Talk:Juris Doctor

New article proposal

Please see this proposed content for this J.D. article. The present article contains much irrelevant content, very little historical information, little detail on the J.D. in other countries, a horrible entry paragraph, and very little citations. The proposed article is a result of a month or two of finding verifiable sources and careful drafting. I look forward to your comments. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

^ Your proposed page had all the information I was looking for. The information in the current article is absolute rubbish. Cheers for the page (please keep it online even if, for whatever stupid wiki reason it cannot be implemented as the official page). Cheers. StefanG Alum (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In particular, this proposal is intended to provide a venue for opinions about the validity of the degree, and is a kind of proposal to resolve disputes about the content. Therefore, please provide your opinions there on that proposed content. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

When do we change to the new article? The current one is a complete mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Trying to draft a new section. See "debate" on discussion page of proposed article. Without new section on "debate" problems may arise. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary of previous discussion

Please post summary of what you think is most important from previous discussions here.

There has been much discussion about this page, the most recent of which can be found in Archive 3. Please read that content in the archives before editing or posting comments. Opinion has been posted about this article and the J.D. for the past few years. Addressing specific content, citations and use of citations is more useful than expounding opinion. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Juris Doctor(ate)

This article seems to use the word "Juris Doctorate" several times. The degree is not called a Juris Doctorate; it is called "Juris Doctor." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The first part of your statement is incorrect. Some universities (e.g. Loyola College of Law) use the term Juris Doctorate. Doctor of Jurisprudence (e.g. University of Texas) is also used. —Preceding comment added by 67.101.7.93 (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The previous comment is idiotic. The degree is named in Latin. "Juris doctor" means "teacher of law," juris being the Latin genitive singular, doctor being the nominative singular. "Doctorate" is an English, not a Latin, term -- "juris" is not English, there is no discipline "juris" in academics in English. To claim that "juris doctorate" is correct would be like saying, "He has a baccalaureate degree in Artibus" is OK, or "He has a doctorate in Sacrae Theologiae."24.164.152.155 (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I am placing a dispute tag to direct users to read this debate.

A Juris Doctor degree is merely a rebranding of the old bachelor of laws (LL.B.) degree. It is nothing more, nothing less. It merely means "Law Degree." This article is factually inaccurate. The references used to make the case that it is a doctorate are simply erroneous and non authoritative.

First reference: This reference refers to answers.com as a reference, which republishes what is written in Wikipedia. Circular reasoning at best.
Second reference: I have contacted the webmaster to point out the factual inaccuracy.
Third reference: This is merely a non binding OPINION written by a representative of one state's bar association.
Fourth reference: A mere categorical listing is a WEAK reference. I have notified the webmaster of their factual error.
Fifth reference: First, this is a bogus reference. This is the ENGLISH version of Wikipedia, not German. Germany is hardly an authority on an American academic degree. This is most likely something missed in translation. Obviously, many English speaking people see Juris Doctor and don't get that it isn't a doctorate.
Sixth reference: This is merely a career guide. Career centers aren't very factually oriented and they are definitely not authoritative. They have two factual errors under "Doctoral Programs," one being the listing of the JD degree, the other stating that the MD is "required" to practice medicine. I have notified them of their factual errors.

The JD is merely a bachelor's degree and is merely the BASIC degree necessary to practice law. The progression of law education is ANY bachelor's degree -> JD -> LLM -> LLD or PhD or SJD. What other doctorate offers a master's degree and doctorate beyond the earning of the doctorate? What other doctorate requires NO SPECIFIC UNDERGRADUATE STUDY in order to matriculate? What other doctorate can one complete in just three years beyond ANY bachelor's degree? Don't confuse "graduate entry" with "graduate program."

References:
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academic.html http://www.kinsellalaw.com/archive/2002_04_01_archive.php http://web.archive.org/web/20050207005109/http://law.slu.edu/prospective_student.html http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=juris%20doctor http://www.legaltutors.com/frequently_asked_questions.htm#What%20is%20an%20LL.B http://law.wfu.edu/llm/about/what/ http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse/Our%20Organisation%2FBusiness%2FSchools%20and%20Groups%2FSchool%20of%20Accounting%20and%20Law%2FAcademic%20Programs%2FJuris%20Doctor/ http://www.law.indiana.edu/curriculum/programs/degree_explained.shtml http://law.missouri.edu/jd/ http://www.law.wayne.edu/current/academic_programs.html http://www.bond.edu.au/study-areas/law/degrees/pg/jd.html http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/handbooks/courses/3387.html

Jkhamlin (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The dispute tag is inappropriate because your comments are already represented in the article ("debate" section at end), and because you offer no source which directly contradicts the content of the article.

It is clear that you have not studied the article in its entirety and are kind of just throwing out comments from your armchair without really researching the matter. I do wish you would read the article closely, but as a starter, I think you would find this source particularly insightful: Hall, James Parker, [American Law School Degrees], Michigan Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Dec., 1907), pp. 112-117. Particularly page 2 (pg. 114). It is cited in the wiki article. It was written by one of the creators of the J.D. around the time of its implementation.

Other references used in this wiki article include peer reviewed scholarly works published by prestigious universities such as Oxford (a U.K. university of course), and written by some of the very individuals who played a hand in developing the degree, who are world reknown scholars of law.

There are no authoritative references which support your point of view, and all of the best references directly contradict it. Googling on the internet is no substitute for research in the library--I encourage you to do so.

I'm not sure which references you are discussing when you state: 1st, 2nd, etc. Based on the context of your comments, I've guessed.

First reference: does not cite answers.com as authority, but merely for more information. Other definitions do not use any authority. The Association of American Universities Data Exchange is an authoritative source in and of itself.

Second reference: don't know to what website you are referring. But if it is the U of Melbourne, USC, Berkeley or the National Science Foundation (the only other citations in that range), I'd love to see their reply to you, if they reply at all--I'm sure it would be entertaining.

Third reference: Whose bar association? It is merely representative of an opinion expressed by other bar associations in the U.S., after research by that entity. Even though they are a professional organization and might represent a vested interest, their official opinion is not irrelevant and represents common knowledge in the profession.

Fourth reference: Again it is unclear to what website you are referring, but I hope you'll share their response (see note to second reference in this comment).

Fifth reference: The german article is the result of research and cites authoritative sources published in the U.S. One of the reasons imperfect sources such as this have been used is because they are one of the few that can be viewed on the internet. It is useful because it cites to other useful sources. Ignorance of German is no excuse (no offense intended in the tone, just a play on a common latin phrase).

Sixth reference: Again, imperfect sources were sometimes used because of their availability on the internet. I'd like to learn more from you about the M.D. not being a requirement to practice medicine.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the discussion in the archives, which thoroughly discuss all the points you have raised here. An attempt to represent all of those arguments (plus others made in other fora) was made in including the section of this article titled "Debate about Academic Status." Please explain why this is not sufficient.

Examples of a professional doctorates offering degrees after the doctorate include the D.D.S. and the M.D. Again, this has already been discussed, with citations to sources, in previous discussions (see the archives).

Arguably, it is possible to pursue a doctorate in almost any field without a certain undergraduate major--it is the discretion of the department to admit such students. Some common examples include: history, political science, sociology, etc.

The J.D. is in fact a unique degree that was carefully engineered to fit the needs of the field. Comparing degrees across disciplines is problematic and not useful. There are some graduate degrees that do not require four years. Please see the archives for discussion.

The term "graduate entry" is not a universally understood term and it is not used in U.S. institutions.

Your citations (in order):

Georgetown: why did you cite this? Relevant content is not apperant.

Kinsella: Just the unsupported opinion of one attorney. But if we examine it, we note the following: the principle problem with "juris doctorate" is that it's grammatically incorrect. This lawyer is, as he admits in the last sentence of his entry, ignorant of the history of the J.D., and his comments contradict sources cited in this wikipedia article (see article). This opinion is represented and discussed in the "debate" section of this wiki article.

