Talk:Juris Doctor/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Reasons why the "Juris Doctor is not a doctorate" section should be left alone

The fact of the matter is... if the Juris Doctor was indeed a doctoral level degree, we would not be here fighting over its academic standing. I do not see anyone fighting in the Ph.D section, or even the Doctor of Liberal Studies section. A few years ago the JD use to be call a first professional degree, and is stilled called so by the government. Even some universities do not consider the JD to be a doctoral-level qualification ( http://www.une.edu.au/courses/courses/JURISD ). And let us not forget that the US government, including the military, does not considered it a doctoral level qualification (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-structure-us.html). This obvious division in perception and facts is a very good reason why the "is not a doctorate" section should be left alone; whether we like it or not, there is a real dispute about the academic standing of the JD. --Viscountrapier (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Even the ABA is too chicken to say what it knows : "A spokeswoman for the American Bar Association (ABA) said a J.D. degree does not bestow upon a lawyer the title "doctor." She later retracted the statement, saying the association does not have a position on the matter" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/aug/05/20030805-113408-9575r/?page=2). So people, deep down we all know the truth about the JD, but like with anything that has to do with lawyers, the truth may differ in definition lol --Viscountrapier (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If the PhD is the de facto standard for a doctorate, and the Juris Doctor is not equivalent to a PhD, is the Juris Doctor a doctoral-level qualification? And please people, we all know what equivalent means.

The typical Masters degree requires 36 hours of course work and research beyond the baccalaureate. The typical Ph.D requires 90. The typical JD requires 72 hours beyond the baccalaureate with an additional 20 of work-study. The debate could, and probably should, end right there. Varus2319 (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The contention is not that it's a typical master's degree, but that it is viewed as a M.S.-level degree...cf. the M.F.A., M.Arch., M.P.H., M.S.W., M.P.T. (on its way out), etc., all of which are, or have versions that are, 2-3.5 years long. The J.D. is of that ilk. JJL (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If the SJD and the LLM are both “more advance degrees that the Juris Doctor, and a doctorate is the most advance degree, then what is the Juris Doctor? --Viscountrapier (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(If the Master of Dental Science (M.S.D.) is a more advance[d] degree than the D.D.S., and a doctorate is the most advance[d] degree, then what is the D.D.S.?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.238.137 (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that the mere fact that people are disputing it on Wikipedia elevates it to a legitimate controversy? Interesting. So if I went to the PhD page and said it wasn't a doctorate, it wouldn't be a doctorate?

Also, what's your opinion on the MD?

I'd invite you to check out my cites page and give any input you might have. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the presence of Post-JD degrees is evidence that the JD is not worthy of Doctorate status? It is the work that is put into earning a degree that determines what it is equivalent to, not the presence of additional degrees beyond that. If the JD requires the same amount (or more) of hours, research, and writing as the Ph.D, why then should it not be equivalent? Simply because there is more work yet to be done? Remember, the field of law is considerably more vast than most other fields. The fact that more advanced degrees are available should be more a characterization of the fact that yet more research is available, not that the research already done is less significant. Varus2319 (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(Are you claiming that the presence of Post-DDS degrees is evidence that the DDS is not worthy of Doctorate status? ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.238.137 (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No...the fact that other bodies outside wikipedia have different opinions about the JD's academic status; some schools and the U.S government clearly state that regardless of the fact that the JD has the word Doctor in it...it is not a doctoral level qualification. They call it a first professional degree. Now some people call it a professional doctorate, but that term is clearly putting lip stick on a pig and calling it Susan :)

Now if you went on the PhD page and said it was not a doctorate, everyone include "me" will laugh and then ignore your comment. Because it is grounded and undisputed that the PhD is the de facto standard for a doctorate degree...even wiki agrees with on that one :)

The MD section is very clear. It clearly states that in some countries the MD is a professional degrees and in other countries, like the UK, a PhD level qualification. And because Medical doctors are confident, you don't see them on Wiki trying to convince others that their degree is more than it is. --Viscountrapier (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please! Physicians are the most under confident group out there! Lawyers are the profession that, for years, had a prohibition on self-laudation, whereas physicians are the only "doctors" I know of that insistent on being referred to as "doctors" outside their professional capacity. Further, they jealously guard their prissy white jackets. "Oh no! Did you see that nurse practitioner wearing that white coat? Who does she think she is?!" Mavirikk (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The sad fact about the JD is that is was born out of a desire to elevate the legal profession and in their haste they messed up. The Bachelor of Law got transformed into the Juris Doctor, but someone forgot there was a Master of Law and a Doctor of Laws ahead of it. So we now end up with a Juris Doctor, followed by a Master Law and another Doctor of law. I mean it is pure madness. Now we have a degree with the word doctor attached to it, but it lacks the foundation of a doctorate. Only in this loopy JD world is a master degree (LLM) more advance than a degree with the word doctor next to it. Crazy I tell you. Crazy--Viscountrapier (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(But also in the DDS world is a master's degree (MSD) more advanced than a degree with the word doctor next to it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.238.137 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please consider the formatting and redundancy of your edits. The law, medical, and dental degrees were all originally baccalaureate degrees (possibly second bachelor's degrees). At that time a following M.S. made sense. When the bachelor's degree was upgraded to one with 'doctor' in it, the M.S. degrees weren't. But the J.D. is unique in that that master's degree is followed by a 'doctor'-containing degree. That doesn't happen with the others--you can earn a different, but not a higher, doctorate. JJL (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you taking into account the evolution of the profession, and the evolution of the nature of the education? The LL:B was born in a time when legal education was more an apprenticeship than a formal education. The level of study, hours of work, extent and nature of research involved, and the nature of expertise needed to practice are all considerations that you are ignoring when deciding that a JD is not a doctorate simply because there are degrees that follow it. A university could easily create an M.Ph degree that is post-Ph.D tomorrow, would that necessarily demote Ph.D holders to non-doctors? The JD is certainly not a baccalaureate degree because you need to have one before you can get in to a JD program. Furthermore, it requires more hours, more research, and more upper-level writing than a Masters program. So what is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varus2319 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This article also states that the JD is a professional doctorate. Is this only different because you feel strongly about it? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

MDs were not "doctors" either until, by fiat in the 1850s, they declared themselves doctors. I don't really see what is so controversial about the LL.B transforming into the JD over time either. Clearly the law is many times more complex than it was a hundred years ago. Before it may have been realistic to be a generalist. Today, most lawyers sub-specialize. Is it so crazy to think that as the law became more complex, the degree evolved to reflect this growing complexity (just as in medicine)? Mavirikk (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Mavirikk. Sawagner201 (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

But is it clear that what it has evolved to is (considered to be) a doctorate? There seems to be considerable disagreement about that. JJL (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be considerable disagreement because most of the citations do not actually discuss whether the JD is a doctorate or not. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

We disagree on this. Remember also that the article (or at least this part of it) has been at a virtual standstill since the mediation. Other sources have been added in the Talk pages that have not made it in as we attempted to maintain a very balanced number of bullets for each side.

For those who don't believe this is a real debate, search Google for Is the J.D. a real doctorate and variants thereof. It's an oft-asked question, so addressing it here is valuable. Look at the fact that those with M.D.s and Ph.D.s enter the miltary as O-3s (Captain in the Army, say) while those with J.D.s enter as O-2s (1st Lieutenant, the next lower rank)--similar to those with specialized master's degrees (e.g., the M.P.T.). Look at the order-at-commencement cites in the archives here, showing J.D.'s line up after those with "doctoral" degrees.

Finally, recall that this is a page about the J.D., not just the American J.D. The pages for other degrees draw a much sharper distinction between when they're speaking of a degree from which country. This one doesn't. JJL (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

But all the citations discuss the status of the JD with respect to other degrees. Perhaps the solution is to rename (again) the section to "debate involving the academic status of the JD". If it isn't clear that the degree's standing as a doctorate is in question (which, it seems to me, is obvious), the citations make it very clear that the JD's status among academic degrees is unclear. Wikiant (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem I'm having is that there really doesn't seem to be any "debate." There are a few citations of some people that have made some claims, but I do not see any significant exchange of ideas. Where is the back and forth? Where is the dialog? Where is the evidence? The testimony? The research? I don't see any of the signs that mark an academic "debate" of any kind. There are always people that are willing to contest any point, and those people occasionally publish their claims. However, those claims do not rise to the level of debate unless there are counterclaims and dialog. Do you have any evidence of that? The difficulty in finding any evidence that anyone is contesting the status of the JD is evidence itself that the JD's status is not really in contest.

The washington post article that characterized the JD as not being doctoral more or less retracted their position and deferred to the statement from the school.

The statement from the "United States Government" is tangential and self-contradictory. They list the JD as equivalent to two-year programs and masters programs, while simultaneously mentioning that three-year dedicated programs are more equivalent to the Ph.D. Someone failed to notice that ABA approved JD programs in the US are three-year dedicated programs. This seems to be more accidental than anything else. Furthermore, the second US government source equates the pay grade of the JD to that of Ph.D. This source is far more generally applicable as it was not drafted for a single, specific program but for regular and repeated reference. It stands to reason then that this second page is more scrutinized and regularly updated (and thus, more reliable) than the former.

