professional degree v. research doctorate distracts everyone from making contributions to the Juris Doctor article on areas that readers would actually care about. Such as comparing and contrasting the substantive components of Juris Doctor programs, as opposed to merely thrashing around with the terminology for the degree. For example, do Juris Doctor programs elsewhere have a mandatory pre-set curriculum and schedule the first year like U.S. programs, do they have mandatory clinical training in law school, do they use J.D. holders or Ph.Ds to teach courses, etc.

The vast majority of Wikipedia readers, particularly non-lawyers, don't give a *** about how the degree is characterized. Try talking to random laypersons in public about this issue. Watch their eyes glaze over with boredom. This is one of the great things about being a litigator in the United States---you have to stay in touch with how the general public thinks, because one day the general public might be seated as your jury! --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is pitiful that people would rather debate the article than improve it. I mean, at the very least try to add your Washington Post and Department of Labor sources, and don't just use them to beat other editors over the head in debates. I have always believed strongly that ALL credible and relevant sources should be included in the article, no matter what they say (i.e. whether I agree with them or not). But the article as it exists now has remained relatively unchanged since my major revision last year. A few pictures have been (wrongfully) removed, and I have added content re China, Italy, EJD, etc., but no one else has contributed jack crap! It is indeed frustrating. Considering all the research (some editors here need a reminder about these things called libraries and books) and drafting it required, a concern that any further substantial contributions on my part would create some "own" issues has caused me to disengaged from further development of the article. Your questions/suggestions are stimulating, and the content would be very valuable to the article. There is a perfect place for in in "Modern Variations." But it would also require much research and drafting, and apparently the editors here would prefer to sling mud. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to add the Washington Times and Loughlin material to the article. JJL (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I added the Washington Times material. JJL (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit though, having done all the research required for this article, it allows me to "shoot from the hip" during these debates, as I am familiar with almost all of the available sources on the topic(s). Identifying some quality sources for some of the more debated topics (e.g. JD=doctorate?) has strengthened the article considerably as well, which has justified a lot of trash talking on my part. So, even though there is no formal recognition of my contributions, they have given me a good foundation to talk a lot of trash on the discussion page, which has been satisfying. THEREFORE... do you like to talk trash in "discussion"? THEN DO YOUR RESEARCH!!!! It is quite empowering, and (here's a new concept for you) CONTRIBUTORY. (my comments are not directed to Coolcaesar, who is a researching/drafting animal). Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

All right, kids. I've lost my patience. It's a waste of my time to debate with anyone whose grasp of english is limited, at best. I'll monitor the page and provide input if someone initiates dispute resolution, but it's clear to me that there's a language barrier here. I don't have the temperament necessary to move forward with this discussion. Which, as an aside, is precisely why I never went into academia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.240.134 (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is silly; the entire section should be deleted. None of the references say that the American Juris Doctor degree is not a doctorate. All of the references say it is. The references say it is not a PhD. Nobody says it is a PhD. So what. Somebody is riding their hobby horse and should ride it somewhere else. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rick Norwood. The JD is a doctorate. Of course it is. It is not a research doctorate. Of course it is not. So what? A few people riding an anti JD hobbyhorse are misinforming the world. Lawman15 (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You really don't find any support at all for that position in the DoL reference [17] (from the article) or the "The Law School Bible" by Peter J. Loughlin reference (pp. 43,213) and Washington Times reference [18] (currently under discussion here)? JJL (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your task, JJL, is to provide citations which confront the extant citations clearly establishing that the degree is a doctorate. Your citations are no where near the level of authority and clarity of the extant citations, and thus are completely uninteresting. A statement from the Department of Labor about their internal employment policies is empty in content, irrelevant and non-authoritative. Peter J. Loughlin earned his degrees "using self-study and distance-learning programs" [19] and is therefore not authoritative about academia, he provides no sources for his statement, and it appears that he paid to have the book published (thus a form of self-publishing, discussed here. The Washington Times article does not quote the UofM as saying that the JD is not a doctorate, and it appears that they merely summarized in their own words what they thought they heard. Plus, the UofM alone does not trump academic practice and tradition in the U.S., and therefore does not negate the other sources which clearly state (and are not summarized in another article as stating) that the JD is a doctorate. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Zoticogrillo's comments. By the way, I don't think elephants are elephants. You know why? Because they are not horses. Lawman15 (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, the claim is not that there is only one view on the matter--the claim being made is that there are two views. You insist on posing this as a quest for the WP:TRUTH but that is not how Wikipedia handles well-sourced disagreements. A spokesman for the U. of Michigan speaking directly in response to the question, quoted in a major newspaper, is an and unambiguous excellent source. The newspaper article stated the claim plainly--that the law degree is not a doctorate. There is no call to "confront the extant citations clearly establishing that the degree is a doctorate" because I'm not arguing that that is wrong (though I believe that it is). I'm arguing that there are others who believe differently--e.g., the federal government, the University of Michigan, Peter J. Loughlin, various Canadian and Australian universities who are implementing the U.S. model and commenting on it, etc. You keep dismissing some sources as "non-authoritative" but that once again misunderstands the goal here--not to report what authorized (by whom?) groups say but the actual state of affairs. No one has the authority to say that some people can't view the LL.B.J.D. as a sub-doctoral degree. And many people do.