LSU: great use of archive.org. Not sure why you've cited it, however.

dictionary.com: not an authoritative source, and it's wrong. No edition of webster's has such a definition. However, if Webster's did state this, it is understandable, given the history of the LL.B. and the J.D. in the U.S. (see "creation" and "debate" sections of the wiki article).

Legaltutors.com: not an authoritative source, and contradicts authoritative citations in the wiki article. There are no academic or historical sources which support the claims made re: J.D. compared to LL.B. It's citation of the dictionary is not a direct quote and misleading. It's even wrong about the LL.B. "[meeting] the legal education requirements," as in nearly every country that has the LL.B. (particularly the U.K.) additional classroom education, and often a pupillage, are required before becoming licensed. This is unlike the J.D., and the reasons can be understood by reading the sources cited in this wiki article.

Wake Forest: An obscure school. It does state that the degree in the U.S. changed from the LL.B. to the J.D., however it does not provide the historical context of this change, which has been beautifully summarized for you in this wiki article (complete with sources, which I encourage you to study).

RMIT: School of Accounting AND Law?! (snicker snicker) Ok... Yes, this does represent the policy in Australia, which is discussed in the wiki article already. But thanks for this cite--I will add it to the article among the others.

Indiana: Not sure why you cited. Yes, the article is full of such discussion already.

Missouri: Ok, same as others above. Also note that it states that the J.D. implements skills based courses--a characteristic traditionally unique to the J.D., but slowly being implemented in other law degrees in other jurisdictions. Please read the wiki article for more about this.

Wayne: ditto from above.

Bond: I believe this is already in the article. See comment to RMIT above.

Monash: ditto from above. and, just what the hell is a Master of Laws (Juris Doctor) anyways?! Those silly aussies :P

Thanks for your input, and for the RMIT citation. We look forward to your contributions to this article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you read Pearls & Pinstripes by Judith Richards Hope, you will notice that the Harvard class of 1963 graduated with a L.L.B degree, not a J.D. Maybe a more specific date should be used instead of "By the 1960s every law school except Yale offered a J.D. as its sole professional law degree" as this is not true.

On another note, a J.D. is not a rebranding of the L.L.B. degree. At the time of the introduction of the J.D. you would receive higher pay having a J.D. versus an L.L.B. degree as it was considered a Masters degree, and an L.L.B. considered a Bachelors degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Algorath (talk • contribs) 01:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

True. http://www.wc.com/attorney.cfm?attorney_id=151 Will edit. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, there was a lengthy article in the Chicago Tribune today about a two (calendar) year J.D. to be offered at Northwestern U. [1]. JJL (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The ABA requires that all J.D. programs last three years, and that even with excellerated study, a student cannot graduate before 2 1/2 years of study (through summer school, extra units, etc). I'm sorry that I don't have the cite for that, but it should not be too hard to find.

I agree with the following statement from the article you cite:

"University of Chicago professor and former dean Geoffrey Stone called the two-year program "irresponsible" and said it risked producing inferior lawyers who haven't had time to develop intellectual and analytical skills.

"My sense is that compressing the educational process is likely to seriously derogate from the quality," he said. "What is lost is likely to be much more than anything that is gained by hustling the students through more quickly."

Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

LL.M.

This article states "It is immaterial to the pursuit of a Master of Laws, whether or not the aspirant holds a J.D., as a prerequisite." This is incorrect. Although I have heard of a few CPA's being able to earn LL.M.'s, the vast majority of programs require an earned law degree before matriculating in an LL.M. program. Thus, to say that a prior law degree is immaterial - based on a handful of exceptions - is inaccurate, or in the least, misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments should be listed in temporal order. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

new content/organization introduced May 3

There are so many grammatical and factual errors in the new content, I don't even know where to start. I'm not sure why someone would make so many edits without signing in. I'm not sure why they would avoid discussion as well. I created a new article (the text of which is linked below), because in trying to edit the article that has existed here, there was just too much that needed fixing. Some users have been engaging in editing wars, not using valid account names, not signing in, etc. I'm not sure why such an innocuous issue should attract so much bad faith editing. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

--This article really is pretty much crap right now. I think someone with a high school diploma wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.45.95 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Academic Inflation?

I wonder whether the change from Bachelor of Laws to Doctor of Law as the initial qualification for legal practice is a form of "grade inflation," as seen in other professions in the USA? Pharmacists, physiotherapists, optometrists, etc, all qualify as doctors nowadays. Most fields where a master's degree used to be customary now seem to require a doctorate. Does everybody get an alpha grade or first class degree now?

There is a curious inversion of the European cursus honorum, where a JD may now be followed by an LLM, or an MD by an MS or MPH.

It could, of course, mean that higher standards of academic preparation are required now than in the past, but if that is the case it is strange that the American JD, as compared with the non-American LLB, eschews "academic" and "scholarly" content and does not require any sort of thesis or dissertation.

Similarly, most tertiary level academics seem to be Professors of one sort or another in the US, unlike the UK where most teaching is done by lecturers and senior lecturers (and a few readers). Private institutions in India tend now to appoint Assistant Professors rather than Lecturers and Associate Professors rather than Senior Lecturers.

Could these be examples of Gresham's Law in action? NRPanikker (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you see the treatment of this in the "debate" section at the end of the article? Feel free to add to that, if you wish. I think that if US attorneys with a JD referred to themselves as "Dr." that would make the case, but luckily such professionals have more social sense than to engage in such behavior... after all, if a shark isn't at least a little subtle, it will never eat. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

One point to consider is that while in other fields it is the scholars and such that are at the forefront as far as producing content, authority in law is largely based around the courts. In a rather simplistic example, a scholar in a science field can sometimes be viewed as an ultimate authority on a subject, but a legal scholar rarely (if ever) gets this distinction as their opinions on the matter are largely just interesting (or incredibly boring) reading unless the courts agree. So in reality, the only ones making actual contributions to the legal field with true authoritative weight are the courts. I think it's also important to remember that Doctor just means "teacher" in latin, which is the foundational meaning in JD. A holder of a JD should be qualified to "teach" law. I think this is underscored a great deal in the legal education system since they (largely) teach you how to analyze and think rather than just cram your heads full of facts (that's what bar review courses are for). Also, law school exams are largely miniature dissertations where you are required to analyze, present and defend a viewpoint, and as such are much more akin to "research" than bachelor's level education. However, it certainly isn't in-depth original research/ideas, which is why the title Dr shouldn't be applied to JDs (tisk tisk on those few that use it). Just some thoughts... Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What about J.D. holding attorney working in a country where it is typical for an attorney (who only holds one university degree) to use the title of doctor? (such as in S. America) Should that J.D. holder avoid using a title to which she is entitled? Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I meant in the US where the title has certain assumptions and it is unusual for a lawyer to use the title. If it is local convention, then there's no problem. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 04:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Spanish language materials (marketing, website, letterhead, etc) of attorneys working in communities in the U.S. of people from those countries (such as in L.A. and Miami)? Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think that's another special case. If in Spanish it's common and not confusing usage, then sure. But those same people shouldn't use the title where it's not considered common or appropriate usage. Since the terms in both English and Spanish are related, the distinction due to language isn't especially evident. As an example, I haven't met a Japanese lawyer (and I know a good few) that goes by "Dr." in English, even though the equivalent title Hakushi means just that. In general, in U.S. English at least, Dr. immediately identifies a medical profession doctor or a PhD-type degree. Someone would have to think through it a bit to think a lawyer and meeting a lawyer that goes by Dr. would probably make someone think that they have another degree. Just my take on the subject. My mother has a PhD and JD so she never had to change her title one way or the other, which she was happy about:-P. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 05:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Combined LLB/JD programs

The list of programs has been moved under the Canadian list. However, there is not only a US/Canadian venture. There is also at least one program I am aware of that is between Columbia and the University of London. Why was this one deleted? Can we please also list this one and any others like it. Thank you. Jwri7474 (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As described in my edit, this content was moved to another section of the article, since a combined program is not really a different kind of J.D. The York/NYU program is not related to the J.D. at all, since it's a LL.B./LL.M. program (see citation in article). The UofLondon program you mention is the one at LSE, which is already mentioned, I believe in the debate section. It's hard to put that section anywhere else. The programs you have mentioned are the only ones I have found. If you find others, please feel free to add them. I removed the section because it was misplaced, and because there are so few such programs. If there are more, I hope we can find them. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong edits

An unidentified user incorrectly edited sections on Hong Kong, possibly to push the POV of raising the status of the Hong Kong J.D. No citations were provided. The following citations will be added, since this user has created contention on these points: The Hong Kong J.D. only takes two years for a normal course of study (CUHK: http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/law/prospectiveStudents/jd03.html ; CityU http://www.cityu.edu.hk/slw/english/programmes/courses/jd.htm ). In addition, no citations have been provided for the claim that the J.D. in Hong Kong is officially considered at the LL.M. level (or at one time was), or that the J.D. is any different than the LL.B. in content or level of instruction. If citations for any of the content proposed by the user is available, please add them to the article. If the user who made the edits reads this: please read the wiki article on verifiability. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to have changed so many edits, as I don't want to discourage contributions. Therefore, here is my explanation to my changes:

The table:

• removed incorrect reference to Hong Kong J.D. being more than 2 years. Removed unsupported claim that level of study any different.

