Talk:Juris Doctor/Archive 3

More on J.D.'s Using the Title 'Doctor' in advertising

Opinion 344 (www.law.uh.edu/libraries/ethics/Opinions/301-400/O344.html) "An attorney engaged in, or intending to engage in, the practice of law, and holding a "J.D." degree may not ethically use any of such titles orally or in writing, professionally or otherwise, subject to certain limited exceptions as set out in the following opinion." (The exception is in an internal corporate setting wherein other doctoral degree holders use the title 'Dr.' The opinion, however, goes on to state that the exception applies only to the use of the title within the corporation. The title should not appear in any form accessible to the general public.) Wikiant 13:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

But, in May 2004 the Supreme Court of Texas(Professional Ethics Committee, Opinion Number 550),permit a lawyer who is a graduate of an accredited law school with a Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence degree to use the titles Dr., in social and professional communications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.102.144 (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anything more recent? Lawyers' ethics codes are updated very frequently. Also, the opinion you reference is talking more about "self-laudation" than anything. In other words, even use of JD after one's name would be prohibitted. This is back at a time when it was also unethical for lawyers to advertise on TV and print advertising was also very strictly regulated. (Both still are, but it's a lot more open than it used to be). Peyna 11:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll look around. Regardless of which way we go here (ethical vs. unethical), we need to cite the appropriate authority. Wikiant 13:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

THE FOLLOWING OPINION IS A NEWER OPINION. THE OPINION CITED BY WIKIANT WAS UNDER THE CANNONS OF ETHICS WHICH ARE NO LONGER USED BY ANY U.S. JURISDICTION. FURTHER, ANY SUCH ETHICS RULE WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS WERE ETHICS RULES PROHIBITING ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.

If you look at [1] you will note that the American Bar Association at ABAi1151 has indicated that it is ethically permissible for "a lawyer holding a Juris Doctor degree to use the title 'Doctor'." All states that have examined this issue have agreed with the ABA. As to individuals holding a J.D. who are not lawyers, in the U.S., there can be no ethical or legal prohibition on the use of the title in social situations.75.13.146.44 13:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the opinion cited by Wikiant is a 1968 Texas ethics opinion. If you look at [2] you will note that in May of 2004, Texas issued an ethics opinion under their current ethics rules which indicates that an attorney may use the title Doctor.69.220.35.146 15:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Who cannot use the title Doctor? Doc Severinson isn't a doctor. Dr. Demento isn't a doctor. If one isn't impersonating a surgeon or the like, couldn't a high school dropout introduce himself as Dr. Smith if so chose? JJL 19:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it depends on the law of the jurisdiction and the context. If it's clear you're just joking around (for example, a five-year-old calling himself a doctor for Halloween), then there's no harm in it. But if people take you seriously, you intend that they take you seriously, and someone gets hurt as a result, then one could be looking at anything from fraud to unauthorized practice of medicine to murder.

But seriously, a lawyer who insists on being called a "Doctor" would be widely seen in most parts of the U.S. as extremely pretentious. Esq. is already seen as rather pretentious and a lot of lawyers don't bother to sign it after their name nowadays. --Coolcaesar 06:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In many situations, esquire is mainly used as a term of respect when referring to other attorneys, but rarely when referring to one's self. Much like "Doctor" is used among doctorate degree holders who are not physicians. (And maybe even physicians). Lawyers will usually refer to each other as Mr. or Ms. and not Dr. or Esq. in speaking. Peyna 13:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Look....All you that hold JD's that want to be address as Doctor should go ahead and use the title...let see how far you go before you are laught at. Any JD who for a sec thinks he/she should be address as Dr. is a fool and wannabe. For your information the equivalent degree to the JD is the LLB; The LLB is a bachelor degree… how can you explain that. Even the Dept of Education states that a JD is not equivalent to the PHD and other Doctorates like the DBA,DM,D.ENG.ETC...AND EVEN DOCTOR OF LIBERAL STUDIES….and still you wannabe nuts think you have a true doctorate LOL. Losers

Response to author of prior paragraph -- First off, the proper spelling is "laughed", not laught. If you're going to attempt to criticize anyone, make sure you don't open yourself up to criticism in the process. Second, the LLB that you are referring to was originally a Bachelors, but you're only half right. The LLB used to be a Bachelors that was done as an undergraduate program, usually taking only 18 months. The curriculum, and hence the naming, has changed significantly since then. The JD IS a doctorate in every sense of the word. There are a couple differences between a JD and PhD though. The curriculum is much more regimented for a JD than a traditional PhD. Also, the method of instruction is entirely different. On that note, in a PhD program, one is expected to research and analyze on their own with only some supervision from professors. A law school is set up to force a student to become his/her own teacher as well. It's not just rote memorization like in undergraduate or most Masters programs. A JD takes less time only due to the strict regimenting of the student's schedule. In closing, I'm not saying that a JD need utilize the title "Doctor". I'm only bringing up a set of facts to validate that a JD IS a DOCTORATE.

A counter responce to the author above...Thanks for noticing my laughed versus laught error; it was an error. I agree with you that the JD is called a Doctorate but we tend to forget that the JD is a first profession doctorate and not a research doctorate. The title of Dr. is only awarded to people who have earned research doctorates. In the UK the first professional degree in Pharmacy is called a Master of Pharmacy, but it is really only an undergraduate degree. Only a fool would try to pass the Master of Pharmacy as a Master Degree; by the way I met such a fool once. The whole mess associated with trying to prop up an academic degree is self evident; let’s take a look at the U.S Law degree. First you have a Juris Doctor (JD), which is followed by the Master of Law (LLM), which is then followed by a SJD (Which is a reach doctorate in Law equal to the PhD). Tell me…does it make any sense to have a doctorate, then a Master, then another Doctorate. The first U.S Professional degree in Pharmacy is the Doctor of Pharmacy degree, which recently replaced the Bachelor of Pharmacy as the first professional degree in that field. I don’t see any Pharmacist requesting to be called Doctors. In the case of Medical Doctors, the title Dr. being attached to that profession is just a fluke of history. The original degree awarded to physicians was called the Bachelor of Medicine. The bottom line is that Professional Doctorates and Masters are not equivalent to other the degrees that bear similar titles.

Yes, the U.S. J.D. is a terminal degree and a first professional degree, and is basically the equivalent of a master's degree, like the 3 year M.Arch. and the 2-3 year M.F.A. and the 2 year M.S.W. Each of those are considered terminal for purposes of professional practice and for teaching, even though there are higher degrees one can earn after them. The J.D. is the same; a 3 year degree that follows 3-4 years of undergraduate study. At best one could argue that it's the equivalent of an Engineer degree or Specialist degree. JJL 21:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The JD is simply a Master Degree called a Doctorate. The damn degree is not even equivalent to a Doctor in Liberal Studies. What a joke. Hey is a good one; let imagine that something in the future, some insane college would decide to transform the Bachelor of Engineering into the Doctor of Engineering and demand that Engineers should be called Doctors. (PHD 2008)

Actually, that's been discussed often in The Bent. There are lots of people who want to follow the "medical model" and professionalize engineering by making all engineers D.Eng. holders. But, of course, it's financially infeasible. Compare the new D.P.T. degree and consider the article "Credential Creep" in the 22 June 2007 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Pharmacy is only one of the most recent to play the game. Soon every professional you meet will be a 'doctor'. JJL 03:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

All you doctors wannabes...Read this http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:eTLzM3VOobgJ:www.ag.state.oh.us/legal/opinions/1996/96-039.htm+%22juris+doctor+is+a&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=us (PHD 2008)

Ok....I might have to change my view about this JD (Dr.) thing. I just found out that people that earn a DPT (Doctor of Physical Therapy), which happens to be a postbaccalaureate degree, are entiled to use the title Doctor. Jezzzzz...if this is true, I now fully support the use of the title Dr. by people with JD's. (PHD 2008)

Ambiguity

The problem is this: unless there is an explanation that functionally the JD is THE doctorate for law in the USA, foreign readers will make the assumption that Americans who work in the academy routinely go and do a PhD. They do not. Therefore I or others shall be placing this into the article. --Lawman15 05:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So if the JD is a 'first degree', yet a 'doctorate' yet also a pre-requisite to a legal profession in the US .. then what does a lawyer who has been practising for many years, or furthermore a BARRISTER who has been practising for many years do if they go to the United States with only an LL.B after their name? Get a job stamping forms, even though they're more qualified than half the professors of law over there given that professorship doesn't require doctorial status nor 20 years industry experience like it does in Australia?

Seems the US/AU legal systems are imcompatible on many levels. No working vacation for me.  :( 211.30.71.59 06:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

They have to obtain an LL.M degree designed for foreign lawyers, which takes about one year. For example, UCLA School of Law offers such a program. Then many states, like California, will allow a foreign lawyer with a domestically-obtained LL.M to take their bar exam. --Coolcaesar 06:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, although it's possible for an attorney with no practice experience to become a law professor---Eugene Volokh is a great example---many American law professors do have several years of practice experience. --Coolcaesar 06:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The term 'professor' has as little meaning as 'university employee' in the US education system compared to other countries it seems. Another part of the US EDU that confuses the hell out of me. In Australia your average professor (and there's probably five to ten distributed across a large university) has probably had forty years industry experience and an immense CV of publications as a leader in their field. Weird. Very weird. Then again, all degrees in Australia -are- 'professional' degrees. There's none of this messing around stuff that seems to be everyones 'first degree' over there; we take care of all that in high school and senior high as far as I know.