The Australian university clearly states that their JD is not a doctoral degree. However, no such American university makes the same claim. Quite the opposite, Harvard Law specifically developed their JD, which has become the American standard, to reflect the hours of study that most JD candidates put into their degrees. The transition was, in some small way, a recognition that JD candidates put as much or more hours of work into their JDs than most Ph.D candidates put into their Ph.Ds. It seems clear that if there is any debate as to the academic status of the JD, it is purely an international one.Varus2319 (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post article didn't retract the statement. The U. of Michigan law school's official spokesperson, identified by name and position and a J.D. holder, said it wasn't a doctoral degree, at least at that school. It's a simple statement from an authoritative source and is clearly in a reliable source. JJL (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(So why does the University of Michigan Law School, like all United States law schools, have its graduates and faculty wear doctoral robes and hoods during commencement?)

On a second look, you are correct. Yet while that may be the case, you shouldn't ignore everything else I've posted. Furthermore, you shouldn't ignore the opinion of the UDC in that very same article, which states that the JD is a doctorate. Lastly, you should certainly not take Mr. Baum's comments beyond what he states. He says that the JD is not equivalent to a research doctorate such as the Ph.D. His quote "Several of the [professional degrees] incorporate the term 'doctor,' but they are not research doctorates and not equivalent to the Ph.D.," states only that these "Doctor" degrees are not research doctorates. It does not state that they are not doctorates at all. I am actually inclined to believe that this article may be biased in your favor, and that the reporter may have used some selective quoting here. Notice the brackets around [professional degrees] that indicate the reporter has substituted their own words, I am curious if Mr. Baum didn't say "professional doctorates" there. While it is not neccesary to get into such fine analysis in a wiki article, I would suggest that you not simply quote the portions of the article that seem to support your position without due quotations to the portions that support the opposition. Varus2319 (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There's an important distinction here: The U. of D.C. didn't make a definitive statement on the matter--someone associated with the school expressed an opinion on the matter. But when a U. of Michigan officially-appointed spokesperson speaks on the matter, that's different. His words seem plain to me: "At Michigan, the juris doctor is not the same as a traditional higher-education doctorate degree, such as a Ph.D.," said David Baum, assistant dean of students for the University of Michigan Law School. "The juris doctorate is a professional degree," said Mr. Baum, who holds the degree. At the very least, doesn't this signal to you the presence of differing opinions on the matter? Doesn't the very fact of this disagreement at a major university signal that? Also, please note that the quote that starts "Several of the [professional degrees] incorporate..." is not from the U. of M. spokesperson as you suggest above. You need to take a closer look at the article(s). As to ignoring other things you've posted...I replied in several spots in a single edit. But I've also had this discussion repeatedly over the past few years. Right now I have to point out that you're misreading the article. One tires. JJL (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there is no difference of opinion, nor that the section be deleted. I'm asking that you actually include the sum of known evidence. There is no reason whatsoever to have a balanced number of bullets on both sides of an issue when the arguments are not balanced on both sides. You need only scroll up on this page to find volumes upon volumes of support for the argument that the JD is a doctorate amongst only a sampling of support that it is not. A single Washington Times article and the statement of a single university is nothing compared to the dozens of statements by countless universities and organizations to the contrary. Why are you including none of that evidence in this "analysis"? Varus2319 (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, several good sources were posted here a few months ago, which I thought resolved the debate in favor of the JD as doctorate (but clearly did not), so I thought the consensus was that those sources would at least be added to the JD is a doctorate sections. But, they were not. At the very least the article should add the recent pro-JD evidence. Mavirikk (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, take a look at your own advice: google "is the JD a real doctorate". You will notice that there are very few debates on point. The first page only lists two amateurs posting their opinions on what amount to personal blogs. The most credible source on that page is the Harvard JD/Ph.D joint degree description, that happens to state that you can combine your "legal" studies with your "doctoral" studies. This does hint that the JD is not doctoral, but not necessarily. Also, the very first hit on the first page is the wiki page for "Doctor," which states that the JD is traditionally a doctoral degree and that lawyers are traditionally called doctors almost everywhere in the world except England (and, by extension, many of the Commonwealth nations such as Aus). Again, I'm not saying that there is no debate whatsoever, but I am saying that your characterization of it is quite biased. (Which, incidentally, might be the reason you've had this argument so many times over the last few years.)Varus2319 (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there are many examples of not only questions but debates on the issue on the web (e.g. [1]; "At the end, to use your JD you need to take the bar exam. That is much like the comprehensive exams needed to ENTER the PhD program."). Most of them don't meet WP:RS but do show that this is a frequently asked question which must be addressed in the article, and also show that there is diversity of opinion on the matter (e.g. [2], [3]). Oh, and Northwestern U. also distinguishes between doctoral/graduate studies and legal studies [4]. See e.g. [5]: "With the highest percentage of PhD-trained faculty of any law school, it is an ideal place for students undertaking the considerable challenges of law school and doctoral studies at the same time." This seems to indicate that law studies are not doctoral studies, and that the Ph.D. is considered an important qualification beyond the J.D. by them. Clearly, the language reflects a reality: Law studies are not doctoral studies. Look here [6]: "The UH Law Center, in conjunction with the Baylor College of Medicine, now offers students the opportunity to jointly obtain both a law (J.D.) degree and a medical doctorate (M.D.) degree." The language refelcts the reality. Why not the parallelism of listing the J.D. as a juris doctor(ate) degree? What's discussed here matches my experience: [7]. JJL (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about, you have reinforced my point. There is scarcely any evidence other than incidental vernacular. You point me to one scholar that has written a paper or an article on this topic and I will concede that there is a debate. One. There is nothing out there, not on either side. Nobody is doing research to actually compare the study hours, class hours, research hours, papers written, extra-curricular requirements, examination difficulty, professional placement percentages, or average income of JD candidates vs MD vs Ph.D. Where is the evidence? Where are the arguments? Let me see some debate. All I see is circumstantial evidence, and most of that is based on inferences that you have made. If you are going to use this diaphanous and unreliable evidence to claim that there is some actual debate out there, then you can't possibly justify excluding the much more authoritative and explicit evidence that opposes your "side." If you do, you are nothing but biased. I'm not against the inclusion of this section, but I am against your gerrymandering of it. Varus2319 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't concerned with the lively debate going on in the learned pages of Yahoo Answers. Reliable sources is what counts here. You have plenty of sources that imply something only if you read a particular meaning into it. Nitpicking word usage is not enough to establish a debate. For example, the cite which says "law school and doctoral studies" - I would contend that it's far more reasonable that they were differentiating law from medicine in a convenient way rather than passing some sort of sly commentary on the status of the JD. Regardless, nothing you give indicates that there's a debate on this subject that's worthy of putting in the article. We can't add together a ton of unreliable sources like Yahoo Answers and come out with something usable. That's why this section seems so inappropriate - if this was a legitimate debate, would we really need to be parsing grammar to find hidden meanings or surfing Yahoo Answers for evidence? We need authoritative, on-point discussions that actually address the academic status of the JD rather than trying to cobble together a bunch of "evidence" to prove a point. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's my opinion too. There are examples (as have been pointed out) that the J.D. is not always treated the same as a Ph.D. (or an M.D., but I notice most people are avoiding that comparison), but combining them into an argument as there is at present is WP:SYNTHESIS, and listing them as trivia without an argument is WP:UNDUE, so as I said above a reliable source that specifically discusses the debate would be nice and I'm just not seeing one. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The J.D. and the M.D. have distinctly different purposes, so it seems obvious that they'd be treated differently insofar as what you can do with them. Clearly, one cannot practice medicine with only a J.D. and one cannot practice law with only an M.D., so of course they'd need to be handled different. But when it comes to "academic status", I don't see any reason to infer that the J.D. is not a professional doctorate - which seems to be the goal of this section. It seems odd to authoritatively state that the J.D. is a professional doctorate in the first paragraph and then come up with a section like this that makes it sound like there's an equally good case that it's not a doctorate.

I guess it just seems like a way around having to acknowledge that the JD is a professional doctorate. The citations used to support a debate here are fairly absurd. The European Research Council doesn't grant medical research grants to law degree holders? What a shock. This is hardly "evidence", and my JD cites page goes into all this in depth. There's one source that looks legitimate to me but it hardly indicates a debate. Someone coming out and saying "the JD is not a doctorate" doesn't automatically create a debate, just like someone saying "the Earth is flat" doesn't warrant a section on the Earth article entitled "Debate on the flatness or roundness of the Earth."

One question I have for supporters of this section: what's the point? Can you sum up the position of the "not a doctorate" sources clearly? Is it that the JD is not a professional doctorate, or that the JD is a professional doctorate but just not as "good" as the M.D.? It seems like it's well-settled that the JD is not a research doctorate, so it would be pointless to say that this section exists to show the difference between the PhD and the JD. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, each argument has as its basis (whether overt or implied) that the JD is not terminal. This seems to make it unique among degrees described as "doctorates". Wikiant (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(The JD is not unique, in that the DDS is also not terminal.)