I might add that many of the arguments on the other side have elements of WP:SYNTH, including the oft-repeated argument that Fool's gold is a type of gold because it has gold in the name. Where is the unambiguous statement that the J.D. is a doctoral degree as traditionally understood? We know very well that there are many bachelor's degrees that are, contrary to what one expects of the name, second-entry, master's-level degrees. We know that there are master's degrees that are first-entry, bachelor's-level degrees. We know that some bachelor's degrees, such as the MBBS, entitle the holder to use the courtesy title doctor (or at least to apply for such a privilege). We know that the old DPharm was a master's-level 'doctorate' and that the new PharmD is a higher-level degree that is being accorded greater respect (e.g., look at military commissioning policies). We know that some disciplines have master's-level terminal degrees (e.g. the MFA or MArch). To claim it's simple is simply disingenuous. JJL (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JJL's position on this. The first (albeit temporary) stability in the article that I've observed over the past three or four years arose with the latest iteration. Others have called for arbitration. Observing no consensus for changing what we currently have, I suggest that those who seek change institute arbitration. Further discussion isn't changing minds on either side -- getting some impartial eyes on the thing may be helpful all around. Wikiant (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

When there is an idea expressed from a non-authoritative source that clearly goes against clear statements by authoritative sources, it is not another valid view, but simply wrong. And when that idea is expressed without any support, explanation, or confrontation of the basis of the clear statement by an authoritative source, it's not just wrong, but irrational as well. If a mother bakes cookies, tells a child she can have one, and a sibling, who did not participate in the baking and knows that the mother said it was o.k., later says to the child that she can't have one, that sibling is wrong and irrational (and probably even deliberately deceptive). Such is the case here as well. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Zoticogrillo. Nicely put. It must be added that comments on webpages (such as per the so-called Australian source) in one country regarding their own view of their own degree are not valid regarding the degree in another country.Lawman15 (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't resist commenting on JJL's fool's gold reference. I think the analogy might hold water if "fools gold" were in fact the formal scientific name for the element in question, or if Juris Doctor were just a colloquial name people used to refer to law degrees. However, according to the substancce of this article "Juris Doctor" is the formal academic designation chosen carefully by academic institutions to describe the nature of the degree, "fool's gold" is an intentionally ironic or "joke" name chemical which is actually called iron disulfide (FeS₂).76.65.30.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC).

I agree with 76.65.30.212 re his/her remarks above.Lawman15 (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be busy for another week or so, but when my schedule clears up, I'll do what I can to initiate some kind of arbitration about this issue. 67.221.94.229 (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

67 here, got a user account. Looking into the issue. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No Universal Definition for Doctorate

The problem here is being created by individuals' assumptions that there is some single universal definition of a "doctoral-level" degree. Different academic and professional insitutions operate largely independtly, and classify degrees for different purposes. Thus differing descriptions of the Juris Doctor cannot be assumed to be in conflict. There is no proper citation for the adversarial subject headings being used, as the sources themselves do not refer to themselves in relation to any debate over the universal "doctoral" nature of the Juris Doctor. Each source should be cited for what it purports to say, and in the context of the particular purpose for which the statement was made. That is what I've tried to do UrbanisTO (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC).