That being said: --

While universities in nations with legal systems based on the common law generally still award the LL.B. degree as the first professional law degree, some law schools in Canada, Hong Kong, and Australia have renamed or changed LL.B. to J.D., or confusingly offer both J.D. and LL.B. The J.D. degree is also being awarded in Japan as of 2004.

A number of universities such as Australia's University of Melbourne, Hong Kong's Chinese University of Hong Kong offer both first-entry and second-entry first professional degrees in law: the LL.B. is offered as a four year program for secondary school graduates, while the Juris Doctor is offered as a two to three year (6-trimester) program for "mature graduates with a good degree in a discipline other than law and significant employment experience, and for lawyers who have a civil law degree".[1][2]

Those two paragraphs are extremely ambiguous and make it seem as though the JD is accepted or even known of anywhere outside the US. It's definitely not known by any Australian lawyer I've spoken to on any mailing list further than what is listed on Wiki. Perhaps a rework to idenfity it purely as an Americanism is in order? 211.30.71.59 07:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which Aussie lawyer you know, but JD isn't just an US thing. Melbourne Law School is a top law school in Australia, and here's the link regarding their JD program:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_University_Law_School
• http://jd.law.unimelb.edu.au/

JD has not been known outside of US in the past. However, the idea of studying law after undergrad education is catching on globally, and is regarded as a brilliant idea. Your lawyer friends might not know this because they are too focused at doing what they do-- writing briefs or contracts, and not paying attnetion to the academic scene anymore. This might be the reason why they tell you they don't know what it is. Justicelilo 16:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Various copyedits

Dear editors: I have done some copyediting and moved some new material added by another editor down into the relevant section. These edits hopefully do not change any substantive meaning in a material way. This article seems to be vastly improved over what it was many months ago (and I can take no credit for that).

I like this article better now, in part because its sourcing seems to have improved. I think the whole "this degree is or is not equivalent to that degree" argument that was going on here for a while was a bit strange, but the article's sourcing has made the article much stronger.

On the legal research thing, I would think most if not nearly all law schools require extensive training in legal reseach and writing. My law school had what I considered a very good full year of this, which was required for all students. However, I have no backup for the statement that "most" (i.e., over half of all) law schools require this -- so I changed "most" to "many" and deleted the citation tag someone else had put there. It won't break my heart if someone wants to add the tag back, based on the word "most." Maybe it should be "some"??

Anyway, my hat is off to those who have been working on this article. I haven't been paying attention for a long time. Yours, Famspear 20:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Grinding Axes?

JJL isn't grinding axes, but is likely citing accreditation requirements. For example, the AACSB (the top accrediting body for schools of business) count a professor as "doctorally prepared" if s/he is (a) has a Ph.D., and (b) is teaching in an area in which s/he either has the Ph.D. or in an area in which s/he has published research (e.g., a Ph.D. in Economics who has published in a marketing journal). According to the rules, however, a J.D. is considered "doctorally prepared" only if s/he is teaching in the area of law (e.g. business law). Wikiant 01:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not a JD - I have no axes to grind here. I, too, think it was a misnomer to go from the LLB to the JD back in the 1960s. However, the finest universities in the country, which have the finest law schools in the country, have large faculties where almost every professor has only a JD, with only the occasional LL.M. and maybe a JSD or two on the staff, just as almost every clinical professor in every medical school has only the MD. If Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, and U Michigan are content with the JD as a terminal degree -- not for the casual adjunct but for the vast bulk of their tenured, full-time faculty, and the ABA is too, then the article, which makes note of objections to the terminology and status abundantly clear as it stands now, is fine as it is.

The Economics analogy doesn't hold. You're talking about a medical school-style situation: In Med School, some of your professors might have a D.Pharm., or a Ph.D. in biochemistry or whatnot, but that doesn't mean that the army of professors with only MDs who are teaching Medicine are any less professors, or any more professors, than the pharmacy or pure science guys. A PhD in Econ teaching in a B-school is like the Biochem-PhD in the Med. School. And there are plenty of JD's on the faculty of university law schools as "professors" teaching an additional undergrad course in the A&S college in something like "Constitutional History" in the History Dept. to BA candidates, or "Legal Issues in Medical Ethics" to BSN candidates in Nursing Schools. HarvardOxon 02:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I constantly see surveys of educational levels that list the J.D. with M.S. degrees. The phrase "terminal degree" includes the M.F.A., for example, and usually the M.S.W., yet there are D.F.A. and D.S.W. degrees, as there is a J.S.D. So, while Harvard surely accepts the J.D. as a law school teaching credential which makes it terminal in one sense, it is more akin to the M.F.A. in this regard (cf. the old 5- or 6-year D.Pharm.). The CSU business card reference is wholly unconvincing--it certainly doesn't seem like an academic policy. It's obvious why a J.D. could be listed on a business card. The J.D. is a M.S. level degree, like the 3-year M.Arch.; that's the key point. How to say it is another matter. I don't think anyone is disputing that the J.D. is the right degree for law school faculty, much as a master's degree is the right degree for many art school faculty. JJL 03:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For God's sake, get past it. Harvard, Yale, Columbia, etc, do not grant fully-tenured, full professor status of MS's. They do to JD's. I'm not citing any business card, I never put that in. If an MD is a doctorate, so is the JD. For god's sake, give it up: no, its not a Ph.D., but so what? Nobody expects a JD to teach English, Classics or Biology, but no Ph.D. in Chemistry is expected to teach Law. Is the Ph.D. itself not a "real doctorate" because Oxford and Canmbridge offer the Litt.D. beyond it? Does it not count because german universities require the habilitation BEYOND the Ph.D. for a faculty job? JD means "doctor," the ABA allows JD's to be called doctor, the law schools accept it for professorship - it's a doctorate. It isn't a Ph.D., but neither is a Doctor of Arts. The whole damn paragraph is just fine. You are coming across like somebody who lost out on tenure to a JD, and are now out to prove JD's are al mentally retarded or something.HarvardOxon 03:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly true that there's far too much comparison of degrees in the article. I'd wager that both sides are to blame--Ph.D.s looking to denigrate the J.D. as merely a second bachelor's degree, and J.D.s looking to build their master's level degree into something grander. But, the military agrees with the general consensus that it's a M.S. level degree--note that J.D.s come in as O-2s, as experienced nurse practitioners and engineers can, while doctorate holders come in as O-3s, for example.JJL 13:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I know a couple Ph.Ds who earn less than a BA holder per month. The point is, I fail to see how one's *personal* social status or how much money you get paid, or even how the operational policy of a governmental organization would provide any relevant basis for the "debate" that is happening on the page. How is the salary of a lieutenant junior grade that WILL BE increased to 0-3s level after a year of being in JAG be relevant to saying JD is a "lower" degree than Ph.D.? This is beyond me, and furthermore, I don't even think it is a topic worth spending too much brain juice on. The type of degree defines what expertise you have. You have a JD, you know about law more than a BA, and the Bar Asso. says you can now take the bar exam. You have a Ph.D in Biochem/medical science? Great, you know more about human body and chemical stuff more than a BA in chem, you can go work on a cure for Aids. JD, MD or Ph.D, it's just a degree that tells others what you can do. Whether you live up to your degree, or if you can make use of your degree depends on your own *personal* competence. Now there is really no objective answer as to "which degree is 'higher' than which" so can we just forget it? I can argue LLB is "BETTER" than Ph.D because LLB graduates can earn more money quicker than a typical Ph.D graduate! Don't believe me? Just calculate, a 23 yrs old lawyer get paid at roughly 3000/mo. versus 30 yrs old Ph.D graduate. I rest my case. If a lawyer has the nerve to call himself a doctor in front of his clients or peers, let him! I bet no one is gonna say a darn thing if he is a GREAT litigator. If you don't like him, don't be friend with him, or don't enter a counsel-client relationship with him. Ya, you might think the guy is a "weirdo", but I bet no one is gonna care how "pretentious" he is when he promises to get you out of jail and he does just that! On the other hand, we all like to laugh at pretentious fools whenver we get the chance. Justicelilo 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. Based on statements presented so far, can we agree that this is kind of a silly debate, can we just call JD for what it is, the law degree in US, and be done with it? Spare the readers of this whole ... er..."drama". Justicelilo 17:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Whole section deleted on relationship with PHD