The Hong Kong section:

• "main" changed to "undergraduate". move "undergraduate" and add "primary" where "main" was. Justification: The J.D. is a new and rare degree in Hong Kong. Almost all licensed practitioners educated in Hong Kong hold a LL.B., not a J.D. Therefore, "primary" more descriptive of the professional environment.
• Removed statement that Hong Kong LL.B. requires four years of study, because many UK LL.B. programs also require the same, and therefore is not a point of distinction.
• Removed all reference to the J.D. being more than two years (since it's not true), and added citations.
• Removed reference to U.S. and Australian schools, since it's not relevant to the section.
• Removed unsupported reference to J.D. classification.
• Removed content re: J.D. requiring 3x more courses than LL.M. because unsupported.
• Restored cited material about the J.D. not being a doctorate in Hong Kong.
• Removed content about increases in enrollment because unsupported.

Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The changes described above have been a continuing issue. It is appearant from the phrases used and the content changed that these changes are made by the same individual. So far, that individual has not replied to any attempts of discussion, and has even been blocked. Nonetheless, the user has persisted with various aliases, including: 220.246.130.135, Orielense, 219.79.199.219, 219.77.226.3. This user has assumed the unexplained right to change content to the HK section by removing verified information with information that directly contradicts verified info. It appears that this is an attempt to raise the perceived status of the JD in HK. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

scholarly vs. research

An editor stated that it's "incorrect and non-factual" to use the term "scholarly" in this article. It actually was correct useage, which can be verified by cites. Please read John H. Langbein, “Scholarly and Professional Objectives in Legal Education: American Trends and English Comparisons,” Pressing Problems in the Law, Volume 2: What are Law Schools For?, Oxford University Press, 1996. which is cited in the article. As used in this article, the two terms are synonymous, so it's not a content issue. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation comments

I saw this article at WP:GAN. Just a comment based on WP:FN, but using "idem" as a citation is a problem if anyone ever adds a reference between the original and the "idem". Even now, citation 21 probably does not refer to citation 20. Someone should replace all the "idem" with the author name (and year if necessary); I would do it but I can't tell for sure what they refer to. Also consider replacing the bare URLs with author/title/publisher/date. Gimmetrow 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes have been implemented. Thank you for your suggestion. All citations should now be in correct format. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Executive Juris Doctor

The proposed content for the Executive Juris Doctor contains opinion, non-verified content, misleading information and grammatical errors. Therefore, the section has been edited. Here are comments about the changes:

• The phrasing of the first sentence is misleading because it insinuates that there are other institutions that are not for-profit institutions which offer the degree.

• The emphasis of accreditation by placing the clause in the beginning of the sentence makes the sentence structure strange. It is more clear to have it in a separate sentence.

• Witkin is at the university, not vice-versa.

• The last paragraph contained much unsupported opinion drawn from marketing materials of the schools.

I welcome your comments. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Juris Doctor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

At this time, I feel this article is not an appropriate candidate for GA nomination due to an extensive history of edit-warring. When viewed in the context of the recent significant changes to the article by multiple editors after both occasions that it was nominated and later declared "ready" on the GA nomination page, further instability in the content is likely. The recent non-vandalism instability disqualifies the article according to quick-fail criteria. Please renominate once a better consensus has been reached on the article content.--Finalnight (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

various edits by 206.205.104.66 re history, etc.

There were numerous edits by 206.205.104.66 to various sections, with comments to the edits.

The user asks what the M.D. has to do with the J.D. There is a connection because it was in the minds of the creators of the J.D. to produce a law equivalent to the M.D. (which is mention specifically in the citations), and because the M.D. was the first American professional doctorate following a new didactic paradigm originating in 19th century U.S., and the J.D. was the second.

It was said in removing content re Roosevelt receiving the J.D. that an honorary doctor is not the same as a J.D., which is true, however that degree was in fact awarded as a J.D., and it is relevant content.

It was said in removing content re history that this article is not about the general history of legal studies. This is also true. However, the content (which could be abbreviated) is important because most of it cannot be found in any other article, and because a misunderstanding of this important information has led to many to misunderstand the J.D. (i.e. thinking that the J.D. is a novel creation by modern U.S. institutions trying to inflate or aggrandize the profession).

Finally, it was said concerning the first degree at universities being a doctorate of law that the statement is an assumption of law not based on fact. However, there are citations for that statement in the following section. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Titles

The Titles section needs a little attention (actually, this whole article is rather poorly written). An attorney is a title given to a person who has been authorized to act in another's stead. Attorney-at-law is the title which indicates licensure to practice law. It is a lot like the certified public accountant (CPA), or professional engineer (PE) designation. 75.68.192.62 (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

With such a vision of the article, you are obviously the perfect editor to improve it. We look forward to your contributions. The article is about the J.D. and not attorneys. Part of the reason for the questionable drafting of the titles and debate section is because it is the product of a long editing war. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Transcluded from Talk:Juris_Doctor/GA2:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   This article is a wee bit on the thick side. The prose should be accessible for a reader without a graduate level education, yet there are awkward and overly complex sentences throughout: "It was established by the faculty of law at Harvard first, and while it was pending the approval of the administration, the degree was introduced at all the best law schools in the nation, such as Stanford, Pennsylvania, and Berkeley." "U.S. Supreme Court justice Joseph Story started the spirit of change in legal education at Harvard when, as a lecturer there in the early 19th century, he advocated a more “scientific study” of the law" "On continental Europe the bachelor's degree was phased out in the 18th or early 19th century or came to be a school leaving examination (in France) and was superseded by the licence and mastership preceding the doctorate. In contrast, at Oxford and Cambridge the Bachelor of Arts degree came to be taken at a later stage, and with postponement of university entry to later in adolescence it was the Master of Arts degree that became a nominal step in academic progress." Also, the text should eliminate "recently" wherever it appears by specifying dates.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The first few paragraphs of the Modern Variants section are undercited. A minimum of one citation per paragraph is appropriate.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   If I were looking to enter law school, I would want this article to tell me about what could be expected in the three years of a JD program. It does no such thing.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The section on the Executive Juris Doctor program is somewhat unclear--"Although J.D. graduates from these schools can, with special procedures and extra requirements, sit for the California bar exam, the California State Bar Association has not approved of the Executive Juris Doctor as a qualifying law degree, and these graduates are not able to sit for a bar exam in any jurisdiction"--so CAN they sit for the bar in California or not? Once admitted to the bar in California, can't they then apply to other bars? Also: "The program requires only three years of part-time study and 72 units.[130] The program was created to meet the needs of professionals with no intention of practicing law, but who seek legal study to supplement their own specialization." While not clearly out of bounds, they read to me as written from a JD advocate position disparaging a lesser degree. Also, see the "all the best law schools" quote above--POV, take it out.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Stable enough.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   ON HOLD for up to a week. Let me know when you would like me to re-review. Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

   Update: No forward progress made on many of these points, and some have been deteriorating (e.g., citations) in the past week. Please reapply when these are ironed out. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

follow-up comments

Reasonably well written: I have tried to implement the changes suggested.