You say that there is no definition for "doctoral-level" degree, but then you institute edits that not only employ the supposedly undefined term, but do so in a manner that suggests that there is, in fact, a single agreed definition. Also, see the last comment in the previous section in which an editor claims that there *is* a formal definition. Wikiant (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I also saw a contradiction in the claims. (I do accept the criticism of my "Fool's gold" example but don't see a clear statement that everyone agrees on what a doctorate is, or that a degree is unambiguously what it's called by a given group. I doubt many would consider the doctorates sold by online institutions that just barely escape being closed as diploma mills to be doctoral-level degrees regardless of what the company calls it. It's also not clear taht even if the academy were of one mind--and from the U. of Michigan we know that isn't so--that the public would be obligated to accept that, and WP would be obligated to report only the sanctioned viewpoint. The MBBS is effectively a doctoral degree in many ways--not all--and a BPhil is often effectively a master's degree; Scottish master's degrees are in many cases equivalent--officially, in the U.K.--to bachelor's degrees; Australian and Canadian schools explicitly dispute that the J.D. is a doctorate while using the J.D. themselves; and an Italian laurea entitles the bearer to be addressed as dottore ('doctor') but isn't a doctoral degree. It isn't as simple as it first appears.) The dispute is legitimate and well-sourced. There may be a better way to address it, but it's relevant...and experience shows that even if this section is removed, it will appear again quickly, with either one side arguing it's the same as a Ph.D. (it's happened--usually by a forgiving way of counting credit hours) or another saying it's still just a bachelor's degree. JJL (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. I didn't say (or didn't mean to say) that there is no definition of a "doctorate". My points are:

(a) the definition of a doctorate is contingent on the purpose for which a given organization or individual is seeking to use the definition
(b) it doesn't make sense to treat various scattered references to the M.D. being a doctorate or not a doctorate as part of one unified debate over the universal status of the degree
(c) categorizing particular characteristics or treatments of the J.D. as either "for" or "against" classification as a doctorate presupposes a single, universal definition of "doctorate" when that definition itself is open for debate. For example, categorizing a hypothetical statement that "the J.D. is not a terminal degree" as evidence that a J.D. is not a doctorate presupposes that all doctorates must be terminal degrees. Categorizing a hypothetical statement that "the Juris Doctor does not contain an independent research component and should not be confused with a Ph.D." as evidence that the J.D. is not a doctorate presupposes that a doctorate must have an independent research component and/or that the Ph. D. is the benchmark for "doctorate" status.

On a separate matter, I did not remove any of the substantive content (or at least I don't think I did) so I'm not sure what the objection is. I merely tried to clean things up skimming off the highest level of "editorial comment". I put a lot of work into doing so, and it seems a bit extreme (given that I didn't introduce or remove any new content) to simply undo the entire effort in one fell swoop.UrbanisTO (talk)

This was well put, Urbanisto. Lawman15 (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The discussion on this section has been going on for some time and so simply editing the section away into scattered comments without regard to this discussion isn't appropriate. The point is to gain WP:CONSENSUS here since it is clear that bold-revert has already occurred. Although I understand your points, the fact remains that there are people saying (e.g., the Wash. Times article), quite baldly, that the J.D. is not a doctorate. We can't analyze whether or not the 'doctorate' they claim it isn't is a well-defined concept--that's WP:OR. Wikipedia reports the facts, and I feel some here have been arguing for what the facts should be rather than what they are. JJL (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

AHA! I just thought of a better way to describe what my issue is here! None (or at least very few - I didn't notice one) of the INDIVIDUAL sources cited in the erstwhile "debate" actually documented a debate between different individuals regarding the status of the Juris Doctor. It is true that they describe the Juris Doctor in different ways, and I'll even allow for the sake of argument that some of the descriptions conflict with one another. However, in the absence of anything within the individual sources referring to their contents of part of a debate, placing them in a category such as "Debate Over Whether the Juris Doctor is a Doctorate" can only be a SYNTHESIS of the information. It is my understanding (perhaps I'm wrong) that Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to include synthesis. Does this make sense?UrbanisTO (talk)

We have discussed whether 'debate' or 'disagreement' is a better term. Some of the sources regarding discussions of whether university administrators can hold only the J.D. clearly reflect debates between (and possibly among) those faculties and their administration. Surely there is not agreement as to its status? JJL (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait a sec! :) A debate over whether university administrators can only hold the Juris Doctor is a debate over whether university administrators can only hold the Juris Doctor (no?) not a debate over whether the Juris Doctor is a Doctor. Shouldn't it be placed under a category relating to eligibility to be a university administrator?