Um, an entire section was deleted and I don't believe that it was complete nonsense that could not have been salvaged. However I don't know anything about J.D.'s or whether they are related to PHD's. It just seems that more discussion should be made before one IP deletes a section. --Fastman99 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There really isn't any reason to compare it to the Ph.D.; that should be done in the first professional degrees entry. However, the early reference to the D.C. degree is clearly meant to shine an ill light on the J.D. by associating it with a degree that has a sketchy reputation. The whole thing is fueled not so much by the Ph.D. but by the related issues of addressing a lawyer as Doctor, and it being a terminal doctorate. The CSU-Fresno ref. is meaningless--it's just one campus's Human Resources policy and not a statement by CSU as a whole (on a degree it doesn't grant). The J.D. is clearly all that's needed to teach and be tenured at a law school. That can't seriously be at issue. But the extent to which it's a terminal degree/doctorate is at issue. JJL 23:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't agree with any of the Ivy League, Pacific Ivies, Midwest Ivies, et.c, who do hold it to be terminal, but that's your tough luck. You want to say it's like a chiropractor degree, a DDS, and MD, well, buddy, all those folks are actually called Doctor in society. So, you're arguing against your own case. Sockpuppets will be visited too.HarvardOxon 23:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I request blocking of further edits by HarvardOxon to this page. Clearly, s/he does not seem to be an expert contributor to this page and is supporting a biased POV. The J.D. has no relationship to the Ph.D. To provide a balanced comparison of the J.D. with like degrees, such as the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.), serves the reader best. Moreover, the J.D. is a degree that prepares one for licensure, such as the Master of Social Work (M.S.W.) Neither the J.D. nor the M.S.W. are the highest degrees in their respective disciplines; if the holders of these degrees have earned tenured faculty positions, it is for another reason than being doctorally prepared for teaching in higher education. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.212.15.230 (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Ummm, ok. So, harvard, Yale, Columbia hire "unqualified" professors. The JD is like the MD and DDS, except we call MDs and DDSs "doctor" and the anonymous sockpuppet is shroeking that JD's aren't doctors. That's a perfectly logical argument.HarvardOxon 00:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The J.D. is sufficient for teaching law. However, it's much less clear whether it is more akin to a M.D. at 4 years or a M.S.W. at 2 years (or a M.Arch at 3 years), and whether it should be considered a doctoral/terminal degree, See archived versions of this page for much more on this. JJL 00:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, take your own point: JD=MD=DDS, this, we call MD "doctor," and DDS "doctor, so you're arguing we should call JD "doctor."HarvardOxon 00:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll find that argument in the archives. As well, you'll find a response (I don't recall from whom) that, in fact, MD's are not / were not referred to as "Dr." in some European countries. Either way the circular argument flows, it's still circular. My impression is that the whole issue is relevant to the JD degree in that the JD degree differs from other degrees because (a) there are higher degrees in the field (sidestepping the definition of "terminal"), and (b) the degree was, originally, a baccalaureate degree and was renamed. Wikiant 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Then the D.Phil isn't a terminal degree because Oxford and cambridge offer the Doctor of Letters beyond it. What this is REALLY about is people who want to declare the Ph.D. a degree for superheroes , and the JD some sort of post-high school trade school diploma. The fact is, a JD is far tougher to earn and represents far more scholarship when taken from some universities than the Ph.D.s in some other fully-accredited schools in this country. Is the JD a research doctorate? No, but who said it was? Will the JD win you a full professorship oustide the law school? Only in the Medical School. But will a Ph.D. in English earn you a professorship on the faculty of Chemistry? No. The fact that these people are shrieking so loudly about this PROVES there is a controversy and discussion, that damn well should be reflected in the piece. If anyone actually read the article, it is made abundantly clear that the JD is a three-year "taught" professional degree, the words "first professional degree" appear, and all of that is thoroughly explained, as is the fact that it is academically recognized as a doctorate and terminal degree for law school faculties (just look at the damn academic regalia for it!), and all this is thoroughly contreasted, as the piece now stands, with the 5-8 year Ph.D,. with its research component in subjects academically suitable for A&S schools. Do I think it was unfortunate that the LLB was dropped? Yes. Am I a lawyer? No. Am I in fact in the humanities, and have no axe tro grind on behalf of the JDS? Yes. This peice sas it stands is perfeclt fair, informative, and accurate. Some folks will not be satisfied until it is reduced to one sentence: "The JD is a fake degree for losers, and they suck, and I'm smarter than any lawyer, and I'm the best, and Economics totally rules!."HarvardOxon 00:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

...and other folk will not be satisfied until the talk page is reduced to: "HarvardOxon possesses the truth and everyone else is stupid [throw in a few explatives in case some of you might be thinking of disagreeing]." Wikiant 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have had similar thoughts, and in fact I have some degree of surprise that the three revert rule wasn't enforced. There doesn't seem to be much willingness to compromise here, and the repeated claims by HarvardOxon that all arguments advanced by all sides serve only to prove his points isn't helping. JJL 14:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to abandon straw man argumentation if we're to get anywhere. I said very much the opposite of JD=MD=DDS; I said it wasn't clear to what extent that was true or to what extent JD=MSW=MFA is true. In fact, I lean toward the latter, much as with the new 3-year D.P.T. that's replacing the M.P.T. degree. The entry at terminal degree may be helpful (though I don't agree with all that's written there).

There's no question that the article here has devoted too much space to a whose-degree-is-better argument that isn't likely of interest to most people reading the page. If that section is going to be here, though, it should be right. For that, the J.D. is a professional M.S.-level degree that lawyers may choose to consider a doctoral degree but that most otehrs lump in with lower degrees. JJL 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The J.D. is very similar to the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) in the sense that a profession is trying to appropriate legitimacy, and these two professions have attempted to gain legitimacy over approximately the same time. (Of course, it is also very similar to Master of Social Work [M.S.W.] as well in the sense that the degree prepares the student for licensure. I suppose the next profession that will want to be called doctors are C.P.A.s, who are now required in many states to earn 150 semester credits plus experience to achieve licensure. Shall we one day have to contend with the Enumeratonis Doctor (E.D.) or Doctor of Enumeration (D.E.)?) Both the J.D. and D.C. are standardized curricula and do not require students to add to new knowledge. Neither the J.D. nor the D.C. are the highest degrees in their respective fields, law and medicine. On the other hand, the Ph.D. and other similar research-based doctorates bear no resemblance to those "professional" degrees; the student is helped/forced to matriculate a non-standardized curriculum culminating in an original contribution to knowledge in the discipline, which makes it the highest degree that can be earned in the discipline. The graduation rates in Ph.D. programs is alarmingly low because it is so difficult and the economic utility of the degree outside higher education often approaches zero in some disciplines. Again, the schools that teach the J.D. produce graduates as numerous as rabbits, and these students often don't really have the "stomach" to make a living from people's misfortunes, so they gravitate toward to teaching and trying to help people, which alone doesn't make them qualified to teach beyond any other masters degree holder. In sum, such motivations to attain false legitimacy in higher education should be discounted in the development of a Wikipedia entry; the goal of achieving a balanced POV hearkens one to delete references to the Ph.D. from this page. Moreover, it might be helpful to the reader seeking information to compare the J.D. to a similar professional degree such as Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) or other similar degrees. 76.212.15.230 16:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe your goal is to put down the J.D. by using guilt by association: The D.C. has a shady past, it's a prof. degree, therefore the J.D. is also questionable. I don't agree that there is a medical degree that is higher than the D.C. There's no reason for this article to mention chirpractic at all, and focusing on it isn't helpful. JJL 16:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not necessary to put down the J.D. in the Wikipedia entry, nor does an objective viewpoint threaten to do so; the point of mentioning the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) is that the process of training a J.D. is more comparable to the training of the D.C. than the Ph.D. And both the J.D. and the D.C. are designed to help students enter a profession other than higher education. Hence, mentioning the Ph.D. in the discussion only confuses the reader. The J.D. is not an academic degree and to make false comparisons will confuse the reader. In fact, many J.D.s who read the Wikipedia entry will also be confused into thinking they have earned the respect and status of making an original contribution to a discipline. (By the way, to millions of blue collar workers the D.C. is a respected medical professional.) Still, the J.D. and the D.C. are not doctorally-prepared for a career in higher education. Likewise, the Ph.D. should not pretend to practice law or medicine, and they generally don't do so. 76.212.15.230 17:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"In fact, many J.D.s who read the Wikipedia entry will also be confused into thinking they have earned the respect and status". OK, I officially believe that you're simply trolling to cause trouble. It is correct that the J.D. is a professional degree like the others, intended for practice, but as to higher education--the holders of professional degrees largely teach their own, in many cases with some help from specialized Ph.D.s. JJL 00:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To all participants in this great debate to come up with an objective description of the JD degree, first, I would like to say hello (courtesy, courtesy, =D); second, will someone please offer an explanation to why is it so important to know whether JD is a doctorate degree? Has it ever occured to anyone that there are evolutionary changes to a particular training prgram (i.e. college, professional grad school, etc.) in a discipline that are unique to that discipline alone? Take an imaginary scenario for example: in country A, where in the beginning there were only a handful of doctors and they faced a problem to train more doctors to face the rapidly rising demand, therefore they created an undergrad. level doctor degree in hope of meeting THAT specific social need. This is not really out of the realm of logic, is it not? MOST things (not everything, of course) happen for a reason, it is, therefore, important to step back to consider the reason why the US switched their undergrad. law degree to postgraduate. Furthermore, we must consider if that reason still matter today. For whatever historical reason undergrad. law degree was abandoned and came the postgrad. law degree, it might not be relevant anymore. What takes place here in this discussion is not a debate on whether JD should remain a postgrad. degree. J.D. is a postgrad. degree, this is indisputable fact, and it is a fact that will not change in the foreseeable future. I believe the exact issue here is whether JD is a doctorate degree, and I submit that discussion on this issue is really not beneficial to other wiki-users, this is because: one, the issue is a mind-trap, the question is phrased in a way that will lead to unnecessary quarrel; second, an answer to that question will be of no use to someone who genuinely is interested in learning an objective desciption of what a JD is.