So then why not say that? "The JD is unique among degrees described as "Doctorates" as it not the terminal degree in the study of jurisprudence." If this is the root of the argument, then just state it. However, I seem to detect some anti-JD sentiment here that is taking this argument well beyond the support of the evidence. Varus2319 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(Actually, the Juris Doctor resembles the D.D.S., which is the prerequisite for the Master of Dental Science (M.S.D.), making the M.S.D. the terminal academic degree in dentistry.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.238.137 (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is wedded to the term "debate" and indeed the term used in the article has changed from time to time. However, complaints have been made whether it said debate, disagreement, disparate treatment of the J.D., academic status of the J.D. (which I prefer), or what-have-you, by those who insist it's the same. It's simply not clear--despite the name--that all professional doctorates are viewed as being doctorates. If that seems illogical to you then all I can say is that I'm not accountable for the fact that the killer whale isn't a whale, either. As to evidence of the differing views on the matter, many have been adduced. Why not read the archives rather than ask me to copy-and-paste them here yet again? JJL (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is looking for you to paste it here. We've all seen the evidence that you claim supports your theory. What I'm asking is that the article reflect the evidence that has been presented. When I get the right to edit the article, I will post all the evidence that has been shown in this thread, both for and against. I expect two things to happen: First, the evidence will be quite substantially in favor that the degree is a doctorate. Second, I expect that you or someone else will revert the article back to a state that makes the two sides appear balanced when they are not. Perhaps we should agree that evidence can be added in favor of either side, but that no reliable evidence can be deleted from either side in an effort to maintain an artificial appearance of balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varus2319 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea that the J.D. is a professional doctorate but is not a doctorate is not supported - at least, not to the extent that it merits its own section. Many of the cites in this section do not comment on the academic status of the JD: instead, it uses a variety of inferences in order to synthesize a conclusion. That's the problem. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Like the tenuous argument, "When they stated 'law degree' when talking about the J.D. and 'doctoral' when talking about Ph.Ds, clearly that is demonstrating that the J.D. is not a doctorate of any variety (professional or otherwise." That is very weak and synthesis. Mavirikk (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree.Lawman15 (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

But no one has proposed putting it in the article--that was an indication on this Talk page that the treatment does indeed vary and so there is a legitimate question that should be answered in the article. What can go on the article's page for readers and on the Talk page to convince editors are different things, yet we keep seeing this straw-man argument that if something is mentioned here that couldn't go there it's synthesis rather than an attempt to get the other side to open its mind to the possibility that the situation is more complicated than they believe it to be. There isn't synthesis in this section of the article as written. It says simply Opinions differ as to the academic status of the J.D. and backs that up by quoting differing opinions from reliable sources. The U. of M. quote and the Mwenda quotes, for example, are directly on-target, from recognized authorities. What about Pappas? The DoL quote plainly states that--at least for their purposes--the LL.B. and J.D. are both equivalent to master's degrees. The Maryland school district codeas above make it very clear that the J.D. doesn't fall under "Doctoral degrees" for them. It doesn't matter whether they're making a larger statement or not. Look at the Fulbright program sites cited above. The section currently says that there's disagreement about the academic status, and the Wash. Times articles report on just such a disagreement occurring, with real-world employment consequences. The comments in the article are fully backed up by verifiable, reliable sources. Once you can see that, you may see how the language on web pages of doctoral vs. J.D., etc., reflects the current reality. JJL (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

First, my contention is not a straw man argument. I am not misrepresenting your views to make them easier for me to tear down; I am pointing out that some of your evidence is really bad and contains synthesis. Second, I am not really sure how evidence that is unfit for the article can be used here to bolster the evidence in the article on the talk page. If it is not competent to be in the article, then why is it competent to be used to decide if this section has merit? What is most important is the decision of whether the JD will be classified as a professional doctorate or whether we will continue to have this "academic status" section, not the details of what ultimately ends up in the article. That debate and decision is happening here. Thus, I do not think we should have a lower bar for what evidence may be considered on the talk page. Third, these quotations I take issue with are not probative of anything. Why did they use the term "law degree" and not "Juris Doctor?" I don't know, but neither do you. Law degree is a common term; it is used with much more frequency than Juris Doctor. Same thing happens in medicine: I often hear physicians and lay persons refer to "MDs" as "medical degrees." Using "law degree" in the same sentence as doctorate (referring to a Ph.D) does not prove the JD is not a professional doctorate or even give rise to the inference it is not a professional doctorate. Further, the persons who wrote those sentences either (a) may have no knowledge of authority on the matter, or (b) the writers may merely have been trying to distinguish between the JD and research doctorates. There are too many ambiguities in those statements which give rise to too many different plausible interpretations for them to have any probative value whatsoever - even on the talk page. Mavirikk (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

We've long since agreed to refer to the degree as a professional doctorate in this article--that's why it's referred to as a professional doctorate in this article. This was a result of the mediation and wasn't universally accepted as true but was a negotiated outcome. No one is trying to change that. Hence, I don't understand to whom this argument is being directed. Note, however, that sources have been given that say that some professional degrees, despite having the word 'doctor' in their title, aren't considered doctoral degrees. That's part of the reason why the academic status section was also a result of the mediation. It's a murky world out there. Trust me--if it were me in charge there'd be a clean, unambiguous, rank-ordered taxonomy of degrees. But, the degrees grew up here-and-there without master planning. I've referred before to undergraduate master's degrees and graduate bachelor's degrees, and the history of surgery makes the master's-vs. doctor's degree issue a bit fuzzy in some ways too. (Does McGill U. still grant their medical degree as a doctor of medicine and master of surgery degree?) You're looking for crisp answers where they don't exist, I think. JJL (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This "debate" section simply has no place in the article. The JD article isn't about the PhD, but rather the JD. If sections like this were allowed to stand, every article on every academic degree could have a "debate" section about how such-and-such degree isn't the same as so-and-so degree. I don't think anyone here, and certainly not the article, is claiming that the JD is a PhD. To the contrary, this article should be about what the JD is, not about what other degrees it isn't. I reiterate my position that the "debate" section should be removed on several grounds, not the least of which is that it is irrelevant.

As an aside, I also object to the headings questioning whether the JD is "doctoral" simply because it isn't a PhD. The term "doctoral" and "PhD" are not synonyms. A PhD is a type of doctorate, but certainly not the only one. Take a look at the "doctorate" article; it makes this statement quite clearly. Sawagner201 (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a "debate" section and hasn't been for a while. There's an "academic status" section. JJL (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This section identical to the former "debate" section. Nothing changed other than the name. It's the same thing. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course this is a debate section. When you state that opinions differ on a subject, then give pro-evidence and con-evidence, what else would you call it? Whatever you would like to label the section, it is irrelevant to the article. Sawagner201 (talk) 06:25, 5 May 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 it a professional doctorate (a term which some law school and "people" started using only a few years ago to BEEF up the JD), 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) 17:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. You seem to take perverse enjoyment out of someone having adverse consequences to their career as evidenced by your smiley. That is shockingly petty and reveal you are so biased against the JD that your views are not even worth considering or rebutting. Mavirikk (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it did work out well for her: she took the job in 2003 and held it until at least 2007. [[8]]. It's possible that the position was eliminated at some point after 2007 due to budgetary concerns. I see no mention of that job position at all on the UDC website, and the article I cited speculated about the possible elimination of that job due to financial constraints. In summation, she got the job and held it for years, and likely left for reasons that have nothing to do with her degree. Your conclusion seems as misguided as the facts you base it upon.

Furthermore, your reasoning is inconsistent. When you say the "ABA stepped in", what really happened was that an ABA spokesperson said that the degree does not confer the title of "Doctor", but retracted that statement because it was not the position of the ABA. [[9]]. Putting aside for a moment the undeniable fact that the spokesperson is not talking about whether the degree is a professional doctorate or not, only about the title "doctor", this does not satisfy your own criteria for how the ABA should speak. You have a double-standard here: when the ABA says that the J.D. is a professional doctorate, you want the ABA to speak as an organization. But when an individual in the ABA makes a statement that supports your views, that's legitimate - even if the statement is retracted later.

Your claim that people only started calling the J.D. a professional doctorate "a few years ago" is equally divorced from reality. In a Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of The Association of American Universities - published in 1919 - the Juris Doctor is established as a professional doctorate and is equated to the M.D. [[10]]. This the earliest citation I could find in the span of ten minutes, but it clearly shows that the Juris Doctor has been referred to as a "professional doctorate" for at least 91 years. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

One assumes that a spokesperson is authorized to speak for the organization. That's an important difference. But indeed, the statement was retracted. Still...you don't think that indicates some confusion about the matter? How can you still claim it's perfectly clear when a lawyer who is an ABA spokesman is unsure about the matter? Would a spokesperson for the AMA who holds an M.D. degree ever say that physicians aren't doctors? JJL (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If a spokesperson for an organization makes a statement and then retracts the statement because it's not the position of the organization, there's only one conclusion: that the statement must have been the personal opinion of the individual. One person's personal opinion does not seem like enough to warrant this section. It should also be noted that this spokesman is not a reliable source as per Wikipedia policy. The charge that an ABA spokesperson said the JD was not a doctorate appears only in one anonymous article. We don't even have the spokesperson's name or the exact wording of what they said. It's hard to find a worse source than that. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The J.D. is a doctorate, which is clear from numerous sources of ideal authority. A paraphrasing from an unknown individual in a newspaper article from an organization that has made its position abundantly clear does not debunk those sources. Nor do the academic policies of some institutions in a country very different from the U.S. that is only just now accomodating the issuance of the J.D. degree. Again, our opinions and interpretations are useless and a waste of time. The issue is settled because there are verifiable sources of solid authority which are clear. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous links regarding the J.D. not being a true doctorate