I don't think its fair to describe the way I organized things as "scattered comment". I did organize the points in terms of how the Juris Doctor is treated in various circumstances. Further, if there are only some sources documenting a debate or disagreement on that point, then that resolves the synthesis problem only for those particular sources, not all the sources. On the use of the terms 'debate' or 'disagreement', I think the problem with those terms is that they can be interpreted as pertaining to a discrete incident or relationship between individuals. What we're really saying is that the status is described in different ways. That should probably be the term used. I'm reverting your revert, not as a way of "trumping" on the existence of such differences, but because I think the structure leaves it open to the reader to come to her own conclusion based on the facts listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanisTO (talk • contribs) 04:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Others disagree with you. I encourage you to seek WP:CONSENSUS. The current debate section is the outcome of a WP:MEDIATION that was sought for that section only. Please gain consensus for your changes here before making sweeping edits. JJL (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait - do people disagree with me, or do they disagree with something someone else did a while ago? What is it specifically about my statements above that you disagree with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanisTO (talk • contribs) 04:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked back at the result of the original mediation, which was framed in terms of whether Juris doctor holders are "entitled to the rights and privileges accorded holders of doctoral degrees" and whether they are equivalent "academically". It strikes me that my headings are much more true to that framing than version prior to my edit, What my headings do is recognize that it is not a all or nothing game. (a) J.D. holders may have some specific rights and privileges but not others (b) that different "doctor" degrees other than the J.D. have rights and privileges different from one another (c) that J.D.-holders rights and privileges overlap (or fail to overlap) variously with different doctoral degrees. My subheadings look at particular sub-bundles of rights, including subsets of "academic" status and ask whether holders of the Juris doctor have those particular rights.UrbanisTO (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC).

I disagree with your assessment of your headings. How would you propose we proceed? JJL (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I was involved in the mediation. I don't recall (either in word or spirit) the mediation addressing "whether Juris doctor holders are 'entitled to the rights and privileges accorded holders of doctoral degrees'". I believe that the mediation focused on the larger question of whether (and how) the article should address the status of the JD with respect to doctorates as they are understood in academia. Wikiant (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The mediated article framed the overall opposition as: "Some argue that the J.D. is academically equivalent to other doctoral degrees and that holders are entitled to the same rights and privileges accorded holders of doctoral degrees (such as the use of the title, "Dr."). Others argue that, despite its name, the J.D. is academically equivalent to a masters degree and that holders are not entitled to the rights and privileges accorded holders of doctoral degrees." I don't think its reasonable to say that these mediations are meant to "freeze" an article completely. It seems more reasonable to treat them as having resolved a particular substantive in dispute between by the parties. The changes I've made to the previous version are true substantive point which was the outcome of the mediation (i.e., that some organizations assign the juris doctor different academic status, rights, and privileges as compared with certain other doctoral degrees). What I've really done is to add detail e.g., "Honorifics", "Doctoral Robes" and privileges "Academic Employment" "Academic Research Funding" to recognize that the J.D. has some rights in common with X doctoral degree and other rights in common with Y doctoral degree. The revised subheeadings also recognize the obvious reality not all other doctoral degrees have a standard set of rights and priveleges (e.g., medicine vs. divinity). Unless someone is insisting it is actually truethat all "genuine" doctoral degrees have a single, uniform package of rights, privileges and status, without internal variation, it seems patently misleading to insist that the organization of information not recognize this.UrbanisTO (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The mediation and the discussion leading up to it lead to compromises such as always describing it as a professional doctorate (as opposed to a professional degree). I read the mediation differently than you do. In particular, where you write "...that the J.D. is academically equivalent to other doctoral degrees and that holders are entitled to the same rights and privileges...", I read the and logically and not as a 'therefore'; the first part of that is the key issue, to my mind--is it the same as, and indeed considered to be, a doctorate. One could have a different degree yet be accorded similar privileges, as with allopaths and osteopaths.

The mediation isn't meant to limit future editors, but WP:CONSENSUS is indeed a rule that is to be followed. I don't see consensus for your changes, which I do find to be changes of substance, if for no other reason than the breaking of a coherent section across so many parts that the point is lost. JJL (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Degree vs.doctorate (cf. the Wash. Times article on law degrees as not being actual doctorates): From "Indiana University medical school lands $60M gift; Lilly Endowment will bestow its largest grant of 2009 as institution steps up recruiting of physician-scientists" in the Indianapolis Star, 15 Dec. 2009 [20], we have "IU plans to use much of the money to lure top researchers with medical degrees and doctorates. Such physician-scientists..." and "$10 million for IU's Medical Scientist Training Program, which trains students seeking medical degrees and doctorates. The program now provides full scholarships to about 50 medical students enrolled in Ph.D. programs at IU or Purdue University." JJL (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Too bad it doesn't actually specify what it means by "degree", unless we use a little editorial inference. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Too bad it doesn't mention the MD degree by name, and it doesn't have anything to do with the JD. It seems like JJL believes that the source under-cuts the professional doctorate's status. Too bad this is the best he can do, and there is good authority for the status of the professional doctorate. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There are some JDs and MDs who get research doctorates later. And I've known people with research doctorates getting JDs. Not much one can make out of that. Lawman15 (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