Issue one, the question is not whether JD is a doctorate degree. Typically, it is reasonable to believe that "a name defines the thing." Thus, it is natural to say JD is a doctorate degree, because it is called "juris doctor." But is it right everytime that a name MUST defines the thing? This is controversial, and perhaps without an objective answer. However, for the moment, since most other degrees with "doctor" in their names are generally accepted by the public as "doctorate" of its respective disipline, then why not accept for a moment that, JD is indeed "doctorate." But is there no qualification to the title of "doctorate"? Are all "doctors" the same? And what is "the same" anyway? There is clearly a difference between a Ph.D in biology and a Juris Doctor besides that they are degrees of different discipline. In some countries, Juris Doctor is classified as a "taught program" of postgraduate professional degree in law. By contrast, a Ph.D in biology would be a "research program" of postgraduate degree in science. Let us visit our "question" again--"whether JD is a doctorate degree?" Isn't this question too broad in neglecting the difference between a taught program and a research program? Can it reasonable be said that JD is a "taught program professional doctorate" degree? It is possible, though I admit it still sounds like a self-laudation coming from the mouth of a JD holder, but sometimes, feelings must give way to reason, right? And of course, the issue is not over, one could clearly replace the previous question with another one: "Is a research doctorate more respectable, or reputable, or legitimate than a taught doctorate?" To this question, I submit that it is not necessary to make such comparison. Each discipline requires its practicer unique sets of skills. A scientist should be competent at carrying out his own scientific research, and a lawyer should be very good at identifying legal or social issues and offer a logically legal explanation to those issues identified. You see, these two disciplines ask from their practicers totally different type of skill and expertise. A scientist is best at learning his skills at doing research. A lawyer is best at learning his skills by tackling legal and social problems taught and provided by expereienced law professors, and in the process he is required to apply legal analytical skill that is very different than the analytical skill utilized by a scientist. My point is, although they both are within the same category of "fruit", but how does one compare an "apple" and an "orange" in terms of quality? Can we just accept that JD is unique? Can we also accept that research-Ph.D is unique? A JD is called JD for a historical reason. There are some rather...pigheaded people out there who insist that they are doctors, thinking that in doing so would increase their social status, but in reality, they are only selling themselves short contrary to their own original intention, because in their heads, they believe that a JD is not as good as a research Ph.D; that is just not true, because the two degrees are really two different things.

Issue two, I will keep this short; how is it beneficial to someone who wants to know what a JD is by reading that there is a debate about whether JD is a doctorate? What really is the point? Let's say I am a high school student who wants to be a lawyer, I would not care whether it is a doctorate or not, as long as it gets me admitted to the bar. So really? what good is this discussion? In conclusion, please just settle on that JD is a postgraduate professional law degree, it will get you into the US Bar and become a lawyer. Leave it to imagination whether JD holder should be a doctor or not, let people other than wiki-editors decide. Justicelilo 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The J.D. arises from a standardized curriculum; each student is stamped in a mill to pass the bar exam. The Ph.D. (and other research degrees) have a non-standard, individualized curriculum that culminates in the production of an original contribution of new knowledge. There are no similarities between the J.D. and the Ph.D.; to argue otherwise is to expose a lack of understanding of the doctoral process. The J.D. is not a doctorate (for academic purposes in higher education) because there is no variable length, non standardized, and individualized process that leads to unique expertise. Does this help you to understand the difference between the Ph.D. and other degrees? 76.212.15.230 17:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mister, read my whole post, please. The above comment aims to address the purpose of why someone would care if JD is a doctorate or not. Now before you answer that question, you already have jumped into the mode of offering an explanation why JD is or is not a doctorate. So, again, please read and disgest what I am trying to say. I offered you my thoughts, you will give me the courtesey to at least understand my thoughts. Finally, others might have already noticed, I am not offering an answer to the debate, I am merely focusing the issue a bit. Oh, and the "stamped in a mill" comment, I assume you mean that passing the bar exam is easy? Correct? Justicelilo 17:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I did answer this question indirectly: "second, will someone please offer an explanation to why is it so important to know whether JD is a doctorate degree?" Besides all the information about why J.D. does not arise from a doctoral process, the short answer is that some J.D.s want to command the respect and receive the academic pay commensurate with having earned a doctorate while teaching in the context of higher education. They deserve neither the respect nor pay associated with being a doctor in higher education. Millions of dollars could be saved in higher education by paying J.D.s at their true academic pay level. The answer to your second question is that "stamped in a mill" means that educating a J.D. is standardized: 'Oh, and the "stamped in a mill" comment, I assume you mean that passing the bar exam is easy?' The J.D. may be difficult and standardized; however, the Ph.D. is exceedingly difficult and non-standardized, and so the degrees are not comparable. 76.212.15.230 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and yes, I almost forgot. To those whose argument is based on JD not being the highest degree of that academic area, one must take the following factor into consideration: it is subjective whether students in a Doctor of Law (LL.D, or JSD, etc) program study the same thing as students in JD. One is more a study of subjects and issues closer to legal theories and jurispurdence (I heard), and the other is more toward the application and the practice of law. Thus, one can argue that JD and JSD are really two different programs on different "tech-trees". Of course, you can disagree, and this is again why the on-going discussion is truly nearly impossible to come up with an objective and fair answer. Justicelilo 16:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear readers: Wow, I have been watching this page again for a while. I am sorry that this has slipped back again. A long time ago I raised concerns similar to those raised by editor Justicelilo.

I would like to comment on the following commentary:

The J.D. arises from a standardized curriculum; each student is stamped in a mill to pass the bar exam. The Ph.D. (and other research degrees) have a non-standard, individualized curriculum that culminates in the production of an original contribution of new knowledge. There are no similarities between the J.D. and the Ph.D.; to argue otherwise is to expose a lack of understanding of the doctoral process.

I don't know what kind of law school or Ph.D. programs the writer was using for the basis of this commentary. I have a Juris Doctor degree and have not (yet) enrolled in any Ph.D. program. I can tell you that where I went to law school, the only thing standardized about the curriculum is the first year -- and it's standardized only in the sense that everyone takes the same courses for the first year. Courses in law school, however, are very unlike courses in college.

Law school (at least mine) is what I call "directed self-teaching." That is, there is very little actual teaching in the sense that I think people find in many non-legal academic fields. Professors do not stand in front of the class and "lecture" (with a few exceptions). Much of the learning occurs outside of class. For the most part we do not study textbooks.

The vast majority of my law school experience was directed at the development of the student's ability to make original contributions of new knowledge -- law school was very oriented toward legal research and discovery of new knowledge (at least mine was) through the analysis of verbatim reprints of the texts of literally thousands of court cases and the preparation of briefs on those cases. The main focus of study is on primary authority (statutes, regulations, and primarily court cases), not treatises or textbooks. Indeed, one of the critiques that people have for law schools like mine is that the experience is too theoretical, too research and "concept" oriented, and not enough geared toward the "teaching" of "practice skills". In my view, however, this research and conceptual orientation is a strength of a law school, not a weakness.

The idea that law school -- at least my school -- is a "mill" turning out people to pass the bar exam would be pretty laughable. Anyone who graduates from my school who thinks he or she is ready to take the bar exam of any state without taking an intensive bar review course is delusional. Almost all graduates of my law school take a bar review course immediately after graduation.

Maybe some other law schools are different.

I cannot compare law school to a Ph.D. program, since I haven't entered a Ph.D. program. Yours, Famspear 18:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing and synthesizing cases is not the contribution of new knowledge. Legal briefs are defined primarily by what was included, but the dissertation is largely measured by what was not included. Even a large book report is not comparable to a dissertation. 76.212.15.230 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Law students are in fixed length courses studying well-defined topics with other students while Ph.D. students are in variable length courses by themselves building or explaining theory. Both could be hard work, but only the latter forges a doctor of the discipline. 76.212.15.230 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 76.212.15.230: Sorry, but summarizing and synthesizing cases, and legal analysis in general, is very often the creation of new knowledge. To illustrate, I'll give a previous example, adapted from comments I made on this talk page a while back.

If legal research is not the creation of new knowledge, then please answer the following questions without creating new knowledge. The following is a typical set of real life legal questions that are timely as subjects of legal research (names and dates changed for confidentiality, of course).

Hypothetical #1: XYZ Corporation was created under the laws of the State of Texas, operating entirely inside the State of Texas. XYZ Corporation uses December 31st as its year end for all federal and state tax purposes. Under Texas law, a corporation's Texas corporate franchise tax report for, say, the accounting year 2002 (which would be report year 2003) is generally due May 15, 2003 (let's ignore extensions).

Suppose that XYZ Corporation files Chapter 7 bankruptcy in Federal court in Texas on September 20, 2002. As of May 15, 2006, the corporation's Chapter 7 bankruptcy case remains open, and is expected to remain open for several years (for whatever reason).