From this blog [11]: "There is debate whether JD's can leverage their degrees as "doctoral level." The ABA approves the use of doctor when introducing ourselves, but other academic disciplines and the US government do not view the JD as a doctoral level degree, but rather, a master level." From this education directory [12]: "The most common doctorate degree in law, the Juris Doctor or JD, is an interesting degree in the sense that not everyone agrees that it is a doctorate-level degree." From this site [13]: "In academic circles there has been confusion, and those with other doctorates (particular PhD's) have fought against recognizing [the J.D.] as a doctorate, and want to consider it as a master's level degree." A lawyer opines on his web site [14]: "Law degrees say “Juris doctor”, not “juris doctorate”, I believe. I don’t think they are doctorates. A long time ago it was an LL.B. Just because the decided to change the NAME of the degree does not all of a sudden make it a doctorate. That’s my view." Efforts to limit JDs vs. PhDs in Criminal Justice depts. [15]A: "graduate programs that desire the ACJS imprimatur cannot have a faculty with more than 1 in 10 faculty members who hold a Juris Doctor degree." (See also [16].) From Inside Higher Ed. [17]: "The mayor has an undergraduate degree from Bates College and a law degree from Western New England College, but lacks a Ph.D and has never worked at a college. Julian F. Fleron, a mathematics professor at Westfield, said from his conversations with students and faculty, an overwhelming number of them object to Sullivan's candidacy. "He has zero academic experience at any level," Fleron said. "It says in the job description that there are minimal requirements. You can’t even teach here with just a J.D. It seems strange to me that at the oldest co-ed teachers' college in the country, someone who can't teach here passes a test to be considered for the presidency."" From Newsweek, Michelle Obama's law degree is described as a master's degree [18] (the article is clear that she was a lawyer; see also the comments here [19]). The doctor title issue at a Bar Board of Governors meeting [20]: "However, board member Jesse Diner said there are differences between a J.D., a master of laws and a J.S.D. degree, which is a true doctor in law. "I think it does mislead," he said. ". Remember, this is in addition to similar material sourced to books and refereed journal articles (Mwenda, Pappas, etc.) and in newspapers that has previously been provided. I don't see how anyone can hold that there is no disagreement over this issue...unless they don't have Internet access. JJL (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

From the Manila Standard [21]: "“Dr.” is no less troublesome. Actually, a practicing physician (in fact, even a non-practicing one) cannot appropriate the title “Dr.” although he can—and should, by tradition—be addressed as “Dr.” Academically, the M.D. (like the J.D.) is not an academic doctorate. Universities compensate MDs and JDs as holders of masters’ degrees. It is the PhD or the ScD that is the true academic doctorate. A physician should therefore properly identify himself by saying: “I am a physician” not “I am a doctor”—because a musicologist with a PhD in Music Theory could verily call herself a doctor as well." From a U. of London-associated law school site [22]: "By and large, this is merely an issue of semantics and the JD is not deemed to be of lesser standing than the more traditional LL.B. The American Heritage Dictionary (Second Edition) defines the Juris Doctorate as, "An academic degree that is the equivalent of a [LL.B.]." In the United States, as with the rest of the world, the advanced law degree above the JD continues to be the LL.M. or Master of Laws and the degree above that is the SJD, JSD or LL.D. - – true "Doctor of Laws" degree." JJL (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

From the U. of the Pacific's (California) law school's site [23]: "Let's start with the JD and the LLB. When a student completes a law school program, the student receives a Juris Doctor (JD) if they complete a program in the U.S., or a Legum Baccalaueus (LLB) if they complete a program outside of the U.S. Essentially, there is no difference between the two degrees except where you completed law school." From an online education site [24]: "However, unlike a Doctorate, a J.D. is not a terminal degree." From the City University of Hong Kong [25]: "The JD. Programme is formally classified as a Taught Master's Degree and it is not customary for JD graduates to use the title “Doctor”." JJL (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. More blogs and unattributed articles on websites of questionable veracity. Not to mention more misinterpretation of legitimate sources. This is pretty much standard. I'll get to refuting these later, when I have more time. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm wondering, which of these sources do you claim are WP:RS? All of them, or just some? I know there are some blogs and anonymous sources in there, so I want to just skip over those if possible. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Web sites can be usable per WP:RS--it depends on the circumstances and the claim. (E.g. World wide learn has received some attention.) But why not start with Inside Higher Ed. (that one may have been posted here before), or the U. of the Pacific, or the Manila Standard, say? JJL (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

How's this going for you? JJL (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

From Sydney U. (Australia) [26]: "The JD is a professional masters degree." From here [27]: "The most ridiculous thing about American law schools is that they give out a Doctor of Jurisprudence (JD) to a law graduate who will never be called "doctor" and whose education is not on the same academic level as a PhD graduate who wrote a thesis or dissertation." JJL (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

JJL. Your sources are problematic. First, at best the Sydney University reference is only discussing that insitution's position on its JD program. It is not speaking for all JD's. It's possible that this article should have country variations--as the JD is being offered more and more in different locales--but whatever the case, it's a leap to use the source as a statement on JD's generally. The second citation must be dismissed outright: it's merely a user comment on someone's webpage. If it were to be allowed, someone could just as easily go post a comment on some blog that says a PhD is equivalent to an associates degree, and we could cite it here. Overall, these are fringe opinions that are being given undue weight in the article. I strongly question why a section on whether the JD is "equivalent" to a PhD is even relevant to the article. What's next? A section on why a JD isn't a DDS? Or maybe why a JD isn't a high school diploma? Sawagner201 (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I anxiously await your links showing active interest in whether or not the JD is a DDS. JJL (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Sydney University speaks only for itself is irrelevant. It need only speak for itself to confirm the fact that there is a difference of opinion on the academic status of the JD. Wikiant (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any difference of opinion on the "academic status" of the Australian JD. The sources are explicit and unequivocal that the Australian universities that award the JD do not consider it to be a doctorate. They seem to understand that if they award a degree with the word doctor in it, the natural assumption is that they intend for it to be a doctorate, and, if they intend otherwise, they have to clearly say so. And they do. Can we from this that infer that American universities actually do intend to award the JD as a doctorate, since they don't clearly say otherwise like the Australian universities do? I think it's unnecessary in light of the other sources already cited in the article and in the more recent sources I have provided on this talk page, but I think it is a fair inference. Sk75 (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't your inference a case of synthesis as it stands? Recall also that this page is not about the U.S. (or Australian) J.D. It's about the J.D. The Australians seem to be clear that having "doctor" in the title doesn't necessarily make a degree a doctor's degree. So, tehre isn't uniformity of opinion on that. I doubt you'll find the Ph.D. receiving similarly uneven treatement.

Anyway, have you find those cites about the J.D. being just a D.D.S. that you had alluded to earlier? I'm curious to peruse them. It seems like a fringe, crackpot theory.JJL (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is synthesis. And I didn't really expect it to change anyone's mind. But it does seem odd that so many US universities could fail to caution potential matriculants in the way the Australian universities do. Also, perhaps you have me confused with another editor, but I certainly have no JD/DDS theory. Sk75 (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes--I didn't look closely enough and thought I was still speaking with Sawagner201! I understand your point in it not being mentioned (but see the U. of Michigan statement) but then having watched credential creep take so many degrees to ones with a "D" in them over the years one sees that schools don't want to point something like that out about a moneymaker degree program. Australian and Canadian schools are adopting the J.D. because they feel their students aren't as competitive against U.S.-trained attorneys without it--but they're studied it and have an opinion on the U.S. version as well as their own approach to their version. JJL (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A question for those who support this section.

It's clear from the sources that the J.D. in Australia is significantly different from the J.D. in the United States, and the article reflects this outside of the "academic status" section. It is also clear that the J.D. in Canada is a J.D. "in name only", designed to increase the name recognition of their degree.

The current format of the "academic status" section places citations from organizations such as the ABA (an American organization) directly against citations from Canada (Windsor Law) and Australia.

My question for you is simple:

In light of the fact that the J.D. is fundamentally different depending on where you go, how is it intellectually honest to have a unified section about the J.D. that does not reflect this difference, and instead makes it appear that the J.D. is the same in all countries and the ABA/Canadian/Australian sources are arguing over the same thing?

I'll throw in a second question:

What would be the problem with dissolving this section and sorting the information that's currently within it into the regional sections? All your information will still be there, but it will be in the sections that will be most relevant to the reader. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Content regarding the status of the degree in various jurisdictions is already in the article, so I think it would be redundant. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Among other things, it would hide the fact that there is disagreement as to the status within the US. Wikiant (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been saying for some while that this article does a much worse job than comparable articles w.r.t. treating regional variations, but the few efforts to change that have simply been thinly disguised attempts to eliminate the legitimate discussion about the differing views on the U.S. version of the degree. JJL (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggested a similar change a bit ago for the same reason. There was not a consensus to implement it for the reasons Wikiant and JJL explained. But I still support the idea. There's so much variation among the legal education systems and the way they developed that I don't see how having the section unified makes sense. To the extent that there is a legitimate discussion to be had, in my view it should take place within each country's section. Sk75 (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that what that will achieve is to create N simultaneous variants of this discussion -- one for each country. Wikiant (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that your main concern is that it would "hide" the discussion. What if the exact same material was in the US section? Why would it "hide" the information to simply have it under the appropriate category?