stone walling edits by UrbanisTO

It is clear in the wiki guidelines and policies, such as Wikipedia:Be_bold, that change is encouraged, and behavior that stone walls other editors is clearly discouraged, as can be seen by the Wikipedia:3R#The_three-revert_rule. Restrictive treatment of other editors and such other conservative approaches are only appropriate for administrators. To my knowledge there are no administrators who are participating in editing this article. Therefore, completely excluding the edits of UrbanisTO is entirely inappropriate and will lead to appropriate action if it does not cease immediately. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Zoticogrillo. Very good point. That kind of wholesale excision also was done to my edits a few years ago. It is inappropriate and unacceptable. Lawman15 (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

We are in the discuss phase of WP:BRD. As has been mentioned previously, perhaps it would be good to seek outside help via WP:3O or WP:MEDIATION or the like. JJL (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so now you quote BRD?! Discussion has already gone on, and two editors keep reverting the edits, mostly over an issue of format, in a way to further their unsubstantiated POV-pushing. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I quote Zoticogrillo from 00:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC) (currently in archive 4):

"The dominant paradigm in wikipedia is that the product is an encyclopedia, and therefore if something is informative, it should be included. Just because you disagree with the inclusion, does not mean that it must be excluded, as consensus does not require unanimity. As stated in the consensus policy description, "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons"...Including content [that] is highly relevant and informative improves the article..."

Zoticogrillo, you have deleted informative material. I understand that you disagree with the inclusion, but that does not mean that the material must be excludedl; consensus does not require unanimity. Wikiant (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Add the stuff back! The content changes are minimal (I haven't studied the details), the format has just changed. If I have changed the content and not the format, then add back the information within the context of the format. The format you propose is misleading and not neutral. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If this is in regard to the "differing form" edits, I think Zoticogrillo's edits are patently correct. The J.D. does take a unique form in other countries. It seems like Australia's JD is a "JD in name only" so to speak. 67.221.94.229 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point, 67.221.94.229. JDs, and other degrees, take different forms in different countries. The Australian may be sui generis.Lawman15 (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Breaking it into sections for regional variants, as is done at many other degrees, is reasonable, as I've mentioned before--but the issues concerning the U.S. J.D. would remain. It's true that a small part of the current debate section is that part of the problem is that the J.D. is a moving target from country to country, but the DoL, Wash. Times, etc., issues would still be there. JJL (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Then add those issues to the article format as introduced by UrbanisTO. Zoticogrillo (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This business of yours of undoing ALL of UrbanisTO's edits with little discussion as to why the elements are inappropriate, making no attempt at compromise, not even to add in your own content within that framework, and instead relying on me to guess what content you are looking for so that you won't "undo" the edits, is really frustrating. You know how you want the article to look, so make those changes, but stone-walling all edits to a section over which you have claimed ownership is not contributory. With each "undo" there should be more discussion, but the only additional information you have introduced is that the DoL, Wash. Times and other cites need to be added. Then add them! And let this article improve through the organic wiki process, as opposed to stagnate and become a source of contention through your conservative strong-arming. Zoticogrillo (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

They were added. You had specifically asked that they be added, and they were. Now you are repeatedly removing them with misleadingly labeled edits. This is counterproductive. The edits are much too sweeping for such a contentious matter. You are not discussing them--simply reverting to them. JJL (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I must not have been careful. I've been trying to spend less time on wikipedia lately. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I found your statement to be misleading. If you want the content included in the article under the format created by UrbanisTO, please do it yourself. I am not responsible for your editing. I will try and add it according to how I understand you might desire it, but please try and be more conciliatory next time, instead of falsely accusing me. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I added them. The sweeping changes made by UrbanisTO removed them. Those changes were reverted. When you then made changes, you removed them again, just as UrbanisTO had. Once again you are using mislabeled edits and false cries of persecutions. That is the sort of behavior on your part that led us to mediation previously. JJL (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

So, you return my accusation of being rude with an accusation of acting in bad faith? How rude! :P

If I'm that bad, I'm sure you would have submitted a complaint or something... oh wait, you haven't. How interesting. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha! I can't believe this debate is still going on. How many years has it been guys? Dumaka (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mooooommm! Dumaka is laughing at me for being a stubborn moron again! :P Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

New Evidence

George Mason University, a rather large public research university located in Fairfax, Virginia, has an online "factbook." At 171 pages long the document is very comprehensive and describes many aspects of the university. In the appendix it gives definitions of terms mentioned earlier in the text. Under terminal degree it states:

"The highest earned degree in a discipline. In most cases, this is the doctorate (Ed.D. Ph.D., D.A., ENGR). In

the fine arts, the M.F.A. or Master’s of Fine Arts degree is considered the highest appropriate degree. Other

Master’s in music and art theater don’t count as terminal. The J.D. in law is considered a terminal degree."