Question #1 (to be researched): Is XYZ Corporation (or its bankruptcy trustee) required to file a Texas corporate franchise tax report for its accounting year 2005 (report year 2006) no later than May 15, 2006 (ignoring extensions), when the company is still in Chapter 7 bankruptcy?

Hypothetical #2: Same facts as in Hypo 1, except that we have JKL Corporation filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy on November 3, 2005. Suppose it is now May 15, 2007. Under Texas law, a corporation's Texas corporate franchise tax report for the accounting year 2006 (report year 2007) is normally due May 15, 2007 (ignoring extensions). As of May 15, 2007, the corporation's Chapter 7 bankruptcy case remains open, and is expected to remain open for two to three more years (for whatever reason).

Question #2 (to be researched): Is JKL Corporation required to file a Texas corporate franchise tax report for the accounting year 2006 no later than May 15, 2007 (ignoring extensions)?

Now, to the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely no Federal or state statute, regulation, or case law, or any other primary authority, that even mentions the treatment of state franchise taxes (of Texas or any other state) in the two situations described above (with respect to what I am going to call, for lack of a better term, the hidden issues that are behind these hypotheticals), much less states that a state franchise tax return is (or is not) due in the factual situations given.

Also, there is to the best of my knowledge no existing secondary authority, in the form of any treatise or other scholarly work of any kind whatsover, that even mentions state franchise taxes in this context, much less tells us how they should be treated.

By the way, despite the fact that the two legal (tax) questions raised above are actually important in many corporate bankruptcies, and are very practical questions, and not merely theoretical ones, I know from personal experience that very few lawyers (even bankruptcy or tax specialists) actually know how to answer these questions.

So, how do you provide answers to the above questions without discovering or creating new knowledge? Yours, Famspear 18:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Obviously, I do not expect anyone to actually answer the above questions. Indeed, you cannot answer these questions without creating new knowledge. I am just trying to get someone to tell me how you would go about providing answers without first creating new knowledge, when there is no legal text (statute, case law, treatise, etc.) that tells you how to treat state franchise taxes in this situation.

A related question is: Does a Ph.D. holder in history do his or her historical research and publishing work without creating new knowledge? Yours, Famspear 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Everybody, please read anonymou's posts above, all of them. You will find a long tirade about the legfitimacy of law, AS A PROFESSION. He states that the only lawyers who teach are those 'who don't have the stomach to make a living about other people's misfortunes." As I have sai all along, this edit ward being launched by anonymous mhas NOTHING to do with academics or degrees, and everything to do with a visceral, vicious hatred anonymous has toward LAWYERS. Arguments about the niceties of prerequisites are therefore irrelevant: as he himself has stated above, he simply hates all lawyers, and the whole branch of human endeavour called law. Thus, his edits have been propaganda aimed at destroying law as a porfession or academic pursuit. Now, since I am not a lawyer or law student, and never have been, they can put all the lawyers at the bottom of the sea, as Shakespeare and Thomas More suggested, for all I care. However, that debate belongs somweher else, not on a page which I have striven to make descriptive of the JD degree itself.HarvardOxon 20:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Disappointingly, HarvardOxon continues to advance ad hominem and emotional arguments against contributors with whom s/he disagrees. In fact, his/her comments seem non sequitur to what we have been discussing here. Moreover, I would ask him/her if a spell check could be used before posting; all those mispellings are diminishing the credibility of what is being said and are distracting. Again the J.D. has no logical connection to the Ph.D. and should not be discussed on the same Wikipedia page; to do so just confuses readers with a false comparison between dissimilar degrees. Instead, I recommend that the J.D. be compared to similar degrees attempting to garner credibility for its holders, such as the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.). 76.212.15.230 21:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"the schools that teach the J.D. produce graduates as numerous as rabbits, and these students often don't really have the "stomach" to make a living from people's misfortunes, so they gravitate toward to teaching" - not me, but 76.212.15.230, who remains anonymous and only ever edits this article

"The J.D. is very similar to the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) in the sense that a profession is trying to appropriate legitimacy, and these two professions have attempted to gain legitimacy over approximately the same time."-- I don't claim Law is "illegitimate" (what a self-contradiction), or that the whole profession is built on "making a living on other people's misfortunes," it's 76.212.15.230 who has stated that as his motivation for these edits.HarvardOxon 21:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

HarvardOxon, let's get you some time on task. Are you arguing for or against deletion of the irrelevant Ph.D. section and references on this Wikipedia page? 76.212.15.230 21:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh anonymous nameless one, I have said from the begnning the article is fair, fulsome and complete without adding or subtracting to fit your personal vendetta against law as a pursuit or lawyers as people. Leave the page alone, and go way, that's what I'm saying.HarvardOxon 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As this discussion has proven, there is little support for leaving the irrelevant J.D. to Ph.D. comparisons relative to the needs of all Wikipedia users. Can we delete them now and block HarvardOxon from any further edits to this page? Or least block HarvardOxon temporarily, so the mischief of one obstructionist doesn't hold us all hostage. Thanks. 76.212.15.230 22:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, 76.212.15.230, the fact that you, one anonymous person, one obsessed editor hiding behind an IP who only deal siwth one article, is the only person consistently and energetically demanding this edit does not mean, megalomaniac, that all the world is in consensus with you.HarvardOxon 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, that settles it. There is currently no objection to deleting the erroneous Ph.D.-related section. I will request unprotection of this page. Thanks, Everybody. 76.212.15.230 23:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a lie, 76.212.15.230, a decption, from an anonymous user.HarvardOxon 00:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What are the objections to deleting the section that erroneously compares the J.D. to the Ph.D.? You've been name calling for hours. Does this mean you have nothing to say? Silence means consent. Do you intend to discuss this matter?76.212.15.230 00:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the main objection is to the claim that consensus of any sort has been reached. There is no consensus as to whether or not the comparison to the Ph.D. should be in there. By the way, if it's removed, I'm certain that some Ph.D. will soon add it back in. A well-crafted article will address it briefly and carefully. JJL 02:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You're not really raising an objection to removing the section, but an objection to ending the discussion on the removal. I think the portion of the section that discusses degrees beyond the J.D. could be added to another section, but the section is comprised of mostly erroneous comparisons between the J.D. and the Ph.D. Other thoughts? 76.212.15.230 03:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear editor IP76.212.15.230: Since you are taking the position above that "Silence means consent," may I infer from your silence (non-response to my questions) that you now understand why the assertion -- that legal research is not the "creation of new knowledge" -- is incorrect? Weren't my tax law hypotheticals just riveting? What, no?

I wasn't silent about the discussion topic. I read those hypotheticals; those would not be original contributions to new knowledge at the doctoral level. Do you think they are? Back to the discussion topic. Would you delete the entire section or rewrite it to remove the erroneous portions? 76.212.15.230 03:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I am deliberately not taking sides (at least not now) on the question of whether the large block of text that IP76.212.15.230 and HarvardOxon have been arguing about should be included or deleted. I just wanted to make a minor point. And good luck to all with the, uh, discussion. Famspear 03:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear user IP76.212.15.230: No, the answer is that you simply cannot "answer" the questions I posed without both (1) doing original research, and (2) creating new knowledge, in the sense in which you are thinking. My example was presented to illustrate that when you create knowledge that did not exist before, you've, well, created something new. Law libraries, and I suspect libraries for historical scholarship (I am not a historian), are examples of places full of law reviews and treatises containing the results (literally) tons (paper weighs a lot) of newly created knowledge.

Similarly, the offices of law firms all over the United States contain legal briefs and memoranda with the results of original research on a level of complexity that would astound most non-lawyers. Indeed, in the area of U.S. Federal taxation the complexity of the new knowledge that is being created is such that the United States Patent Office recognizes patents in connection with tax research (a practice, by the way, which some members of the Congress may be moving to stifle with legislation to stop the granting of such patents).

Your statement -- that generating the knowledge required to answer my tax questions would not be contributions "at the doctoral level" -- is actually correct. But that wasn't what I asked. My point is that to answer those apparently "simple" tax questions I posed, you must indeed create something new, something out of thin air, something that does not physically exist in any statute book, or in any court opinion, or in any regulation, or in any book or article or other legal text, or in the mind of any legal scholar who has not already researched these questions and created the answers. In this particular example, you must connect dots by creating lines that do not exist before you yourself draw those lines. And to do that, you have to first know that the dots exist, and you must identify the dots. You have to be able to see which dots are really dots. You must have the kind of knowledge that would allow you to know the dots exist without anyone pointing them out to you. You also would have to have the kind of knowledge that would allow you to recognize that lines need to be created between those dots. You also would need the kind of analytical ability that would allow you to determine how and where those lines need to be drawn.

The typical J.D. program does indeed have, as a primary function, the training of candidates to produce new, original knowledge. That's the thing that law students are studying to learn how to do every day.