Failing that, would anyone be opposed to changing the current pro/con into a paragraph style? Instead, maybe have some background information about how the degree differs from the US to Canada/Australia? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In principle a paragraph is better. In practice, even if the paragraph comes out well the next drive-by editor with feelings on either side edits out or dilutes the other side of the argument. I'm sure you'll say that's no good reason to have this easily defensible but unattractive bullet-structure, but that's my strong experience here. It's a contentious issue. JJL (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, it's not easily defensible. A J.D. in America is an orange and a J.D. in Australia is an apple, but we've got a section directly comparing the two without any mention of which type of fruit they happen to be. Not only is it inherently misleading, but there is no benefit to this layout. It's not like a bullet-point list makes it any harder to edit. If someone's going to remove information, they can remove a sentence from a paragraph or a bullet-point from a list: this format is not going to save it from drive-by editors. Is there any evidence to base this conclusion on? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm all for separating out differences by country--I've pointed out many times that similar articles, like B.A. or M.D., do so. When I've suggested it before there hasn't been much positive interest and I'm occasionally told that it's simply a U.S. degree. But yes, as a practical matter, the balanced bullet-list that came out of mediation is easier to maintain that a series of edits that begin to favor one point over another by many small changes. JJL (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If the point is to show that certain bullet points apply only to the JD in specific countries, then why not include words in the bullet point to the effect that the specific bullet point is relevant only to a specific country. Wikiant (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. There are separate sections for each country already. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not separated as clearly as it's done on the pages for other degrees--here the situation is presented as what happens in non-U.S. countries with a continued focus on the U.S. JJL (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So am I to understand that if I were to propose a paragraph style instead of bulletpoints, it would be reverted by Wikiant or JJL without any discussion? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't play the victim. I've only said that it hasn't worked before and tried to indicate why. JJL (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to find out if it'll be a waste of time to try to figure this out. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

One issue to consider is the fact that the degree is brand new outside of the U.S. and it appears that those educational systems are still forming their policies regarding the degree. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

One more piece of evidence against the claim that the JD is a doctorate as the term is normally understood: At Yale University, JD graduates are entitled to wear the doctoral gown, but NOT the doctoral hood. Instead, they must wear a master's hood. This seems to connote an understanding that the JD is something more than a master's and less than a doctorate. See http://www.yale.edu/secretary/commencement/html/Guide_to_Regalia_07.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newt43 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Which would comport with the claim that the JD is a professional doctorate and not a research doctorate. Further, how the practice of one law school undermines the practice of all the nearly two hundred other ABA-accredited law schools, including law schools with equivalent prestige (e.g., Harvard, Standard, Georgetown, etc.) is beyond me. Mavirikk (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy--the schools that are in accord with your view are right, and the U. of Michigan, Yale University, the U. of Alabama, etc., are bastions of ignorance. If you have to wear a doctoral/master's hybrid outfit, maybe--just MAYBE--there's something different about your degree? If your prof./research distinction is correct, the M.D.'s would have master's hoods too. I didn't even bother checking on that because I think we all know the answer there. JJL (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. If we are talking about logical fallacies, how about you look up "straw man argument." I never claimed those schools were "bastions of ignorance." I merely stated that (a) Yale graduates wearing a combination of master/doctoral academic regalia actually backs up the claim that the JD is a professional doctorate: a terminal degree that is more than a master's degree but less than a research doctorate (I noticed you conveniently did not respond that argument), and (b) the practice of one school ought have little probative value when weighed against the practices of every other ABA-accredited law school. Furthermore, I do not appreciate the hostile tone. I find this back and forth as frustrating as you, but if you review my many previous posts I have been quite civil towards you and Wikiant. How about taking it down a notch, will ya? Mavirikk (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that it's not just Yale that accords the JD lesser status at commencement; it's Harvard's policy, too. At Harvard, the SJD is the Law School's sole doctoral degree, the JD is akin to the terminal master's of divinity. Here is Harvard's price sheet for rental regalia, which makes the distinction clear: http://store.thecoop.com/coopstore/images/HarvardCapGown.pdf Newt43 (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There appears a preponderance of evidence that the JD, with respect to academic status, is less than a PhD but perhaps more than a masters. Beyond that, I am hearing two arguments. The first argument is that the JD is "terminal for the practice of law." I confess that I don't understand this argument since (a) the JD is the *minimal* requirement for the practice of law, and (b) one can hold degrees that are academically higher than the JD (e.g., LLM) and practice law. "Terminal" typically means the last in a sequence, not the only (or first in a sequence), so I don't grok the use of the word "terminal" here. The second argument is that the JD is a professional doctorate. I understand "professional" degrees as being distinct from academic degrees in that professional degrees are designed to educate the person in the *practice* of a discipline. What I don't understand (with respect to the JD) is "professional doctorate" -- perhaps this is because of my problem with "terminal." At the end, what I keep hearing is the old circular argument ("the JD is a doctorate because it is a doctorate") now morphed into "the JD is a professional doctorate because it is a professional doctorate". Wikiant (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've also heard social workers, for example, distinguish between the M.S.W. being "terminal for practice" (e.g., for licensure as a LCSW) and a D.S.W. (or Ph.D.) being "terminal for teaching". I'm not sure how well-defined these usages are. I'd add to your circular reasoning comment that I am also seeing "A J.D. is a doctorate because it's a professional doctorate" which seems to applying a narrow form of grammatical logic to terms that arose in haphazard ways--e.g., a "killer whale is a whale" is false even though parsing it would seem to suggest otherwise. I suspect that those who pushed the term "professional doctorate" may not have had the full endorsement of those who oversaw graduate schools offering doctorates, as I wonder today how some MBA and JD programs feel about the "executive" eMBA and eJD degrees being offered as quick money-makers by some schools. JJL (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But when you say "the practice of one school" you seem to be ignoring the practices of several other schools that have been brought up here. Each one is only one school, but surely there is enough to convince you of the only thing that's being claimed w.r.t. the article--that there is disagreement about the treatment of this degree? JJL (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

U. of California: J.D. is a master's-level graduate professional degree

Here's something pretty unambiguous from the U. of California Council of Deans [www.gdnet.ucla.edu/asis/report/ear.pdf] (pg. 34): "Graduate Professional: Students in master's-level programs in the fields of agriculture, architecture, business (M.B.A.), education, engineering/computer sciences, journalism, law (J.D.), library science, physical education, and social work. (This definition was used in the 1995 UCOP document, "A Proposed Enrollment Plan for the University of California: 1995-2005.")" Yes, by definition, a J.D. at a U.C. campus is a master's-level degree. Note that these are distinguished from "Graduate Academic" degrees. JJL (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This source is not particularly illuminating. The source is not about degrees and their levels or hierarchies or "academic status." It's about the future of graduate academic education at UC, and as I read the document, your quote from the last page of the document was intended primarily to clarify what programs the report was concerned about. Since the grad professional category wasn't the subject of the report, it seems doubtful the UC system intended this document to speak authoritatively on the status of any of the grad professional degrees. Also, the source places (J.D.) after law to indicate that it might be different from the balance of the list.

I find reliance on sources like this troubling. If there were a controversy, one would expect more to be directly written about it. Reliance on sources like this only shows that the existence of a difference of opinion can only be found on, well, relying on sources that, like this, make tangential statements about the topic. Sk75 (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Plenty has been written on it, and it's reported through the archives of this page. Mwenda, the Wash. Post articles, etc. Look in the archives and you can see more. JJL (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

More miscellaneous sources on J.D. doctoral status

The NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates [28]: "Professional degrees such as the M.D., D.D.S., O.D., D.V.M., and J.D. are not covered by the Survey of Earned Doctorates." From Ireland's National Qualifications Authority, talking about the U.S. system [29]: "a convincing case can be made that the Professional Doctorate has a clearly defined place in the hierarchy of U.S. higher education degrees, and it should be perceived as different from and not as a substitute for the research doctorate[...]the Professional Doctorate should be considered as a degree level within the hierarchy of U.S. degree". A scholarships/fellowships page at Columbia U. [30]: "Ideal candidates have a Master's degree (or a JD), professional experience in the field of study, outstanding academic records[...]If the applicant does not hold a Master's degree, at least two years of work experience in a related field is expected." JJL (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So that's one source that calls it a professional <something>, one that calls it a professional doctorate, and one that doesn't call it anything at all. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The one that calls it a professional doctorate indicates that professional doctorates should be considered a separate category within the classification of all U.S. degrees, which goes to the question of whether a 'professional doctorate' is a 'doctorate' or its own category. The NSF survey on doctorates explicitly excludes professional degrees such as this. A fellowship for M.S. students allows the JD but not other degrees with 'doctor' in the title. It makes it sound like there's some level of disagreement with the notion that it's clearly and simply a doctorate...especially when taken together with the multitude of other sources that have been adduced that address this matter. JJL (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