Here's the link: http://irr.gmu.edu/factbooks/0809/Factbook0809.pdf. The quotation is on page 155. This university offers JDs through its school of law, which has a fairly strong academic reputation. So, while it doesn't state the JD is a doctorate, it does unequivocally state it is law's terminal degree. I think this statement, particularly the last sentence, should be included as a bullet point under the section that lists evidence that tends to support the argument that the JD is a doctorate. Mavirikk (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There are institutions that claim both ways. The thing is, institutions that offer the LLM (master of laws) and SJD (doctor of juridical science) require the JD as a prerequisite. That suggests that, in fact, the JD is not terminal. Others have argued that the JD is terminal for the *practice of law*, but that speaks to the requirements of the ABA (which is not an academic institution) rather than to the status as an academic degree. Wikiant (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that in many schools a JD is NOT a requirement for an LLM. In fact, the LLM after an LLB is the common way most foreign attorneys get licensed to practice in the USA. Only in very select fields, predominantly tax law, is the JD a prerequisite for the LLM, but at many other institutions, LLBs go on to LLMs (and some eventually get their JD). It's a bit wacky, but to say the LLM is proof one way or the other is incorrect, because it comes before or after the JD at many different schools. -61.18.170.89

I agree. Also the SJD is almost exclusively enrolled in by foreign (non-USA) students. Lawman15 (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, U.S. students must almost always get a J.D. before they're allowed to go on for the LL.M. but some foreign-trained lawyers are allowed to get it as a "conversion" degree if they have equivalent legal training from their own country (say, the LL.B.). JJL (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that this evidence in no way resolves the debate. However, I believe the fact that this document states in express terms that the JD is a terminal degree ought to be added to the "pro-JD" evidence. Currently, none of the bullet points state the substance of this document and it would serve as a counterpoint to the "con-JD" bullet point that states the JD is not a terminal degree because of the existence of LLMs and SJDs. Mavirikk (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, George Mason does offer the LL.M. Mavirikk (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I read that opposite to the way you do--if it was an actual doctorate, why list it separately rather than with the "Ed.D. Ph.D., D.A., ENGR" (is the last one a D.Eng.?)? Listing it separately, following the master's degrees that are terminal degrees (which is all it says of the J.D.--terminal), tells me that it's different than the doctorates. JJL (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a cannon of statutory interpretation that states that the express mention of a thing or a list of things excludes all others not listed. When I posted this information, I recognized that as a viable interpretation, JJL. But your argument is an inference, which cannot trump the plain meaning of the text. The plain meaning being: a degree, named Juris Doctor, is the terminal degree in its field. How that plain meaning is trumped by the fact that “Juris Doctor” is separated from the more traditional research degrees in the paragraph and implies it is not a doctorate at all, despite them clearly stating it is a terminal degree, is beyond me. However, I anticipated this objection being raised and thus limited what I thought was significant about this document to merely that it directly answered one of the main points of attack upon the JD: that it is not a terminal degree. Clearly, if it stated that it was a doctorate and it was a terminal degree, that would be much stronger and helpful to my case. Unfortunately it does not. Nonetheless, it does expressly state that the JD is a terminal degree and I believe this evidence ought to be included as a counterpoint to bullet #2 in the anti-JD list. Mavirikk (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't clearly comment on the doctoral status either way despite what would be the odd omission from the first line if it were indeed a true doctorate. It does clearly state that it's a terminal degree. I don't know how much weight to give it. JJL (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It does, indeed, state that the JD is terminal. So, in the interest of balance, I suggest that we include the thing. FWIW, I've seen how academic documents like this one get produced and, as an acadmic, wouldn't put much stock in what it contains. The passage was likely written by a single department chair or could even have been inserted by the student assistant who is typing the thing. In short, with the exception of key passages relating to credit requirements, faculty tend not to scrutinize the content of such documents. Wikiant (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that's fair. Mavirikk (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we already address the is-it-terminal issue: It's as terminal as an M.D., which can be followed by a M.M.S. degree. The J.D. is like the M.S.W. or M.Arch. or M.F.A. or M.S.N.: Terminal for practice and considered sufficient prep. to teach, but there are D.S.W., D.Arch., D.F.A., and D.S.N. programs out there. Terminal for practice and terminal in the sense of being the last in the chain of possible academic degrees are two different things. You can get licensed as a professional engineer with only a B.S.E. but there's also the M.S.E., Engineer degrees, and the Eng.D./Ph.D. 'Terminal' raises the question, 'terminal for what purpose'? JJL (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree; but it does seem to stretch the implication of the word "terminal" since the JD is the first degree in law. It's kind of like describing a beautician's license as "terminal" for the purpose of cutting hair. Yes, it's the last certification you need, but it is also the only certification you need. Wikiant (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is a danger of terminal being stretched, but as you said, the document is from an academic institution that grants JDs and clearly states the JD is a terminal degree. Hence, it should be included for fairness. Also, the JD is a lot closer to a Ph.D than it is to a beautician's license. Mavirikk (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it can properly be said that the profession of law, and the academic study of law are distinct disciplines (just as engineering and architecture are discrete disciplines). The J.D. is the terminal degree in legal practice (following, e.g., a B.A. in Law and an M.A. in law, but to which (like many other doctorates)access can be gained by way of a degree in another field), which entails issues such as how to draft pleadings, facta, make oral submissions, how to elicit evidence in chief, cross). In contrast the Ph.D. / SJD in law is the terminal degree in the academic study of law (i.e., what is the nature of law, what should law be, what is the direction that law in this or that area should take). Before entering into the academic study of law, it is reasonable to require the highest possible familiarity with the practice of law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IntLiGrll (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Format Change