In your defense, however, I must point out that there are indeed differences between a J.D. program and a Ph.D. program. For the sake of argument, let's posit that the very longest research paper produced by the typical J.D. candidate is nowhere nearly as long as the paper produced by a typical Ph.D. candidate (a point that I think may have already been raised somewhere on this page). Here, you could argue that in some sense the typical Juris Doctor program itself does not require the creation of new knowledge during law school as a requirement for obtaining the degree, whereas the typical Ph.D. program itself does require a Ph.D. candidate to produce new knowledge during the program before being awarded the degree. I suspect (without having been in a Ph.D. program) that this assessment would be more or less valid. So in that sense, a Ph.D. program requires more of its candidates than a J.D. program does of its candidates. This, I suspect, is something that distinguishes a J.D. program from a Ph.D. program.

Obviously, my commentary cannot be inserted into the article. I just hope this helps fellow editors in some way in thinking about the article. Yours, Famspear 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lawspear, you are right as rain. The point is (and I made this in a recent study for an E European government) is that in law it is actually most difficult to come up with anything 'new.' A novel argument or even solution is not new 'knowledge' in the same way that newness is judged in other fields. If one does research on how business people actually make decisions, this, and many similar questions, are not properly law.--Lawman15 06:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC) In regard to another comment regarding whether legal research generates new knowledge, that is, to questions which are not addressed by statute or prior decision, I would say no. One would only have an argument; only a court judgement might create the new rule. One might assemble analogous court cases etc., but this is not new knowledge. This is the reason that the JD is a 'better' degree for the field of law.

editing change request

"...Melbourne, Hong Kong's City University of Hong Kong, and the newly opened faculity of Law of the Chinese University of Hong Kong offer both first-entry and second-entry first professional degrees in law..." Why does it have to state that the Chinese U's school of law is "newly established?" This is an unnecessary qualification to be added. If CU school of law is qualifed in the said context, then is it necessary to mention the age of any university every time that unversity is mentioned? For example, "the 200 years old univesrity of La La land offers an XOXO program." Kinda weird if you ask me......Justicelilo 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The section comparing the Ph.D. with the J.D. is irrelevant to the Wikipedia entry, as the J.D. is a first professional degree such as the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.), M.D., or D.D.S. Please delete that entire section. 76.212.15.230 00:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Read this talk page. Anonymous ISP (with suspicious traces) is attempting to manipulate protect process for extreme POV.HarvardOxon 00:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}. Given that the page was protected only today for edit warring, it would be inappropriate to make edits such as this. Please contact User:John Reaves, who protected the page, if you wish to have it unprotected. CMummert · talk 02:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will contact User:John Reaves, as the user who requested protection seems to think they own the page and started to spaz out when necessary corrections were introduced. Unfortunately, the spazzing user is not an expert in this topic, so they have obstructed correction of the page. 76.212.15.230 03:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My doctorates are academic, and the dissertations published as actual books, by real publishers -- not vanity or microfilm. What exactly are the qualifications of an anonymous number that is apparently so firewalled it is behind at least 11 nodes? On what university faculty does 76-etc. serve as a tenured full professor? This is an ass who hates lawyers (and chiropractors, apparently), not somebody actually trying to advance the diffusion of knowledge. His expertise comes in the form of 50 edits in 3 days on a single set of paragraphs in one article because it is not derogatory enough in its statement that the law isn't a real pursuit. HarvardOxon 04:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are so well-educated and urbane, you should know how to argue a point without leveling ad hominem attacks. Now, I will ask you again to focus on the task at hand. 76.212.15.230 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this is the time when the bartender comes in between and say, "take it ouside." Justicelilo 05:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. I believe someone should stop adding in response in the middle of the block of text written by someone else. It is creatin confusion. If you want to respond, respond AFTER the previous author's signiture. Thank you. Justicelilo 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is how to "thread" a discussion. 76.212.13.178 14:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with both of Justicelilo's positions as stated in the two paragraphs above. Also, for the record (in case someone takes this dispute to ArbCom), I'll note that 76.212.15.230 appears to have just vandalized User:HarvardOxon's user page in violation of WP:POINT. --Coolcaesar 07:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted that and left a note for each of them about WP:CIVIL. CMummert · talk 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but do you have any input to the discussion? 76.212.13.178 14:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I originally came here to follow an editprotected tag. My general opinion is that a short paragraph that states that the JD is considered a terminal degree by various accreditation boards would be sufficient. The comparison is a very minor issue, and the space devoted to it right now is out of proportion to its importance. But I have no plans to edit the article; I just have it on my watchlist because I removed an editprotected tag yesterday. CMummert · talk 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I too think limiting the discussion to the J.D. degree is important. As for comparison with other the degrees, comparision to the Ph.D. is not accurate. The J.D. is a generic, standardized credential; students complete "x" amount of work to graduate. The Ph.D. is nonstandard and exceedingly difficult to complete. To compare them, as opposed to contrasting them, inflates the J.D. and diminishes the Ph.D. In fact, the scope of the training of the J.D. is finite, such as the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) and other professional degrees. In sum, it would be better to talk only about the J.D. and the limits thereto appertaining. 76.212.13.178 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Greeting again. I now begin to see Oxon's point regarding Mr. 76's perspective and purpose. Now from the above paragraph, I get a sense that Mr. 76 wants to end the discussion and settle on a simple, short, but non-encompassing description of the JD degree. I cannot say that I agree with the reasoning used by Mr. 76 to arrive at his submission. His reasoning that contrasting JD and Ph.D would "inflates the JD and diminishes the Ph.D." is dubious to say the least. Education is about what you learn, not what amount of work you do; the amount of work is only the mean and it is pointless if you do not see the end of it. Standardized or non-standardized work and years of completion are meaningless, if you do not learn the method of analytical skills the degree program requires you to learn in order to graduate. Again, I submit again that you cannot "compare apple with orange" although they are both fruits. I disagree with Mr. 76's reasoning. However, I see that a complete and unconditional conciliation is impossible. Thus, I suggest that we should move on to come up with a brief but non-encompassing description of the JD degree, and in coming up with that desciption, we shall avoid comparison with other degrees as much as possible. Justicelilo 16:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

PS I agree with Mummert above, "...that a short paragraph that states that the JD is considered a terminal degree by various accreditation boards would be sufficient. The comparison is a very minor issue, and the space devoted to it right now is out of proportion to its importance." Also, I have to suggest to edit a sentence again because someone has not been very courteous on this discussion page.

"...Melbourne, Hong Kong's City University of Hong Kong, and the newly opened faculity of Law of the Chinese University of Hong Kong offer both first-entry and second-entry first professional degrees in law..." Why does it have to state that the Chinese U's school of law is "newly established?" This is an unnecessary qualification to be added. If CU school of law is qualifed in the said context, then is it necessary to mention the age of any university every time that unversity is mentioned? For example, "the 200 years old univesrity of La La land offers an XOXO program."

Will someone pleas remove the protection tag? Justicelilo 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity of thought, let me see if I can agglomerate your points. We should limit the discussion of the J.D. degree to comparisons with similar degrees. The Ph.D. is an academic credential and bears no resemblence to the J.D., which is a professional credential, such as the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.), so comparing the legal profession to the medical profession should be included in the new J.D. page. Is that what you are saying? You've made some conflicting statements, so it is important to clarify. Thanks. 76.212.13.178 16:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of clarifying your statement, I must ask what meaning you have in mind when using the word, "limit", in your statement. Are you suggesting that I've suggested that we should limit to restrain from discussing JD by drawing comparisons to other degrees, or are you suggesting that I've suggested that we should limit to exclusively discuss the JD degree by drawing comparison with the other degrees? Anyway, my submission is that we should limit in the sense of restraining ourselves from comparing JD to ANY other degree. The proper apporach in crafting an objective description of the JD degree is to treat it as an unique entity. Call it what it is, "a postgraduate professional law degree which enables its holder to take the bar exam, permitted by ABA, for the purpose of becoming a lawyer in the United States." Now of course, others can accept, decline, or make change to my brief attempt at crafting a description I've just presented above. However, I believe it is possible to provide an objective and informational description of the JD degree without drawing reference or comparison to other degree, ANY other degree. Mr. 76, I hope now you are able to properly agglomerate my point. Justicelilo 16:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It is best to let the encyclopedic description of the J.D. degree stand alone, without references to other degrees; this avoids false comparisons to academic credentials. 76.212.13.178 17:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing Ph.D. References