First, your third source is a summary of a fellowship program which is simply asking for a graduate degree and appears to be using a masters or JD as an example. The fields that they are looking for don't appear to include any others for which professional doctorates are granted. Second, does this mean that you're moving to Doctor of Medicine next and using the first source to start an Academic Status section where you indicate that it's only a professional degree and not a doctorate at all? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't read it as those degrees being used only as examples. As to the M.D., I think I've made my position clear. What's your take on the U.C. source (above)? JJL (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, about the MD I wasn't really being serious (and I don't read every thread here in detail, so I honestly don't remember your position), I was just intending to point out that the source supports treating it the same way as the JD. I think the UCLA source could be seen as supporting the JD as a master's-level program, but it goes on to say

the combined Health Science categories of "Graduate Professional" and "Professional" may be considered roughly comparable to the General Campus Graduate Professional category, defined above

and the Professional category includes medical doctoral degrees. So first it calls it a master's-level program and then says some professional doctorates are comparable; I'm not entirely sure what to make of a master's/doctoral distinction when MBAs and JDs are comparable to MDs and DDSs. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This really isn't that hard. These sources must be read in light of recognized academic policies in the U.S. as found in the sources in the J.D. article. Why assume that they intend to contradict them? Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

To say that the "sources must be read in light of recognized academic policies in the U.S. as found in the sources in the J.D. article" is, effectively, using the Wikipedia article as it now stands as a reference. The whole of the sources being discussed on this page must be considered, weighed, and merged into a consensus. It seems to me that we now have pretty authoritative statement out of the U. of M. and the U.C. system. Those are major players. JJL (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

My Re-write

I rewrote the section to remove bullet points. I also renamed it "Academic history of the J.D." which seems like a much more apt title, given that not every source actually challenged the academic status of the JD.

All the same information is there, including all the citations, but I organized them generally in chronological order, starting with the 1919 cite. I think that the end result is something that is far more readable than the old bullet point system. Please don't revert it immediately. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The subject is still the status of the degree--whether it is or is not a doctorate. Changing the form of the comments doesn't change that, and furtehrmore the history is addressed earlier in the article, so the heading is not appropriate. Once again I look at what you've written and see what is in effect a dilution of one side of the discussion. It may be possible to re-work this into a fair presentation of the matter, but it has to start with an honest heading that reflects what the section is actually about rather than attempting to conceal it. JJL (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the issue about which we are shedding much blood is not the history of the JD -- it is the current status of the JD. The renaming is misleading and the removal of bullet points has the main effect of hiding the disagreement. Wikiant (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on how, exactly, one side of the discussion was diluted? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

For starters, the name of the section, and the following treatment of the matter in the context of a supposed historical evolution of the status that is synthesized from isolated bullet points. An improvement would be to label the section as what it is--a discussion of the current view of the J.D.'s academic standing--and open it by stating that there are two major opinions on the matter. More to the point, Ref. 139 is used to support "the Juris Doctor degree was described by the Association of American Universities" while the link seems to indicate that this was from a report of a law committee of the U. of Michigan that makes an opaque reference to an AAU report. Yet, in describing the other view, specific names of researchers are given as though to imply that the opinion is rare. Would you change the Ref. 139 statement to read "the Juris Doctor degree was described by a subcommitte of U. of Michigan law school faculty in a report read to the Association of American Universities" instead? Your use of "Consequently" immediately following Ref. 139 is wholly unsupported--there's no evidence that anything followed from that particular report--and your statement in the next paragraph saying "have challenged the "academic rank" of the JD in recent years" (scare quotes and all) is also unsupported--that it's only in recent years, and that there's an established viewpoint to challenge. You say that the Wash. Times reporter was anonymous but not that the law subcommittee was also not identified for us. Yes, some of these flaws have been going back-and-forth in previous versions of the article too, but the big difference is that they were clearly labeled there--pro or con--which is much more muddled here.

I'd begin by changing the name of the section to reflect what's being discussed and leading with a clear statement that a difference of opinion exists. JJL (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

In order:

(1) Reference 139 links to the AAU report. The AAU was adopting a statement by the University of Michigan, not the other way around. The link is the actual AAU report, as hosted on Google Books. Given that the AAU is apparently adopting this stance, it would make sense to report it as the stance of the AAU, not the stance of the individual school. It's differentiated from the other researchers because this is a group, not an individual. You should reference it as a group when the group is saying it - and reference individuals when the individuals are saying it.

(2) I agree about the word "Consequently", I'll remove it.

(3) About the committee vs. the Washington Times - as I've said above, we're talking about a group versus an individual. Your citations make this distinction as well. Should we specify who, exactly, in the European Research Council decided that only the PhD is acceptable? Should we specify who, exactly, constitutes the Windsor Law Society? No, because these are groups who issued a statement on behalf of their own group. As for calling the source anonymous, we need to attribute our sources. There doesn't seem to be anyone to attribute this to, and the Washington Times as an institution certainly didn't write it.

(4) I put "academic rank" in quotes because those are the exact words used by the authors. It's customary to quote someone when you are using their exact verbiage.

(5) Is there anything to show that there was dispute as to whether or not the JD was a professional doctorate early on? It seems like all signs point to professional doctorate, with the earliest citation I can find being 1919. Your citations seem to be restricted to very recent events. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ref. 139 doesn't seem to clearly say--at least on the page that is linked--that the report of the U. of M. law school faculty committee was adopted as AAU policy. Can you point me to a more specific statement that it became AAU policy? For example, cf. pg. 85 of the same source: "A new development is the suggestion that the J.D., M.D., C.E., etc., shall be conferred on the basis of graduate study and research on a par with the Ph.D., and not merely as purely professional or practitioners' degrees." Please note, it says the suggestion that the J.D. be on par with the Ph.D. is a new development. This continues immediately in the next paragraph: "It has also been proposed that the established professional higher degrees be continued after the analogy of the M.D. and J.D.[...]The latter suggestion implies that the designation "Doctor" shall have a twofold meaning, namely, the meaning which it always has had in the Doctor of Philosophy and the meaning which it has in medicine as a practitioner's degree. and that this twofold application of the Doctor's degree be continued as a permanent policy.[...]Opposed to that is the other recommendation that all professional Doctor's degrees, e.g., J.D. and M.D. and also the C.E., E.E., etc., be given on a par with the Ph.D. as a research degree. That is the issue on which the members of the Association seem to be divided." It continues, referring to "the problem of the practitioner's degree" and the possibility of considering it a professional M.S. or M.A., including that if they aren't based on research the master's designation is to be considered. On the bottom of pg. 76 to the top of pg. 77, the U. of Calif. suggests that they should "raise" the J.D. to the level of the Ph.D. Anyway, what I gather from the bottom of pg. 72 is that these are universities reporting back on what they had been asked to consider several years ago. Where is it made clear that this is an opinion of the overall AAU, and that the things I've excerpted here aren't? JJL (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If you scroll up, it says that these were adopted as per recommendations and then reported in the AAU. The idea that the JD is a professional doctorate is well established, the "new suggestion" was that it should be equal to the PhD.

If this cite is not authoritative enough for you, I can point you to the 1910 AAU journal of proceedings, which clearly states AAU policy. After discussing Master's degrees, the AAU notes: "At the same time, a still higher professional degree is based on one or more years of additional residence in graduate standing or of professional experience is favored. The Ph.D. and Sc.D. are in use either on the normal basis, or as strictly professional degrees; but more frequently, the Doctor's degree bears a special designation to emphasize it's professional character, such as J.D., M.D., Mus.D..." [[31]] (Emphasis Added)

In fact, I should use this cite, as it's even earlier than the last.

This is corroborated elsewhere. A 1920 Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors states that "...professional Doctor's degrees to be recognized for present shall be the following: M.D., J.D., Dr.P.H and Ed.D." [[32]]. It seems very firmly established that around 1920, the JD was considered a professional doctorate. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Since we've long since agreed to refer to it as a professional doctorate, I don't see the value of another reference on something that isn't in contention as far as the article is concerned. At this point I have to question whether you truly understand what we disagree about. When, in your same report (and hence equally adopted?) the U.C. asks whetehr to "raise" the J.D. to the level of the Ph.D., doesn't that mean they don't yet consider it on the same level? The question isn't whether the article should describe the J.D. as a prof. doctorate. It's whether the J.D. is seen as a true doctorate, comparable to the Ph.D. or other prof. doctorates like the M.D. JJL (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything claiming that the J.D., as a professional doctorate, is a research doctorate like the Ph.D. As for the second issue, that source I cited goes directly to the question of whether the J.D. and M.D. are equal in some sense. My point is that, as early as 1910 - 1920, the J.D. and M.D. were considered to be at the same level. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OR, Misleading, and Weasel tags in the "Academic status of the J.D." section

Original research--The section should contain clear references to this analysis contained in verifiable sources, as opposed to a synthesis of facts.

Misleading--The section should be more clear about whether it is addressing the academic status of the degree, professional status, legal status, etc. It should also be clear whether it is merely listing incidents, or whether it is summarizing "opinion" (first sentence of the section). It's structure and content appear to be biased, giving too much weight to one side of the alleged debate.

Weasel--There are numerous weasel words which seek to restrict the application of one fact or another in support or opposition in the alleged debate.