Broad in its coverage: The J.D. program of study differs between school to school in the U.S., and differs significantly outside of the U.S. The Law school in the United States goes into the details as much as possible, which article is now referenced under "See also".

Neutral Point of View: The sentence mentioned in the Executive Juris Doctor section has been clarified. EJD holders are not able to sit for the bar anywhere in the U.S. The last two sentences are merely to provide contrast between the typical J.D. program, and isn't meant to disparage.

Further suggestions for implementing your ideas are of course welcome. Zoticogrillo (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

JD using Dr title in academic circles

JD users sometimes use the title of Dr in academic circles. The content is supported by citations. This topic was also discussed in archived talk pages. This does not contradict the fact that the JD is a professional degree, because the JD is still awarded by a university. Other professional doctorate holders also use the Dr title in academic circles. Please correct me (with citations) if I'm mistaken. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My point here was to correct an apparent contradiction. You've made good arguments that the JD is a professional degree and stressed the difference between a professional degree and an academic degree. But then, you go on to say that the title "Dr." is not used in a professional setting but is used in an academic setting. I'm not seeing how that squares with the aforementioned professional/academic distinction. Wikiant (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, the statement in question is cited to an unverifiable source (I checked and couldn't find it online at the site linked), and even if it were available in paper form, it is not a binding authority, only a persuasive one. Furthermore, even if it were, it is only applicable to North Carolina, not the entire country, and the statements in question don't reflect that. Whether or not it is contradictory is not the biggest concern, but the fact that it is failing reliable sources policy and verifiability is. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Your inability to check the source is your problem, not the source's. The opinion of a U.S. state bar association is prima facie a reliable source giving evidence that the practice is permitted in some part of the U.S. Gimmetrow 00:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? It's my fault? The source does not seem to exist. The burden is on you to thoroughly source your outrageous claim. You have failed to do so. Furthermore, your statement does not say "some part of the u.s." It implies the entire US supports the practice. This is very clearly not the case. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you removed a reliable source because you couldn't find it. It does exist. And look at the history carefully before claiming who did what. Gimmetrow 01:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The source is not reliable just because you say it is. In fact, the evidence points to the contrary. If the source exists, link to it instead of acting like a complete ass and arguing the point. Back it up or back down.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A full citation for the source is "Use of the Title "Doctor" in Academia, North Carolina State Bar, 2007 Formal Ethics Opinion 5, April 20, 2007." It exists. I didn't add it, in fact, but I verified that it exists using the directions someone else put in the note. If you can't follow directions, that's not my problem. Gimmetrow 01:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It is precisely your problem. WP:REDFLAG requires excellent sourcing for extraordinary claims. The reference in question says that it exists online. It doesn't. If it does, provide a link to it. Otherwise, you need better sources than just one state bar's position paper which does not have any reflection on the other 49 states. Surely you can find multiple sources to back your statement up. If not, that's prima facie evidence that it does not meet WP:REDFLAG. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What "extraordinary claim" - that someone with a J.D. may in some academic settings in the U.S. use "doctor"? The NC bar text is there, and in the face of an editor (actually two) telling you it's there, you still remove it because you can't find it, that's your problem. Gimmetrow 01:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The J.D. is a professional degree, but it is still a university degree, and not one granted by a professional body. A university is an academic institution, but the degree is a professional one. It's a matter of categories. Also, the J.D. qualifies one to be a full faculty member in any law school, and depending on the university sometimes also in other departments.

The citation is valid and can be found at that website. The opinion is from a professional body located in North Carolina, but it discusses general practice in academic institutions nation-wide. The citation, meets the wiki requirements of verifiability, which are not the same requirements in law (binding authority), or even in peer-reviewed articles. If you have further contentions I invite you to initiate a dispute resolution process. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Re forum That link was not submitted as "authority" or as a reliable source, which is why it is included in the descriptive part of the footnote and is not in the standard citation format. It is useful, though, as it enriches the content for the benefit of the readers, and it is relevant. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely what is bothering me about the title argument. Zoticogrillo, your original solution for this page seemed reasonable in that you made a clear distinction between academic and professional degrees. Since then, your arguments are appearing to shift ground -- citing sometimes academic and sometimes professional authorities as the need arises. For example, the original claim was that the state bar's opinion on using the title was relevant because the JD was a professional degree. Fine. But, then you say that the title is not used in professional circles though it can be used in academic circles. But, the source you cited (the NC bar) isn't academic -- it is professional. To claim that the bar is "discussing general practice in academic institutions" makes the source hearsay. I haven't seen an *academic* source stating that the JD is a doctorate (apart from the circular reasoning that "JD is a doctorate because the D stands for "doctor"), and many sources (you've seen the citations) that suggest that the JD is not, academically, a doctoral-level degree. Wikiant (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're trying to argue semantics, but you are confusing categories. I don't know how to respond to your comments without repeating myself. There are numerous citations which state the facts as asserted in this article, and the article is well supported. Your attempt to label some citations as academic and others as professional is tenuous. Again, the type of organization and the type of the degree are different, and your attempt to cross them is confusing. I think it would be most useful to rely on the wiki standards of verifiability, instead of attempting to attack the sources the way you have. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's exactly the categorization of the sources that's required. An opinion from the NC bar matters when it comes to how the JD is regarded in professional circles because the NC bar is a professional authority. The bar, however, has no source authority when it comes to how the JD is regarded in academic circles because the NC bar is not a degree-granting institution. Thus, what sources are cited for what passages matters greatly. Wikiant (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

But we are in wiki land, and not a peer-reviewed article. The citation is not "primary" and it is not "authoritative," but it is reliable, supportive and relevant. The content is logical, and the connection with the citation is direct and clear. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but there's no reason that obligates removing it. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The ABA permits the title "doctor" to JD holders in circumstances that are not "misleading". [2] cites quite a few state bar opinions. The NC opinion in particular says that in all contexts except post-secondary education, a JD holder may not use the title "doctor"; this is among the more restrictive opinions. Other states allow more liberal use of the title. What's the problem? Gimmetrow 01:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Wikipedia's policy is: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source..." The NC bar is not a reliable source for use of the title "Dr." in academia because the bar is a professional, not an academic, institution. This is no different from using a Ph.D. in chemistry as a source for critiquing the works of Thomas Hardy. Wikiant (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any source denying its use in academia? Can you demonstrate that the title may not be used in any academic circumstances in NC? Gimmetrow 01:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The NC bar is completely reliable since it is a nationally recognized professional body trusted with the competence to regulate the practice of law in a major US state. The wiki article says that the source must be reliable. Although it might not be authoritative on this particular topic (academic practice nationally), it does have a degree of general reliability. Wiki policy does not state to what degree of reliability. A clearly unreliable source would be a forum or blog from joe blow. A Bar Association is an official organization with a modicum of reliability (i.e. we know that they don't lie and that they don't just pull things out of their ears). Arguably more than many local newspapers and some poorly managed academic publications. If it is this important to you, why don't you help us find an alternative citation, and if you can't find one (like me), then why not just accept this as the best we can do? Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

First: Wiki policy puts the onus of finding a source on the editor who writes the text (that's you). I attempted to side-step the issue by including wording to the effect that the NC bar was authoritative insofar as use of the title in professional circles is concerned. I left academic circles unaddressed. You removed that edit in an attempt to expand the NC bar opinion to an area in which it has no competence. Second: No, wiki policy does not state the required degree of reliability. But this question is not about the degree of reliability. It is about the scope of reliability. Following your logic, one might quote Jesus who admonished people to avoid titles. Like the NC bar, he is not authoritative in this particular topic, but does have a degree of general reliability (he doesn't lie and doesn't pull things out of his ear). Wikiant (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to change in the article? Because it's not really clear what you want. Unless a particular college has contrary rules, JD holders in the U.S. working in academia can follow their state opinion and may use the "Dr" title if that's allowed. Whatever dispute you're making about (which isn't clear to me), it applies to a fairly narrow situation: academics with only a JD (no research doctorate where the title would presumably not be disputed by you), and not using the academic title "Professor". Gimmetrow 14:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What I sought (my change was reverted) was removal of the following passage:

"On the rare occasions when a J.D. holder is seen using the title "doctor," it is in an academic (because the J.D. is a doctorate) rather than professional (because of the confusion with a medical doctor) context."