Someone changed the format rather drastically. I thought it was better organized with points in favor grouped together and points against grouped together. Change it back? Mavirikk (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. It takes (at least) two sides to have a disagreement. JJL (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself, but I also don't see how mixing up the order of the examples helps to make the article easier to read. Wikiant (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I know that I'm probably jumping into murky waters here--I notice this seems to be a pretty sticky debate between several people--but is this debate section really even necessary? I've never heard of any real debate on the matter outside of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.242 (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you 71...242.... many many editors have advocated getting rid of the section or at least removing misleading descriptions of sources which do not in fact take a position (let along a generalizable position) on whether the J.D. is a doctorate, however, Wikiant an JJL consistently stonewall such changes. Just look at the history of changes by Zoticogrillo, UrbanisTO, 24.56.246.88, Sundayschild58, Intelligirl, 67.221.94.158, X-factor, 98.209.6.176, Rick Norwood, ElKevbo, 68.48.0.92, 192.203.222.85, as well as comments by DeepPurple, Coolcaesar etc.

Each and every time there is an edit which reveals just how limited the evidence is for the existence of a genuine question of whether the JD is a doctorate, either JJL (beligerently) or Wikiant (more politely) simply jumps in and reverses it. If this section has ever given the appearance of stability, it is only because there have been two semi-fulltime watchdogs methodically pushing it back into their desired perspective (and aggressively "smacking down" anyone who dared to undermine them). Nobody has the energy (or the passion) to persist in correcting this.UrbanisTO (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