Those aren't the only issues with this section or this article, but they are salient heated issues in the editing of this article, and readers should be alerted to this fact. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Which, exactly, are the weasel words? Wikiant (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, "There are numerous weasel words which seek to restrict the application of one fact or another in support or opposition in the alleged debate." Wikipedia states that, "Weasel words are phrases that are evasive, ambiguous, or misleading..." et cetera, et cetera, et cetera... Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe he was asking specifically which of those words were weaselly, not what the term meant. JJL (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So, which words do you find weasely? Wikiant (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly? Really? Every single one that is, "...evasive, ambiguous, or misleading," and not less. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Zoticogrillo and I've made a page in my userspace compiling my complaints with the sources. You can find it here: [[33]]. I will add more but feel free to discuss these problems here or on the discussion page of that article. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For the DoL source, the point is that they label the J.D. as equivalent (their term) to the M.S. They're structuring their pay grades as they like, but rather than list all possible degrees in a given class they give some examples. It seems clear to me that they believe the J.D. is equivalent to a master's degree--it's not about the pay, but about what they believe are equivalent degrees. As for the intl. focus, this page is about the J.D., not the American J.D. As I've said many times, cf. the treatment of e.g. the bachelor's degree here at WP. This page is very U.S.-centric. JJL (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As was pointed out by SK on my JD Citations page, other parts of the government put in new attorneys at the GS-11 pay grade. This seems to undermine the idea that the government is making a statement on the worth of the JD, and indicates more that it was some other concern that guided their paycharts. As for your discussion about the international focus, this is only more support for SK's edits. If we adopt a structure much like SK has proposed, we can actually explain the difference between countries instead of lumping very different degrees together. It's very misleading as it stands, especially since most of the "anti-JD" cites come from non-US sources. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I take some mild offense at the notion that disagreeing about the placement of the J.D. w.r.t. other degrees is being "anti-J.D.". I don't think a B.A. is equivalent to an M.D. but I don't have anything against either degree. The issue is taxonomy--and I think we can all agree that it isn't perfectly well-defined. If anyone "owned " the J.D., I doubt there'd be online versions of it being offered. If only Harvard etc. had trademarked all these degrees as they arose, I sometimes think...but I digress. I'm not looking to denigrate the J.D. or lawyers, but I disagree that it's treated as any other doctorate, or even prof. doctorate, is. JJL (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Anti-JD" was just a way for me to shorten the longer term "against the JD as a doctorate". I wasn't implying that this is being against the degree in any way. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to see the incorporation of some of the sources I've identified above into the section, as I think they are more directly on-point. They directly discuss the deprecation of the term 'first professional.' They discuss how professional doctorates fit into the bachelor/master/doctor hierarchy. I know we do not all agree that JD is among the professional doctorates, but the sources I'm suggesting be incorporated do include the JD in their discussions of professional doctorates. Thus, if we prefer to stay with the bulleted pro/con list, I think some of these sources would fit well in the "pro" section. Sk75 (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly the majority opinion that the J.D. is a professional doctorate and agreeing on referring to it that way was an outcome of the mediation. However, I think there's also reason enough to asterisk that statement--it's not treated the way the four-year and more ones are. JJL (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no question among the most reliable and relevant sources that the J.D. is a professional doctorate--they explicitly and clearly say so over and over again. It is sad that some feel this fact was allowed to be expressed in this article only as a result of mediation. I truly admire the resistance of your view of reality to reality. It's almost artistic. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is why I'm so confused as to why this section even exists -- and especially why SK's edits are being refused. There's a majority opinion that the JD is a professional doctorate. There's a majority opinion that the JD is not a research doctorate nor is it the terminal degree in this field. So why does this section exist? I say that because its status as a prof. doctorate is well-established enough to stand on its own. Whether it's treated differently or not doesn't seem to go to the issue of its status as a doctorate. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an elision in there from professional doctorate to (just) doctorate and that's part of the issue. However common-sense it may seem to be able to say that all professional doctorates are doctorates, it isn't quite that simple because of the haphazard way things have evolved. Is the three-year initial-entry Master of Arts (Scotland) a master's degree? It's not a graduate degree. Is the graduate Bachelor of Philosophy a bachelor's degree? Well...yes and no. How about the Oxbridge-style Master of Surgery, which is comparable to the M.D.? It isn't so simple. JJL (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So what should the article state? That it's a professional doctorate but not a doctorate? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There are clearly at least two views on that matter. I am in favor of including both...or neither, but that just doesn't work. Someone always tries to add one viewpoint or the other. The current section is somewhat defensive in nature because of that. JJL (talk)

Is there absolutely nothing you could add to SK's edits to make them work for you? I don't want to sound pushy on this, I just want to try to work toward something instead of blocking all changes for all time. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think it's a worse format and adding to that won't help. It muddles the main point: The J.D. is not universally perceived as a true doctorate. An improvement would be to start with that simple statement. Right now there's a vague heading (what type of 'status'?) followed by five points, none of which directly address the only issue at hand. They address the use of the title 'Doctor' socially, the nature of professional doctorates in general, the fact that some J.D.'s have held high academic office (but not the interesting counterpart--it's also been an issue for some), but never directly address the only item that's at issue. It's POV by dilution, and I don't see the point in going further down that path. I've suggested condensing the current bullets into paragraphs; alternatively, the Mwenda sources, which seem to handle the key issue head-on, could be the focal point of the section. Would that be helpful? JJL (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If the majority viewpoint is that the Juris Doctor is a professional doctorate, then the minority viewpoint should be diluted by comparison. It's not POV; it's Wikipedia policy. Significant viewpoints should be represented, but minority views shouldn't be put on the same level as majority views. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure with whom you're arguing here--we've long since agreed to represent the degree as a professional doctorate here, and that language is used throughout the article. JJL (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

We've agreed to represent the degree as a professional doctorate, yet, we have a section of "evidence" aimed at discrediting this theory. While this is not necessarily bad, the "con" evidence is given just as much weight as the majority opinion. This section may be geared at discrediting the JD as a doctorate (not a prof. doctorate) but the evidence seems to be arguing against it being a prof. doctorate. Either way, it's vague, and that's why we need some actual text -- like an encyclopedia -- instead of just listing arguments.

One more thing. There's been a lot of evidence about how the JD is not equal to the PhD. I believe this to be a manufactured debate. Are there any cites which allege that the JD is a research doctorate? Or any cites that claim the JD is equivalent to the PhD? I think most people are content with calling it a professional doctorate, yet this makes it sound like there's a debate over whether it's a research doctorate or not. It may change in the future (since many JD programs are now requiring dissertations), but at the moment, that's how it stands. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations, citations, citations. NO ONE CARES what YOU PERSONALLY think about this stupid stupid degree--they only care what verifiable sources say DIRECTLY about the degree. NO ONE CARES in how many google results you can find buried and obscure references to the JD degree. And almost NO ONE cares what some shmuck in Africa thinks about an American degree that hasn't been transplanted to ANY country on that freaking continent. Especially when there are so many quality citations clearly establishing the degree's status. Get real or get lost, already. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, Zoticogrillo. Why are citations that support your POV acceptable, but citations that refute it are irrelevant because they come from "some shmuck in Africa"? Wikiant (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Both schmucks are in the U.S., as I clearly indicated initially--one in Washington, D.C., and the other in Kentucky. They're performing (peer-reviewed) research on the U.S. higher-education system as a potential model for African institutions to follow. They cite several other schmucks on the same matter (e.g., that schmuck Pappas). I think we've reached a case of simple bias here. Zoticogrillo, their names don't matter--please address the citation itself. JJL (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am just stunned that this "debate" even exists. It is undeniable that the J.D. is a doctorate degree; the only place I really read anything regarding a supposed debate is this Wikipedia page. The sources allegedly against the J.D. are tangential or andecdotal at best, and often are not even referring to the American JD. Maybe we should break article into sections regarding J.D.'s in different countries, but then again, it is still primarily an American degree. I suppose I just want to add my disappointment that this "debate" exists on Wikipedia when no real debate exists in real life. Sawagner201 (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It exists in real life. Search the web on whether the J.D. is a real doctorate (or search the archives for this page). You'll find forum after forum of people--including law students--asking this question. It's a real issue, and it's quite reasonable for this page to try to provide an answer. JJL (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite obviously, after clear statements from easy-to-find sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, and from highly reliable sources such as the ABA, such questions are entertained by only the obstinate and ill-informed. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The ill-informed may well come here looking to become better informed. JJL (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Best of luck to them, then. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, based on my memory of the source, which I read over a year ago, I remembered reading that the scholar is located at an African institution.

Anyone who has a clear mind and reads the extensive research on the history and context of the development of legal education in the United States will understand why the degree exists, why it is labelled a "Juris Doctor" (and NOT by accident), and why it is clearly stated by numerous educational institutions and organizations such as the ABA (which does not stand for American Bass Association) what the status of the degree is, and why.