What are the arguments for and against removing Ph.D. references from the J.D. definition page? 76.212.13.178 14:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for Removing Ph.D. References from J.D. Entry 76.212.13.178 16:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Comparisons between the Ph.D., which is an academic credential, and the J.D., which is an professional credential, such as the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.), are grossly misleading to Wikipedia users. 76.212.13.178 16:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(deleted paraphrase) I refuse to join your endeavors. Next time, please extend other wiki-users the courtesy of asking them for permission before you paraphrase or quote for your own purpose. Thank you. Justicelilo 17:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't get to edit other people's facilitation of the discussion... Readers understand the use of an unattributed word as information that implies no endorsement. Here is the statement that you deleted: '2. A user has suggested that the Wikipedia entry for the J.D. avoid comparison to "ANY" other degree.' 76.212.13.178 17:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. I don't get to "edit", you say? Well, I just did. And I believe your definition of "other people's facilitation of the discussion" is quite subjective. How is paraphrasing another person's statement to the possibility of taking the statement out of context not contradicting what you've just said regarding editing statements by other people? Did you not just "edited" my "facilitation of the discussion?" Curious contradiction indeed, would you mind to offer a justification? Justicelilo 17:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. You can add to the discussion, but not edit anoother's comments directly. Redacting an open discussion is typically the work of a novice. 76.212.13.178 17:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Arguments against Removing Ph.D. Reference from J.D. Entry 76.212.13.178 16:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1. One user strongly objects. 76.212.13.178 16:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Another user strongly objects to removing references to the PhD. Such references are helpful to users in comparing the two types of earned doctorate level degrees in the U.S. While the J.D. provides professional training, it certainly is also an academic credential. However, it is not a research doctorate as is the PhD. Thus, such a comparison provides users with helpful information.Twiceafter 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Relative to your point that the J.D. is "also an academic credential," in what way does law school incorporate a nonstandard, variable length process in which an original contribution to new knowledge in the discipline occurs? 76.212.13.178 17:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What the still-anonymous and utterly obsessed 76.212.13.178 continues to lie about is the simple fact that this article NEVER failed to make a distinction between reserach and taught doctorates, and he continues to fail to deal with the fact that it is bullshit to compare the JD with mere "phd candidates": universities do NOT grant full professorships to people with MA's, but they do to JDs. The fact that you must have a PhD to be granted full faculty position in most suibjects, but only a JD or an MD in their respective subjects, makes a statement about the comparison (which, despite 76.212.13.178 , was always accurately, fully and fairly contained in this artriucle before he ever showed up two days ago) perfectly legitimate. The great ancient universities of the Middle Ages had a faculty of arts, and faculties of law, medicine and theology: they have been perfectly legitimate fields of academic endeavour since the days of Gratian or Thomas Aquinas. It's a horrible, cruel world, 76.212.13.178, but yeah, that guy who merely spent three years at law school gets to be called "professor" on a constituent faculty of a real university and paid a full professor's salary, and that guy who never wrote a dissertation for his dentistry DDS gets to be called "doctor" by everybody and makes more money than God almighty tightening braces, and it's just too damn bad that not everybody in the world runs around calling you "Super-Extra-REAL-Doctor" because you happened to pick a field where you had to write a dissertation which, like the overwhelmingly vast majority of PhD dissertations (including the very best of them), will only ever be read by a defense committee because its "original contribution" to the field of knowledge is (like even the very best of them) so excruciatingly narrow almost nobody will ever actually care. That's life. I live with the same reality. So what? Move on.HarvardOxon 00:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think user HarvardOxon is missing the point. The PhD and the JD degrees are fundamentally different. As 76.212.13.178 correctly pointed out, the PhD is a terminal research degree that confers an academic qualification on its holder, namely certifies that he/she is a junior scholar, capable of conducting independent, original research in a certain field. The JD on the other hand is a preliminary professional qualification that enables its holder to take a bar examination and, if successful therein, later practice Law. Although it is true that a JD degree is normally sufficient to obtain a faculty appointment in most US Law Schools, the JD per se is not considered a doctoral qualification in academic circles. The US doctoral qualification equivalent to a PhD degree in the field of Law is actually the SJD degree, not a JD. 161.24.19.82 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

requesting change on protected page

"...Melbourne, Hong Kong's City University of Hong Kong, and the newly opened faculity of Law of the Chinese University of Hong Kong offer both first-entry and second-entry first professional degrees in law..." Why does it have to state that the Chinese U's school of law is "newly established?" This is an unnecessary qualification to be added. If CU school of law is qualifed in the said context, then is it necessary to mention the age of any university every time that unversity is mentioned? For example, "the 200 years old univesrity of La La land offers an XOXO program." Kinda weird if you ask me......

I suggest that it should be changed to: "A number of universities such as Australia's University of Melbourne, Hong Kong's Chinese University and City Univesrity offer both first-entry and second-entry first professional degrees in law..." Justicelilo 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}. This is a good suggestion, but I anticipate that the page will be unprotected relatively soon once the issue of JD/PhD comparison is settled, and then you will be able to make the change yourself. Admins are discouraged from making changes to pages that have been protected because of edit warring, so it wouldn't be appropriate for anyone to make the change right now. I'm afraid that your suggestion is being held up by the edit war. CMummert · talk 17:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

final resolution on the issue of comparison between JD and other degrees

In the introduction of the article (as stated below)has provided a fair and sufficient description of the JD degree. I suggest that we take out the section of "The relationship of the J.D. to the Ph.D., and degrees beyond the J.D" completely, and then add a short sentence in the "title" section to address the JD/Ph.D situation.

(introduction)---here for reference, no change intended "In the United States, it is a first professional degree, usually earned after three years of full-time (four years of part-time) study after earning a bachelor's degree. One of the main purposes of the degree is to provide the professional training for those who wish to become lawyers. The J.D. (or its equivalent) is the degree required for admission to the bar in nearly all U.S. state and territorial jurisdictions.[1] (Some U.S. law schools award the first professional degree in law using the English terms Doctor of Law or Doctor of Jurisprudence rather than the Latin term Juris Doctor.)"

(the edit suggested to the section of "title")

"Licensed attorneys in the United States may append a variety of titles to their names, most of which are intended to convey that the person is licensed to practice law in at least one jurisdiction. "Attorney," "attorney-at-law," "Esquire" ("Esq."), "lawyer," and "J.D." are all generally acceptable titles that an attorney may use. However, "J.D." may be used by anyone who has received the degree from a law school, regardless of whether or not licensed to practice law. Those who are not admitted to practice law, but nonetheless represent or imply they are an attorney, may be subject to penalties for the unauthorized practice of law or impersonating a lawyer, both of which are criminal offenses in many jurisdictions.

The Juris Doctor is a postgraduate degree and may be regarded as a "doctorate degree of taught program", in contrast to a "doctorate degree of research program". Few U.S. attorneys who hold the J.D. use the title "Doctor", a term reserved mostly to physicians or a holder of a doctorate degree of a research program. One possible reason for this is that former rules of professional conduct prohibited self-laudation. The ABA, and many state ethics committees, now permit anyone holding a J.D. degree to use the title of Doctor (ABA Informal Opinion 1152).[1] Some attorneys do use the title when they are testifying as expert witnesses. One should noted, however, that J.D. is different from Ph.D in terms of substance (of things learned) and form (of how the program is organized)."

Justicelilo 17:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing the section, but what sentence do you suggest in the title section? The J.D. is a professional degree, such as the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.), so it has no relationship to the Ph.D. 76.212.13.178 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Duh, I see this now. Cool. This is a good start. Let me see if I can tweak this last sentence a little bit. 76.212.13.178 22:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the ABA says this and that, but just because somebody promulgates baloney does mean that Universities or anybody else is obligated to eat it. The J.D. is not a doctoral qualification in higher education; in reality, the J.D. holder is roughly equivalent to a Ph.D. student who has passed comprehensive exams and is in the process of proposing a dissertation topic. In sum, please stop posting these silly, self-serving promulgations by the ABA... 76.212.13.178 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. I myself do not endorse the view that JD holder should refer himself/herself as doctor, almost as bad is someone referring himself as "esquire". Nonetheless, our duty owed to the wiki community is to present unbiased view. The reason the ABA comment on doctor surfaces in my edit is simply because someone has pointed out that an ABA decision is relevant to the subject matter at hand. Whether the reader agrees with the decision or not is strictly his own business. what is important is that we present objective facts, nothing more or less than what is relevant. Justicelilo 00:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I stumbled onto the J.D. page recently and saw that it was edit protected. All of this over a J.D./Ph.D. comparison? I see no logical reason for comparing the degrees. What does a comparison between two unrelated degrees accomplish? I hardly think that it is informative. In addition, I read above some debate over the use of the "Doctor" title. Aside from my physician, I don't reference anyone as "Dr.", certainly not Ph.D.'s or J.D.'s. To say that any one group is more entitled to the "Dr." title use is both inaccurate and POV. Sawagner201 20:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Sawagner201

You've missed an important point. The context is higher education; only Ph.D.s (and similar degrees requiring a dissertation) have completed a doctoral process and have earned the right to be called "Doctor". Like, the J.D., M.D., is not a doctor of the university. 76.212.13.178 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The "right" to be called doctor? You must be kidding. How does a dissertation and a "doctoral process" necessarily lead to earning a new "right" of a doctoral title? In addition, in my humble opinion, I think that anyone outside of the medical profession is just a bit silly for using the "Dr" title, including Ph.D's; All doctoral degree holders, however, are certainly entitled to the use if they are so inclined. Sawagner201 22:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr./Ms. Sawagener, your point had been raised by others numerous times before. In fact, I raised a similar point earlier. I am not accusing you of anything, but if you do not have any new idea to say, it is better not to enter this "messy affair." The more people join in, the more it seems like this is a "controversial" topic, while it is becoming clear that this discussion does not deserve our attention. (sincerely) Justicelilo 00:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am about to implement the change as stated in the "final resolution"