My rationale is that the appropriateness of using the title "Dr." in an academic setting should either (a) be left unaddressed (which was the intent of my edit), or (b) cite an academic authority as the NC bar (being a professional authority) is not an authority within the scope of academia. Wikiant (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to beat the issue up, and at the risk of sounding aggressive (but in hopes of adding clarity): in response to (a), the content is relevant, interesting, and enriches the content of the article for the benefit of the readers, (b) the wiki standards are not "authority" but "reliability," and we should not remove content just because we can't find a hypothetical ideal citation. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We appear to be at an impasse concerning the WP policy on what constitutes an acceptable authority. I suggest we submit this for third party arbitration. The point of contention, as I see it, is this: NC bar is being cited as an authority within the scope of academic activities. The arguments, as I see them are: (1) All parties agree that NC bar is a reliable authority. WP policy states that reliable authorities can be cited, hence NC bar can be cited, versus (2) All parties agree that NC bar is an authority within the scope of professional activities, but not within the scope of academic activities, hence NC bar should not be cited. Wikiant (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting framing. Why is authority an issue? Are you saying that if something is not authoritative, it is not true? Are you saying that authority and reliability are synonyms? Are you saying that wiki policy does not state that reliability is the test of a valid citation? The NC bar has a degree of authority regarding academic activities, as compared to other possible sources. Why must the scope of subject matter from an organization be limited in such an absolute way? If we are children and know nothing of astro-physics, and an expert in botany makes a statement about the sun, must we dismiss what that expert says?

The issue is possibly more simple: Is the truth of the content supported by a verifiable third party source? Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So, am I correct that your argument boils down to the following: A valid citation is one that comes from a verifiable and reliable third party source *regardless of whether or not that source is an authority on the subject being quoted?* Wikiant (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Some might view your repeated attempts to frame the argument as manipulative. I disagree with your characterization of this particular citation being completely non-authoritative, I disagree with your statement that something must either be authoritative or not, I disagree with your attempt to generalize and force a logical conclusion which is ignorant of the relevant facts, I disagree with your attempt to create new rules beyond those determined by wiki consensus, and I disagree with the implication that there is an authoritative source which contradicts the content we are discussing. Please just let my own statements stand as they are. The citation is verifiable. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you *disagree* with. I'm attempting to clarify what we *agree* with. Again: am I correct that your argument boils down to the following: A valid citation is one that comes from a verifiable and reliable third party source *regardless of whether or not that source is an authority on the subject being quoted?* If not, please state what you *do* agree with. Wikiant (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. That is, your phrasing of the argument is incorrect. Furthermore, re-phrasing of the argument at all is unnecessary and misleading.

It appears that you have tired of my postings. If you understood my thinking, why would you be asking for another clarification? By re-phrasing the argument, you are trying to force me to chose between things that you have selected, and I'm saying the game is rigged. It's a kind of straw man. I believe you understand this. It appears that you are trying to clarify and simplify things, but it's possible that you don't understand the consequences or implications. Which could be why you don't understand WHY I say the game is rigged. And this could be why my responses have seemed to you prolix and redundant. If this is the case, I invite you to re-read them, because I believe they fully respond to your postings.

It is not necessary for us to argue about wiki policies in this discussion. They are clearly stated [Wikipedia:Verifiability|here].

Again, the citation which is the subject of this conversation meets all wiki standards of verifiability. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this "framing" is still odd. The JD in the U.S. is a professional doctorate, the ABA said it's OK for JD holders to use "Dr" (within limitations), and some JD holders in U.S. academia use the title. So, unless there is a reliable source saying current academic and ABA-sanctioned practice is wrong, what's the dispute? Gimmetrow 21:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the dispute is that Wikiant believes that the content is untrue, and that the citation used to assert its truth does not carry the weight required to prove the content. We are both waiting for Wikiant to find a citation that states that the content is untrue. I don't believe that the citation need carry any such probative weight, but that it merely provide a minimal degree of relevance and reliability, giving the reader an outside reference, or verifiable source. Furthermore, I don't see any evidence that the source lies, or is incompetent as to the subject matter. Although the source is not from an academic organization, both the state and national bar associations regulate professional legal education within the state, therefore those organizations are familiar with academic practice and the connection between them and academia is possibly not so far removed as is claimed. Therefore I believe that Wikiant's argument is tenuous, even if we assume his approach to be correct. And the approach is certainly different than wiki standards. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Zoticogrillo understands my argument. WP puts the onus on you, not me, to find the source. I thought my original solution quite reasonable (rephrase to apply the NC bar statement to professional use and leave academic use unaddressed). From my perspective, you believe that the content is true and are attempting to extend a citation beyond its appropriate scope in an attempt to bolster your position. That, I find tenuous. I suggest we submit this issue for third party arbitration. Wikiant (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And the citation has been found. The citation provided actually states the exact thing which it is provided to support. You have not provided any citations which contradict it, and have not proven the citation unreliable. Arbitration is a jump in the dispute resolution process, and can subject this forum to an arbitrary decision by an individual, which is not consensus. One of the many alternatives is to submit the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard. Zoticogrillo (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been submitted to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for comment. here Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've studied the issue anew, and I've changed my mind. I was distracted by the argumentation of this discussion, and had perhaps forgotten about the content of the source. I recommend that the content be altered, as recommended here. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The J.D article states:

The existence of the S.J.D. has sometimes caused confusion. For example, it is claimed that since a doctorate is the highest degree in a university,[119] and the J.D. is not a terminal degree,[120][121] the J.D. is therefore not a doctorate. Some of the reasons cited for stating that the J.D. is not a terminal degree are that the LL.M. and S.J.D. both require the J.D. for admission, and that the J.D. is a first professional degree in law, just like the LL.B.[122] It has also been stated that since the S.J.D. is the doctorate equivalent of the Ph.D., and the J.D. is not, the J.D. is not a doctorate. However, the S.J.D. and J.D. are completely different kinds of degrees—the S.J.D. is a research doctorate and the J.D. is a professional doctorate'"

I cannot see though how the "However"-clause above is logically connected to the previous sentences in the paragraph or somehow contradicts them. One point is very clear: academic degrees have an inherent hierarchy determined by the fact that earning a "lower" degree is a pre-requisite for admission into a course of study leading to a "higher" one. In the United States, one cannot be normally awarded a master's degree (LL.M) or a research doctorate (S.J.D) in Law without previously earning a first professional degree (J.D or foreign equivalent) first. Likewise, in British universities, an UK LLB/BA or an American J.D are deemed equivalent for the purpose of admission to a program leading to a first postgraduate degree (normaly LLM or, in the case of Oxford, the degree of Bachelor of Civil Law). Holding an LLM or equivalent on the other hand is normally required to pursue a PhD degree in Law (American J.D's for example are not automatically admitted to a PhD program in Oxford or Cambridge without earning a master's degree first !).

There is no doubt then that, in terms of academic standing, a J.D is hierarchically inferior to an LLM/LL.M, BCL (Oxon.), PhD/Ph.D, or S.J.D. American universities, for some bizarre reason, have chosen to follow the (continental European, though not English) medieval practice of naming the first degree awarded by the "higher" faculties (medicine and law) "doctorates". Oxford University on the contrary still refers to the initial degrees in the higher faculties as bachelor's degrees (e.g. Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery, or Bachelor of Civil Law, both of which are of graduate-entry level), while using the more recent terminology of "Doctor of Philosophy" (DPhil) to refer indistinctively to all research doctorates, both in the "higher faculties" and the "lower" ones (i.e arts and sciences). In the US, "Ph.D" or, more rarely, "Sc.D" are also used as titles for research doctorates in arts and sciences (including engineering in the latter category), whereas the "S.J.D" has been introduced as the equivalent research doctorate in the Faculty of Law. In fact, a quick look at the S.J.D sitefrom the Harvard Law School suggests that the S.J.D program is structured exactly like a typical U.S Ph.D program, i.e. an initial stage consisting of advanced course work and an oral qualifying exam, followed by a research stage (including seminars) culminating in the submission of an original dissertation and an oral defense.