After years of JJL and Wikiant promoting their cause, exclusively at times, I am thrilled that more citations are being brought to my attention. Citations only improve the article. But this whole, "the J.D. isn't any kind of doctorate because I don't think it is and I'm going to data-mine google to death to prove it," is getting REALLY tiresome. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Over a year ago? I wish you had shared it with us then. It seems like just the sort of source you've been asking for all along. I only found it this past week and put it up here--why would you not bring it to our attention, given how often you asked for just this exactly? The goal is to better the article, not to 'win' the argument. JJL (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that assumption of good faith there, JJL. You can fluff my budder you foo-headed mole. What we discussed (and you were there) was actually not the book (my mistake), but the article. We discussed it in detail. Wikiant wants me to do his thinking for him on "weasel," and you're trying to make me look bad... perhaps your behavior is more purposeful that you try to make it appear. Wikiant wants to distract us and debate minutia, and you want to throw in some ad hominem fodder. After years of harranging and POV-pushing--it totally makes sense. Thanks again, guys. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you're exactly wrong. What is discussed in Archive 4 is the earlier book by Mwenda, not the later book edited by Mwenda and Muuka or--what I thought we were discussing here--the peer-reviewed article by Mwenda, which is what you have been asking for: A peer-reviewed, scholarly, reliable source on the matter. Perviously you dismissed Menda since, you said, he was "not educated in the United States" and his work "appears to be opinion and conjecture". Here, you dismissed him as "some shmuck in Africa" (which is not correct--the schmuck's in D.C., or at least was at the time of the second book). The peer-reviewed article surely meets WP:RS, though, doesn't it? Isn't a peer-reviewed article a better find? Or will you allege that the peer reviewers were probably non-American schmucks too? JJL (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that correction again, and thanks for giving me that reference to the archives. I'm not sure why you care so much. Last time I looked at Mwenda, I stated that, among the other citations we discussed at that time, "These are all great sources which could be included in the article." I'm sorry that you objected to my opinion of his work--I'm so confused as to when expressing one's opinion is ok here. My observations that he has not been educated in the United States is true, and he has almost no citations in his earlier works (as compared to most other scholarly works). Above I just asked for help accessing his citations. Why do you keep beating me up over this? Back off. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we have more common ground than it may appear at first glance. JJL, if I understand his (or her) position correctly, believes that the JD, in terms of academic hierarchy, is roughly equivalent to a terminal professional master's degree (e.g., MArch, MFA, etc.). In his view, those terminal professional master's degrees rank above "true" master's degrees (e.g., MA, MS, MBA, etc.). Thus, those terminal professional master's degrees really aren't true master's degrees either. They could be labeled "masters plus." I, and others here, believe the evidence shows that the JD is above a "true" masters, but below a research doctorate (a "true" doctorate?). We are describing it as professional doctorate, or could be labeled "doctorate minus." But whatever the label, we all are describing the same thing: an advanced degree, requiring an undergraduate degree for matriculation, typically with a competitive admissions process, requiring more than 60 credit hours of intense, high level coursework, which satisfies the education component of a professional licensure. The only dispute is precisely where it falls in this vague area, somewhere between a "true" doctorate and a "true" masters, or, to conceptualize it differently, the gray area between an "A" grade and a "B" grade. JJL believes the JD is a B+; I believe it is an A-. Thus, while the rhetoric is racketing up around here, we should realize we are just talking about a third of a letter grade. With that it mind, that we are arguing over a rather small difference in classification, I believe it is possible to come to some sort of resolution. Mavirikk (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

JJL appears concerned that, by classifying it a professional doctorate with no qualification, the "professional" portion will be eventually be dropped and the JD will garner higher prestige/credibility/whatever that it does warrant. Conversely, by grouping it with the terminal professional master's degrees, we have the reverse concern: the "terminal professional" portion may be forgotten and the JD's prestige/rank in academic hierarchy/whatever will come to be that of master's degrees. There are other concerns and arguments (particularly, framing the issue with the starting point being either the MD's status vis-a-vis the JD or the LL.M's status vis-a-vis the JD), but this seems to be the foremost concern. Can these concerns be reconciled short of the current pro-JD v. con-JD bullet points? Mavirikk (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

My argument to JJL is that the evidence shows the USA academic hierarchy is in flux, and I believe a trend is emerging that supports the argument that the JD is a professional doctorate rather than a terminal masters. The simple bachelor/master/doctorate paradigm no longer holds with terminal masters, mid-career masters and professional doctorate being awarded in high numbers by many reputable institutions. Further, what will happen if most/all terminal professional master's degrees rename themselves professional doctorates in the next couple decades? Will it be that they are all fake doctorates and the sad result of credential inflation, or were they being undervalued as merely master's degrees for many years and this is the appropriate label? Mavirikk (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The CoHE article on credential creep hits at this issue. You're right that I am concerned that the "professional" will eventually wear off in "professional doctorate" in the article, but I also feel it's well-established that the J.D. "less equal than others" among the M.D., D.D.S., etc. I don't know what will happen in the WP:FUTURE but for now it's correct that I place it among those master's degrees that stretch the notion of such to its limit. I find your observations to be in a useful direction but am not sure how to translate that into article edits. JJL (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it's well-established at all. Just look at the JD Cites page which I've linked to here. I screwed up the slashes and someone fixed it so the new page is at [[34]]. How can it be well-established when we're using sources like the ERC, which don't even mention the Juris Doctorate? Controlling "credential creep" is not our duty as editors. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the attempt at reconciliation and a reasoned approach, (according to wiki policies) it doesn't matter what we think--only the citations matter. This kind of discussion is prolix, futile, and is distractingly prevalent in the archives. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is no one counting credit hours? The JD is like 90 credits, with so many credits, I could do like two and a half masters. How many credits is a PhD? My two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.26.4 (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The PhD is circa 100 to 120 credits after the Masters (which, in turn, is circa 40 to 60 credits), but that only gets you the course work. Regardless of the course work, you don't get the degree until you produce the dissertation (which is an original piece of research). The dissertation alone is a 2 to 4 year undertaking. Wikiant (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What country are you talking about? If you are talking about typical USA Ph.D programs, you have grossly inflated the amount of time it takes to earn a Ph.D. I have extensively researched Ph.D programs in the USA, as I have contemplated pursuing one, and none were 100-120 credit hours above the master's degree. Moreover, I know many people with Ph.Ds. Their degrees did not require the amount of time you are suggesting it would take. You are either talking about a very rare program, not talking about USA Ph.Ds, or you are grossly exaggerating facts to support your argument.

USA Ph.D programs are typically around 72 credit hours in length (I have seen some up to 90 without a prior master's), which often include something like twelve credit hours for the dissertation. Further, no Ph.D programs I am aware of, and I have researched many, require 72 credit hours only of classwork, not to mention 100-120 credit hours of purely classwork, with that large number of credit hours giving no credit for time spent working on the dissertation. Also, most Ph.D programs reduce the mount of classwork required to around 48 credit hours (or 60 hours for 90 credit Ph.D programs) if a student has a prior master's degree in that discipline. Further, no non-terminal master's degree program I am aware of is more than ~35 credit hours, and certainly not 60. While perhaps you can point to a few select programs, no typical master's + Ph.D program is 140-180 credit hours, not even including the dissertation, like you state.

I recognize that Ph.D candidates are not awarded nearly enough credit hours to reflect the amount of time they spend working on their dissertation or their time working in a lab (if they are in a science discipline) so perhaps they *should* be awarded 100 or more credit hours to reflect their full program. But, the fact is that they are not awarded nearly 180 credit hours, at least in a typical USA program. Grossly exaggerating easily verifiable facts does not help your argument. Mavirikk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC).

Yeah, counting credit hours doesn't make much sense for a research degree (cf. taught degree in the british systems, of which the US is not a part). You guys are chasing your tails trying to compare research degrees and professional degrees with such tight standards. You should read some of the numerous rich articles listed in the reference subject discussing the topic in depth instead of just 'shooting from the hip' and engaging in lounge-chair philosophizing. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The majority opinion is that the JD is a professional doctorate. There are some people who claim that it's not, but these squarely in the minority. By using this pro/con bullet point system, it appears to give equal validity to both positions. This is absolutely against Wikipedia policy. It's simple: this section should go. It's full of misrepresented information and bad sources. The points that Maverikk makes are very correct. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of anyone here in the US questioning whether a JD or an MD is a doctorate. There just isn't a debate. There may be some misunderstanding about this abroad, but I've never heard of such a thing in the US. Most of the references cited here by anti-JD poster seem to be mere relics of traditions that began prior to the origin of the JD. In the modern US, we consider the JD, MD, PhD, etc etc to all be doctoral degrees. Even schools that by tradition have law graduates wear mortar boards rather than tams, still have the law graduates wear the doctoral robe as an indicator of the status of the degree. The skewed view reflected by the anti-JD theme in this article seems to be highly influenced by non-American LLB holders, who for whatever reason feel vested in disparaging the American JD. I think it is particularly absurd to debate the status of the degree when the title of the degree itself designates the JD as a doctoral degree. (Juris Doctor.) You have to be pretty twisted to get Juris Master or Juris Bachelor out of Juris Doctor. The arguments that the LLM degree has anything at all to do with the status of the JD degree is also way off base. An LLM offered to holders of an American JD degree is simply a single additional year in a standard JD program (most often in the subject of tax). We do not consider the LLM to be a higher degree for American law graduates, but merely a specialization in a specific area of law. For holders of an American JD, the American LLM is a post-doctoral masters in a particular area of law. For holders of foreign degrees in law, the American LLM is tailored to include the foundations of US law, and is frequently used to become eligible to take the bar exam. (The American LLM is available to holders of foreign degrees in law at the bachelor's level (LLB) and above.) These two types of LLM are totally different degrees, most often with different admission requirements. You have to really twist this stuff to try to make the Juris Doctor a bachelor's degree or masters degree, which it clearly isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.124.84 (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)