We took it to mediation. This is what came out of mediation. What more do you want? Look at the recent edits that I just reverted that changed the title to say it was clearly a doctorate and redacted cited material to the contrary. If you're OK with that, then get off my back about my position on the matter and my actions. JJL (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediation shouldn't be used to tie hands like this. My problem is that it's a pretty well-accepted fact that the JD is a doctorate. Some sources disagree, but that disagreement isn't large enough to warrant a section that consists mostly of cherry-picked quotes that are often take out of context. Perhaps it merits a sentence or two (or even maybe a paragraph), but not the way it's represented in its current form. My distinct impression is that this section exists to try to prove a position that runs contrary to what is generally accepted. It seems that most of the editors that have participated in this disagree with the section. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with Deep Purple. The entire question is ridiculous. Lawman15 (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Deep Purple, you ask us to accept, without citation, the statement that, "it's a pretty well-accepted fact that the JD is a doctorate." Yet, you are not willing to accept, even with citations, that such is not the case. Why does one side of this discussion face a higher burden of proof than the other? Wikiant (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof is the same, it's just that the citations for the JD being a doctorate are far more authoritative than the ones against it. The ABA, the Encyclopedia Brittanica, the University of Utah, the German Federal Ministry of Education, among many others... versus a Student Law Society, a Washington Times Reporter, some "Mr. Smith", and a DOL paygrade chart for summer employees from 2005? Clearly, the sources against this proposition are hardly authoritative and mostly consist of the opinion of one or a handful of people, while the sources supporting the JD being a doctorate are reflective of the opinion of large, authoritative groups. Plus, some of the cites against the JD being a doctorate are -- in my view -- misrepresented. An example is the European Council cite. The European cite does not even mention the words JD. The editor is inferring that when it says "other degrees", it MUST mean JD, which is entirely unreasonable because the article goes on to speak about MDs. The document is about medical doctorates. Furthermore, there's an editorial inference that the PhD is the only doctorate and to be a doctorate, the degree must have equivalency to a PhD. Yet, this cite remains in the article and some editors refuse to let it go. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A similar argument can be made in the other direction. The ABA is not an academic institution and so what it does or does not believe about the status of a degree (as opposed to a certification) is irrelevant. The first bullet says that the ABA "authorizes" lawyers to use the title doctor when, in fact, the cited sources say that the ABA *does not prohibit* lawyers from using the title doctor -- authorizing and failing-to-prohibit are very different things. Wikiant (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. The American Bar Association is the organization that accredits all JD programs in the United States. While it may not be an academic institution per se, it is certainly an academic authority. And failing to prohibit JD recipients from using the title "doctor" is certainly below explicit authorization, but quite above prohibition. The fact that they express no opinion on the matter means exactly that, they have no opinion. Thus, everyone on both sides needs to look elsewhere for their evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varus2319 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps the wording should be changed. It still doesn't dilute the argument that the Juris Doctor is a doctoral degree. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the ABA is the body that accredits JD programs in the US, isn't the ABA's opinion indeed quite authoritative? Indeed, since, as I understand it, the United States government does not play any particular role in regulating JD programs or their content, it seems that the ABA is in an almost unique position to authoritatively generalize about JD programs. Perhaps the AALS would serve a similar role, but I can't think of any other organization that could. 98.245.232.89 (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Accreditation is a stamp given by the ABA that says that the law school teaches what the ABA believes should be taught. While the ABA is free to withhold its accreditation for whatever reason, accreditation is irrelevant to the university's ability to issue degrees. Wikiant (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's relevant insofar as the ABA ensures that a Juris Doctor degree comports with the national standards for the validity of the degree. This is of particular importance to this article because a standard needs to be set for what we're calling a JD. I'll make an analogy. Let's say I decide to print my own PhD certificates on very official-looking paper at the University of Deep Purple Dreams Medical School, which I then sell for $50 on the local sidewalk. Surely you wouldn't say that PhDs are not a doctorate because my "medical school" sucks. So we need some body to tell us what exactly a PhD entails. The ABA performs that function for the JD, and their opinion should be given weight since they are the most qualified source of information regarding this degree. This might be debatable, but it would seem that their authoritative position over the accreditation of law schools puts them in a position to assess the nature of a JD. After all, a degree from an unaccredited law school is -- for the most part -- functionally useless for being a lawyer. Some jurisdictions allow those with JDs from unaccredited schools to sit for the bar, but for the most part, they need a JD. If anyone has any doubts about the authority of the ABA, just look at the necessity of accreditation in the United States.

Now, with the importance of the ABA in mind, the futility of the argument that JD is not a doctorate becomes apparent. As I've said innumerable times, let's cut out the "anti-doctorate" cites that only make an inference, like the ERC cite. I would think it's reasonable for us to only look at cites that clearly state that the JD is not a doctorate, since anything else would require editorial inference. Now, with that in mind, the cites that oppose the JD being a doctorate are primarily composed of individuals and handful of groups, none of which are very authoritative. Since the ABA basically decides which JDs are legitimate and which aren't worth the paper they were printed on, the ABA holds far greater weight than any of the "anti-doctorate" sources. To say otherwise would be like saying that medical boards aren't good authorities on specialist doctors. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not all law schools in the US are ABA-accredited, and the ABA does not (as far as I know) accredit any law schools outside the US. So, from any perspective other than US-centric (and perhaps not even always there), it is unclear that the opinion of the ABA is relevant with respect to the academic status of the JD. Wikiant (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that not all law schools are ABA-accredited doesn't really change anything. Just because there are unaccredited JDs out there doesn't mean that the JD is not a doctorate. Take my example above: if I start printing my own PhDs without requiring any work done, does that make the PhD not a doctorate?

Anyway, as the article illustrates, "JD" means different things in different places. That's one reason why this whole section is so problematic. The ABA is authoritative in the United States, but may not be elsewhere. The reciprocal holds true for the opinion of foreign institutions as applied to the US JD. I think it's clear from the evidence that the JD is a doctorate in the US, but not in Australia. The section should, in my view, be absorbed into the regional sections in order to give this fair coverage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's pretty much settled that the JD means different things in different countries. If that's true, then this section can't possibly exist because it presumes that the JD is the same everywhere you go... which it's not. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)