In light of the arguments above, I submit that the J.D. article must be throughly re-written to reflect the proper and correct hierarchy of academic degrees and avoid furter misconceptions. 200.177.32.92 (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: See also [3] and [4] for a description of the pyramid of Law degrees in the Oxonian tradition.

What gives?

Zoticogrillo, I don't understand. I thought that this issue was resolved. Specifically, the statement "The North Carolina Bar Association explicitly permits the use of the title in academic contexts as well" should be removed because the NC bar is not a relevant source. You agreed. I removed the passage. Now you've put it back. What's up? Wikiant (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Wikiant, no deception was intended on my part. Like I said, I agree with Metropolitan90, and the use of the citation is the same as his suggestion. I just further revised the content to conform more narrowly to the citation. Besides quoting the citation, I don't know how else we could revise it. Suggestions? Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think the current use of this citation ("The North Carolina Bar Association permits the use of the title in post-secondary academic contexts in that state") is acceptable. The N.C. Bar is a relevant source for purposes of discussing what is ethical and proper for attorneys in their state to do. Of course, it only represents the standard for one of the 50 states. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This [5] cites opinions for a number of U.S. states. Gimmetrow 03:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be not relevant to academic use, right? Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

To be true to the citation and WP policy, the text should say something like, "The NC bar has not barred recipients of the J.D. degree from using the title "Dr." in academia." Given the "relevance" criterion, NC bar can't be cited for *allowing* the use of "Dr." but can be cited for not preventing the use. Wikiant (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see why you would say that, but it's possibly too strict of an interpretation to be required. After researching the issue, I am not aware of any bar association that has stated that use of the title in academic settings is prohibited. Zoticogrillo (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To use the title "Dr." in academia, two conditions must be met: (1) professional bodies that certify lawyers must permit the use, and (2) academic institutions that bestow the degrees must permit the use. The NC bar citation proves the first condition only. While the citation does use words to the effect that "J.D.'s can use the title," when read in the proper context (i.e., keeping in mind the scope of NC bar's authority as a citable source), a proper phrasing for the purpose of the WP article is something like: "The NC bar does not prohibit J.D.'s from using the title in academia." Wikiant (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so, back to that. The J.D. is a doctorate, and a doctorate confers the right to use the Dr. title in academia. Show me evidence otherwise. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming tiresome. If your argument is "J.D. is a doctorate and a doctorate confers the right to use..." then make that statement. At present, you're making a different statement as a means of expanding the NC bar citation beyond the scope of its authority. Wikiant (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Wikiant wrote:

"To use the title "Dr." in academia, two conditions must be met: (1) professional bodies that certify lawyers must permit the use, and (2) academic institutions that bestow the degrees must permit the use."

To me, the question is not really whether U.S lawyers are (legally) allowed to use the "Dr." title, but rather whether it would be appropriate and/or socially acceptable for them to do so. On that last point, despite the odd US practice of referring to several first professional degrees as "doctorates", the most commonly held opinion in academic circles (outside the Faculties of Law and Medicine ?) is to identify the term "doctorate" with the modern research degree introduced by German universities in the 19th century and nowadays referred to in most US/UK universities as a PhD or DPhil degree. Thus, most academics outside the legal profession would probably resent the use of the Dr. title by a lawyer who does not hold a research doctorate (for example, a SJD degree). Conversely, academics and the broader population in general are far more acceptant of the use of the Dr. title by physicians/surgeons, not only because of the official designation of their degree in the U.S ("Doctor of Medicine" or MD), but also because, in the vernacular English language, "doctor" , among other meanings, also came to be viewed as a synonym for "a person who has been trained in medical science", as registered by the Oxford English Dictionary. Toeplitz (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: Let me just add that I was looking today at the Admissions Site of the London School of Economics (Zoticogrillo's "favo(u)rite" school in England) and it struck me that the American B.A., B.S. and J.D. are listed together as U.S academic degrees that the LSE deems acceptable as a requirement for admission into one of its master's program(me)s. That seems to reinforce the idea that, outside the U.S, the J.D. is viewed as a bachelor's level degree even though it is actually a graduate degree. That was quite surprising to me and, I believe, is worth mentioning in the Wiki article. Toeplitz (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add it to the "Debate about Academic Status" section. Years of edits on this page have shown editors to be in agreement only that there is disagreement, so the more information that is brought to the fore, the better. Wikiant (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiant: there shouldn't be any controversy. The best authority to settle this matter is the U.S. Department of Education, which, in its own site (referenced by Zoticogrillo), refers to the J.D. as a "first professional degree", not as a "professional doctorate". In other words, the term "professional doctorate" doesn't appear to be sanctioned by the U.S. federal government. In any case, whatever the U.S practice is, the term "professional doctorate" does not appear to be used elsewhere in the world; in fact, most universities overseas rank the American J.D as a bachelor's or a master's degree, not as a doctorate. Since the Wikipedia is universal, not US-centric, I don't see why U.S usage should prevail over international convention.

I'm afraid the J.D and other related articles (Doctorate, academic degree, etc.) have been hijacked by editors who are not academics themselves and do not really understand how different degrees are ranked/classified in academia.

PS: Note that, in the UK, there are now degrees like the EngD which are sometimes called "vocational doctorates" or "professional doctorates", but they are completely diifferent from a J.D. in the sense that: (a) they are terminal degrees, and (b) they are research-based.

Toeplitz (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There in fact isn't any real controversy at all. Innumerable exceptionally credible sources, from both in and outside the U.S., have clearly stated that the J.D. is a doctorate, and not a single source with any degree of relevance or credibility has ever stated that "the J.D. is not a doctorate." Therefore, the position that the J.D. is not a doctorate is a fringe theory with no verifiability or basis in fact. The claim that this so called controversial idea is uninformed or ignorant is odd and incongruous, as this article is replete with numerous quality citations for nearly every sentence it contains. Therefore, any complaint as to the content of this article does not take issue with so called hijacking editors (a conspiracy theory), but takes issue with the sources the article cites (such as Encyclopedia Brittanica, books published by Oxford University Press, the University of Melbourne, etc.). Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, that isn't a fair assessment. There is plenty of controversy, with accompanying documentation, in the "academic status" section of the article. As far as I can see, there are only two points on which all editors agree: (1) that the JD is *called* a doctorate, and (2) that the JD is a first-professional degree. Wikiant (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

True only without any qualifying punctuation or emphasis around the word, "except."

While some editors might have those opinions, it doesn't mean that those opinions are based on logic or truth. Evidence for the marginal nature of those opinions is found in the fact that the article is supported by credible sources, and those with the marginal opinion has no credible support whatsoever. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying that the position that the J.D. is not a doctorate is a "fringe theory with no verifiability". Yet, as we have seen, the U.S. Department of Education, in the site you yourself quoted, never uses the term "professional doctorate", referring to the J.D. as a "first-professional degree" instead. In fact, if you search for "professional doctorate" for example in the NCES (National Center of Education Statistics) Report on Postgraduate Education, you will get, surprise, surprise, zero returns ! Throughout the document, including all tables and texts, the NCES, which is linked to the U.S. DOE, always mantains the distinction between "master's", "doctoral", and "first-professional" students as 3 separate categories.

In fact, with the exception of one NSF reference you quoted, where there was only a tangential reference to "professional doctorate" in an explanatory note, most other "authoritative sources" in your J.D. article appear to come from U.S universities (or associations of U.S. universities) themselves. One of those references, the so-called "glossary of academic terms" backs its own definition of "professional doctorate" by referring to a webpage at http://www.aswers.com, which, in turn, is actually the English Wikipedia Doctorate article (talking about circular references, I couldn't find a better textbook example !!).

In reality, it is hardly surprising that some U.S. universities (but not all) would insist on using the terminology "professional doctorate" given that they were the ones who decided in the first place to call first-professional degrees doctorates! However, as Wikiant pointed out, the fact that some first-professional degrees in America are called "doctorates" by some people do not make them doctorates in the modern universal interpretation of the term, nor is the J.D. for example ranked at a doctoral level in academic circles, as shown by the example I provided in the LSE graduate admission sites or the Degree Programs site at the Harvard Law School itself.

By referring to the J.D. as "doctorate", or including the J.D. in the separate Doctorate article, you are introducing a partial, controversial, and U.S-centric POV that may be misleading to many Wiki readers. All that on top of an abundant use in your articles, as mentioned elsewhere on this talk page, of non-encyclopedic language full of inappropriate qualifiers such as "revolutionary approach" to describe the push for creation of the modern American Law degrees. Toeplitz (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

FranklinFields August 26th edits

FranklinFields added a bunch of content to this article without providing any citations, and the added content directly contradicted verifiable content in this article and in other articles. Some editors have argued that this was a valid questioning of the content. However, it was clearly in error, and based on wiki policy it warranted immediate removal. One of the statements, that the J.D. is the only 3 year program, cannot be directly cited because it would require the citation of information on every single doctorate degree, therefore a demand for a citation in that case is unreasonable. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, but let's apply the same standard of rigor to all statements in the article. There are other statements in the article that are phrased in absolute terms yet cite a single example. For example:

"In countries where holders of the first law degree use the title of doctor, J.D. holders who are attorneys will often use the title of doctor as well." (Implication is that the statement is true for multiple countries, but the source describes the US only and then, only when the Spanish language is used.)

It seems that a more even-handed solution would have been to introduce a qualifier into the sentence (example, "...*at some institutions* the J.D. is the only 3 year program...") rather than to delete the edit. Zoticogrillo you've done a marvelous job cleaning up this article, but more frequently your protection of this article gives the appearance of violating WP:OWN policy. Wikiant (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Elsewhere in the article it is shown in great detail that the "standard" J.D. program is three years, and that is the case for ALL schools in all jurisdictions except for Hong Kong and the Philippines.

The citation about the use of the title of doctor states that such is the custom in Spanish speaking countries, doesn't it? It wouldn't be the first time I was mistaken about a citation's content.

Thanks again for your compliment. I've been endeavoring to avoid "owning" the article, and I believe I have succeeded, in that I only object to edits that are clearly in error or vandalism. This article has the misfortune to the a regular victim to such edits, and no one else seems to really address it. I have appreciated your challenges to improve the citations in the article, as they give me a bit of a puzzle to work out as a passtime. But I'm lazy, so I fight you on it when I can. And, I'm getting sick of this topic. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

3 year dental degree

The recent edit eliminating content stating that the J.D. is the only 3 year doctorate was in error, and was "undone." The edit summary stated that a simple web search would reveal that many DDS degrees are also three years. The advertisements of those dental schools (such as the University of Pacific in San Francisco) are misleading. It's 3 years because there is no summer break. J.D. programs, like other programs, have a summer break. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Is "unique" justified though? Unless a source actually says there is no other 3-year professional doctorate, the text should probably just say something like "unusual". Gimmetrow 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

After more than two years of people saying on this discussion page that the J.D. is not a doctorate because it's only 3 years (and that it's the only such degree), I can't believe this conversation is really happening. Yes, it's justified and true. It's easy to search the other doctorate degree articles on wikipedia to confirm. Have fun :) Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:75.117.50.65 claims that there is an inconsistency in the following statement: "It is the only professional doctorate in law, and is unique among doctorate programs in being a three year program in most jurisdictions (many doctorates are four years or longer)." It is claimed that there is a logical inconsistency between "unique" and "most." There are no doctorates that are 3 years long in any jurisdiction, therefore the degree is indeed unique. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem appears to be due to equivocation. You start off talking about doctorates in law, then switch to talking about doctorates. By the time you get to "most jurisdictions," I don't know whether you're talking about doctorates in general or doctorates in law. Wikiant (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The logic of grammar is helpful here. "It" is the subject of the sentence. In order for the subject to change, the grammar would be completely incorrect. It is reasonable to assume that the author intended to use correct grammar. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if one follows the grammar exactly then I believe that Gimmetrow is correct. The statement in question says, "(The JD) is unique among doctorate programs in being a three year program..." The DDS degree is three years, hence the JD is not unique among doctorate programs. (Also, I know of some people -- they are few -- who have done Ph.D.'s in three years.) Wikiant (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

?? The DDS is not three years, it's four. See the archives. Maybe you can have some of the people you know write in and say hi? :P Citations are always an improvement to the article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There is one US school (UOP) that grants the DDS degree in 3 years. Also, there are a few medical schools in Canada (also LCME accredited) that grant MD degrees in only 3 years. (Calgary, McMaster, etc.) The MD and DDS degrees are considered "undergraduate degrees" in Canada as well. Jwri7474 (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone read before writing? I'd rather dig my eyeball out with my thumbs that talk about UOP program again. All DDS programs in the US have the same number of semesters. Interesting stuff about the MD in Canada. I wonder if they have summer breaks. Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is such a big deal. It appears that we have a choice. Either (1) insert the single word "professional" into the sentence "It is unique among (professional) doctorate programs..." or (2) attempt to show that *no* doctoral program other than the JD is 3 years. Stick in the word and let's move on. Wikiant (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The M.D. is Canada is 4 years long. Two universities offer a program that has no breaks, and is therefore 3 years long, but has the same number of semesters as the 4 year programs. wiki article. The UOP DDS program is the same. UOP DDS program. Therefore are no doctorates, other than the J.D., that can be completed within 6 semesters. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For both Canada and the U.S., M.D. programs must have at least 130 weeks of instruction. Accreditation Requirements on LCME website And since a semester normally has about 15 weeks of instruction, it's not possible to acquire an M.D. in any less than 8 semesters (or 4 years in a normal program with breaks). Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And all DDS programs "must include at least four academic years of instruction or its equivalent." DEP Standards 2-5 (page 12) Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You've given evidence of two professional doctorates that require more than three years. That isn't even adequate for saying, "unique among professional doctorate programs," let alone "unique among doctorate programs." Wikiant (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Aren't those your posts in the archive complaining that the J.D. can't be a valid doctorate because it's only 3 years long, and no other doctorates are three years long? I could be mistaken, but that issue has been often raised nonetheless.

The original issue still stands: I can't find any other doctorates that are as short as the J.D. Can you?

Those postings were merely addressing posts saying that the MD and DDS are.

The article already has one citation about the duration of doctorate programs. Can you find others? If not, it appears that the content is supported by the citation, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You are posing an argument from ignorance. Wikiant (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There is already a citation. I'm asking for your help in finding another, or challenging you to find one that supports your as of yet unfounded contention. Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't made a contention. You claimed that the "JD is unique in that it's the only three year doctorate." That statement requires either (a) a reliable citation saying that "the JD is the only 3 year doctorate", or (b) N citations (where N = number of doctorates that exist) stating that such-and-such doctorate is more than three years. You haven't provided (a), and you've provided 2 entries for (b). As N > 2, you haven't supported your use of the word "unique." Again, as you insist on using the word "unique," it is your responsibility to provide evidence for its use, not mine to provide evidence against. Wikiant (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The citation provided states that doctorates are 4 years or more. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that there are other doctorates that are three years long, why don't you mention this? Your strict stance on the required citation, which is in addition to wiki policies, without mentioning your belief that any such doctorates exist make your edits appear to be in bad faith. I know that's probably not your intent, but come on, "where's the beef?" Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The D.P.T. degree is three academic years long. This is comparable to a M.F.A., M.Arch., M.S.W., etc. But the M.D./D.O., D.D.S./D.M.D., D.C., O.D., PharmD., N.D., etc., are all four academic years in length, even though many schools will try to put them into fewer calendar years. The situation is more complicated in some cases, where a previous master's degree can be counted against the time for a doctoral degree (e.g. the transition D.P.T., or a DNP [6], and possibly the Doctor of Architecture). The 22 June 2007 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education has an article that criticizes the D.P.T. and its ilk for, among other things, watering down the meaning of 'doctorate'. JJL (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The second citation in Footnote 7 says that some doctorates are beginning to require many years (many = more than 5) to complete. Nowhere does it say that *all* doctorates with the exception of the JD require more than 3 years. "Unique" means "only one." You can't say that the JD is unique in being three years in duration unless you can show that it is the *only* doctorate that is three years in duration. You haven't done that, so "unique" must be stricken. Wikiant (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The DPT is replacing the two-year MPT as a professional requirement. Although it is designed to take three years, the DPT is (as far as I know) a full-time program and takes 8 or 9 semesters. The three-year professional doctorate in psychology [7] is also, as I understand it, a full-time three-year program. Even if the JD's 6-semester curriculum isn't unique and there is some other 6-semester professional doctorate, it sure appears difficult to locate. Gimmetrow 00:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The citations provided sufficiently meet the wiki standards of verifiability in supporting the content. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC) edited Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't. The verifiability standard states, "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." You have provided a source, but no where in the source does it say that the JD is the only 3 year doctorate. The claim that editors cannot find other 3 year doctorates is, at best, original research. At worst, it is a logical fallacy. Wikiant (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Really, and which fallacy would that be?

As you have quoted, the source must support the content. It does not need to prove it. Particularly when, as it appears you would admit, finding any better source is impossible. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you not reading the posts here? The fallacy is argument from ignorance. Your sources don't support the content. They fail to refute the content. For that matter, the book "Pat the Bunny" fails to refute the content. That doesn't constitute support for the content. Wikiant (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Doctor of Physical Therapy degree is 3 years long. Is someone contesting that there are other 3-year "doctorates"? JJL (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The DPT takes 8-9 semesters; it's a 3-year program because it's full time. The JD is a 6 semester program - it could be done in 2 years if full time. Gimmetrow 03:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If another person posts here without reading the other posts, I'm going to put fluids in my pants and mail a piece to each of you. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong with the explanation? Gimmetrow 03:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, yourJJL's post re DPT. Again, please read previous posts. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The degree is invariably described as being three years (or occasionally 3.5) in duration, and is as few as 90 semester credits at some schools. (Here's one requiring 96 credits [8].) The summers are often clinical experiences for little credit. Some schools describe it as a 8 or 9 semester program and others don't count the summers that way. The PT's website doesn't proscribe a minimum number of semesters. Indeed, the DPT programs need only meet the same requirements as the MPT programs (per http://www.apta.org and the Chronicle article cited above, pg. A12). That's why some are as short as three (academic) years--it need only be as strong as the 2 year MPT degree. The occupational therapy degree is similar. JJL (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the DPT is replacing the MPT, but it's supposed to be an upgrade on the MPT and I think the clinical experience is required. The JD in most cases has no legal intern requirements - just classwork for 6 semesters. But the existence of degrees like the DPT suggests there is probably some clinical doctorate out there that is not much more than a master's degree with clinical experience, and that would only take 2 years full-time. The Doctor of Occupational Therapy (OTD) might be close. Gimmetrow 03:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have read your posts Wikiant. The article cited provides support for the content. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Then please identify specifically where in your citation it says, "The JD is the only three year doctorate." Neither this statement nor any logically equivalent statement exists in your citation. Wikiant (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So, ignoring my argument makes yours more valid or true? Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring your argument. I'm simply asking you to point out where in your citation it says, "The JD is the only three year doctorate." Where does it say this? Wikiant (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've already responded to this question. Please read all of the posts above. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you haven't. You have given a citation. So, for the third time, I ask you: Point out where in your citation it says, "The JD is the only three year doctorate." If you can't do this, then delete the word "unique." Wikiant (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The good, bad and the ugly

I like how Zoticogrillo has largely cleaned up this article and added lots of citations. However, the problem is that by focusing too much on the history of the degree itself (in terms of the actual certificate awarded), the article now has even less coverage of the program that goes into the degree. But that is okay since we have too many articles already repeating the same information: Law school, Law school in the United States, and Education of lawyers in the United States. The next problem is figuring out how to merge all these articles. Which I am too busy to deal with personally. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to make generalizations about the different curricula across the globe. The article touches on the point, however, when it analyzes the differences in J.D. programs across jurisdictions. The other articles about legal education in each of the countries already cover the topic in depth. References to those articles could be added to paragraphs that discuss each of the countries. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

recent edits re LLB

Recent vitriolic edits from a person on a mission have stated that the J.D. is rapidly replacing the LL.B., and hasn't provided any citations. This is contrary to the available evidence. It was stated that the J.D. is replacing the LL.B. in Canada, even though there are 19 law schools in Canada, only 2 have the J.D. and only 3 others "have voted to do the same." 5 out of 19 is a small percentage. It was stated that the J.D. is replacing the LL.B. in Hong Kong, but it hasn't replaced the degree at all. It has been introduced in two of the law schools very recently, but the only school with a well established law program, HKU, has not been considering the J.D. at all. Finally it was claimed that the J.D. is replacing the LL.B. in Australia. However, out of the 30 Aussie law schools, only 10 have the J.D., and in only 1 of those has the J.D. replaced the LL.B. And those, my friend, are the facts. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Graduation Robe

What is with the picture of the graduation robe on the article page? It is an awful picture, and besides that, what exactly does it add to the article with respect to the degree? I suggest that it be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulsa si elagnewg (talk • contribs) 06:53, September 15, 2008 (UTC)

The article is about a degree and university academia. The robe is part of the academic tradition. It adds relevant information about the degree. If you can find a better picture (which shows the details of the robe), it would be a welcome contribution. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, although the robe is part of academic tradition, its worn by all doctorate candidates. It is nothing specific to J.Ds.

The Diploma is kind of ridiculous too. But more significantly: The pictures are of poor quality, and of dubious contribution, It would improve the article if they were both removed. But if your shopping for some robes, They are about $300. Mine are all faded and old. PhD, UC Berkeley, 1962. ( just to verify that I was there, no where is it mentioned that JFK spoke! ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.157.126 (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Most robes have chevrons that are the color of the field of study (which in this case would be purple for law). The J.D. robes have black chevrons. The best thing you could do is to improve the article, not complain about it. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirection notice in error.

The notice at the top of the page states that "J.D." redirects to this article. While true at the time, it is no longer the case now; "J.D." now redirects to "JD", which is a disambiguation page. However, I don't know how to correct the notice.

--James-Chin (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I took a whack at it. rewinn (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

POV/Bias in the J.D. article

On top of the controversy surrounding whether the J.D. is a doctoral-level degree or not, another serious problem with the Wiki article is that a few sections therein appear to have an implicit biased point of view, which claims legal education in the US is somehow "superior" to that available in other countries.

Specifically, sections such as "Revolutionary Approach: The Scientific Study of Law (sic)" seem to suggest that American Law degrees were introduced as a way to fix what was perceived at the time as the shortcomings of the apprenticeship-based system, by combining legal theory and practice (clinical training) into one single graduate-level academic degree. The US approach is then heralded by the article's editor as "superior" and "scientific", implying by extension that, in countries like Britain or Germany, where a different model is used (a legal theory bachelor's degree followed by a vocational/apprenticeship stage), legal education would be somehow "inferior" or "unscientific", producing "less qualified lawyers".

I am not a lawyer myself, nor am I British or German, but I strongly believe that Wikipedia articles should be NPOV and should refrain from subjective qualitative comparisons. The J.D. article also has many factual inaccuracies such as referring to the Oxbridge BA degree in jurisprudence//law as a "liberal arts degree". Personally, considering all the controversy seen on this page, I am inclined to think the J.D. article needs serious review. 201.68.232.189 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps such implications are an interesting commentary on the thinking at the time, because that section is drawn completely from the sources sited therein. However, there are no such qualitative comparisons made explicit in that section itself, and it does not contain the word "superior" at all. It would be interesting to examine more closely than I have whether any such qualitative comparisons could be implied anywhere in the article, and if so why. Nonetheless, none such exist explicitly, and perhaps one would have to take an extreme personalized (subjective) defensive view of it in order to imply any such comparisons. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)