This serves as a simple notice. Justicelilo 01:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

updating, change implimented. Justicelilo 07:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess sincee you and the anonymous IP have agreed, that somehow counts as "consensus" to be imposed on everybody else. How nice. In fact, you haven't solved anything, just ignored the issue, making Wikpedia less informative for the sake of satisfying an anonymous number who apparently cannot stand the fact that anyone who holds a degree in any subject but his own is actually treated like an academic. Once again, the more psychotically obsessed someone is, the more likely they will steer Wiki into being written in a way that they can run around citing it as "proof" of how right they are. In the meanitime, I have re-added an absolutely incontrovertible fact. Please, Justicelilo, remove that too, and feel free to add in its place the "consensus" statement that anonymous IP has given us that all lawyers are "people who have the stomach to make their living off the sufferings of others."HarvardOxon 13:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. If you've observed the exchanges between Mr. 76 and me, you would have realized that he and I do not agree. His position as he has stated, "The J.D. is not a doctoral qualification in higher education," while I have little preference either way. You are correct that I have no "solved anything," if by "anything" you mean the debate of whether JD is, or should be, regarded as a "doctorate" degree. However, any answer provided to solve that problem inevitably is subjective, thus creating further unnecessary controversey. I disagree with your point regarding the change I have implimented has made Wikipedia less informative. Wikipedia has its limitation. Are we to expect a novice in rocket science to be able to learn how to make a rocket by reading an article on wikipedia? No. There is a limitation to wikipedia, and that some information, however relevant, should be restricted from being addressed on wikipedia. This is one of those instances where we should excercise that restrain, when the potential gain of learning in detail about JD/Ph.D debate clearly has become distractive and perhaps harmful to the main purpose behind the creation of the JD article; that main purpose is to provide an unbiased information on the subject matter addressed. Now if you've noticed, in the JD article, there is absolutely nowhere in the article that says JD is NOT a doctorate degree; thus, your argument that Mr. 76 will go around citing this article as proof that JD is not doctorate may not be appropriate. I would like to believe that per one psychotic wiki-user around, there are 10 exceptional objective wiki-users to correct inproperness where it arises.

A further point, it is true that Mr. 76 has said that lawyers are "people who have the stomach to make their living off the sufferings of others," however, his subjective comment is not stated in the JD article, therefore it is irrelevant to the issue at hands. Everyone is entitled to his opinion, while the right of 1st Amendment is not without qualification, I believe Mr. 76's comment has not crossed that threashold. And in case you are under the impression that there is some sort of conspiracy between Mr. 76 and I, then I suggest that you should reconsider your proposition since we are not. Justicelilo 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. regarding your recent edit, "The J.D. is also a credential sufficient for appointment to a regular position as a full, tenured professor on the faculties of universities, free-standing law schools and free-standing medical schools," I regard it as a fair objective comment. Although, would you mind to elaborate on the connection between JD and tenured professor in medical school? Justicelilo 14:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

PS2. If it is any consolation, perhaps you can create a link to a webpage that is about the discussion between JD and PhD, and then put a citation near the relevant point made in the main article. Justicelilo 14:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Justicelilo's change and oppose HarvardOxon's position. Justicelilo is correct to state that any detailed comparison between the JD and Ph.D will be inevitably subjective, and such comparison would be a distracting tangent from the main topic of the article. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research (WP:NOR), nor an indiscriminate collection of random information (WP:NOT). --Coolcaesar 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I also concur with Justicelilo. Wikiant 20:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This talk has been dominated by a somewhat childish debate between the merits of the PhD and JD degrees. The relevant point however is not which degree is "better", more prestigious, or harder to get, but rather to acknowledge that the PhD and the JD degrees are fundamentally different and have different purposes, the former being a research degree whereas the latter is a professional qualification. Because they are fundamentally different, the two degrees are not directly comparable and any such comparison, if included in the JD article, would be distractive and off-topic. It makes sense however to compare the JD to other Law degrees, be it U.S research law degrees like the SJD, higher doctorates like the LLD, or alternative first professional Law degrees in other countries, especially the LLB in Commonwealth jurisdictions. Toeplitz 12:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

JSD/SJD

"What is there", JJL, is factually incorrect. Not every law school has an LL.M. program (some only go as far as the J.D.). To earn the LL.M. one must have the J.D. (or a foreign equivalent). To earn the S.J.D. one must have the LL.M. Check out the requirements for these degrees at any reputable American law school. Further, check out law school faculties: Harvard, for instance, as a pretty good example, has 204 faculty members in its law school, of whom 8 earned an S.J.D., and 4 an LL.M. -- for a total of 12 with degrees beyond the J.D., or 6 percent of the faculty. Compare that with the ratio of Ph.D.'s to non-Ph.D.'s on the faculty of havard's grad schools of English, History, Economics, etc., and you'll see the ratio is reversed. harvard's Law School is one of the most prestigious in the US and its faculty is as highly qualified as you will get anyplace. The same facts will be found at any good law school or university. Hence, the S.J.D. is indeed very rare, even on law school faculties.HarvardOxon 00:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The page didn't say that every law school offers the LL.M. You are once again using a straw man ("straw page") argument, making things up that were never there and then claiming they were wrong. It's incorrect that one always needs the LL.M. to obtain the J.S.D.; I found counterexamples at the first two JSD programs I found (Stanford and Columbia), as detailed here [3]. I don't think 6% is "very rare" but no one disputed that it's rare. The rarity issue is clearly OR, as your comments and calculations above indicate, and unnecessary, so I removed it. Please consult WP:OWN, unless you're simply a Harvard undergrad. trolling for fun. JJL 01:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not a "troll," I want things correct. Read bthe whole damn page, please, before you give me a line of crap. The JSM and the LLM are the same degree,m for god's sake, just expressed using two different Latin phrases, Legum magister vs. Juris Scientiae Magister. As for Columbia, read the whole set of pages: the LL.M> is earned either on its own, or in cursu toward the SJD, just as one can either earn an MA independently or the MA on the way to the PhD : many PhD programs don't say you "need an MA to apply" because you start the program after the bachelor's and get the MA along the way. What I am fed up with on Wiki is not MY need to be right, but the constant re-editing of artticles by people to reduce the factual information in them, making them wrong. If you don't know what the hell you;re talking about, you should keep your mits off an article, and the crap thrown about by 76 and others like him have simply been incorrect, wrong, unfactual. The OR business is also bull, thats not what wiki means by OR. Finally, 5 percent is s statistically significant difference, it is not statistically beyond "rare" when applied in a population: the term 'significant' is being used in two completely different sense. If 95 percent of English profs have a PhD, and only 5 perecnt have an Oxbridge LittD, then the LittD is in fact rare, yeah.HarvardOxon 01:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I replied where you posted this on my user talk page: [4]. I'd prefer to keep it here. In summary, you're wrong and tiring. JJL 02:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The line stating that Ph.Ds in Law are not conferred in the United States is flatly incorrect. While it is rare, there are universities, notably Tulane University, that offer a Ph.D.

Can you provide a link? I don't see that here [5] (which does show the SJD). JJL 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be on the site, but it is definitely awarded and is included in the TLS Faces book next to the names of students pursuing the Ph.D, which also lists SJD students.

Recent change regarding LL.B by 192.88.165.35 now gone, reverting back to previous version by justicelilo

Let's not substitute the Ph.D/J.D. debate with a JD/LL.B debate.

Edit 1: "Nevertheless, the J.D. is simply a renaming of the program of study which was previously called the LL.B (and which is still called the LL.B in most other countries outside the U.S.) rather than a new program of study. For this reason, individuals who hold an American LL.B can request a re-issue of their law degree re-titled with J.D. for a nominal administrative fee if they choose to do so."

whether JD is "simply" LL.B is subjective, and not beneficial to furthering the purpose of providing a simple and objective description of a JD program.

2: "The Juris Doctor is a postgraduate basic first professional degree program in law which has chosen to use the title of "doctor" in its name. In the U.S. many professions (including for example Chiropractic, podiatry, physical therapy, etc.) have decided to use the name "doctor" in the title of their basic first professional degrees. Despite the use of the name "doctor", all these degrees including the law degree, are…"

This is an over-simplified statement mixed with subjective opinions. The previous version which this paragraph of text has replaced is more objective and less controversial.

3: "(However, holders of an LL.B from certain foreign universities may be entitled to write a state's bar exam witbout the need for an LL.M)"

This is a perfectly true statement, however, it belongs to the LL.B wiki-page, not the JD page.

minor note to 192.88.165.35, due to the recent "messy affair" that happened on this page, it might be wise to express what you are about to edit on the discussion page, rather than recklessly implementing your changes, which might cause another needless controversey. Thank you. (sincerely) Justicelilo 06:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Justicelilo's removal of the LL.B comparison to J.D.'s. It is not relevant here. There are severe methodological problems with most LL.B. programs (which is why American and British lawyers dominate the global legal services industry) but this article is not the place to tackle that subject. --Coolcaesar 22:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

British lawyers hold the LL.B. or the Oxbridge B.A. coolcaesar. They do not hold the J.D. The reason (in my opinion) why some law schools in Japan and Canada have adopted the J.D. is the lack of cultural self-confidence and vassal-state mentality of those countries in their relations with the United States. The U.K. and Ireland have been served well by the LL.B. for centuries and will, in all probability, never change to a J.D.

The J.D. as a "doctorate"

I am not restoring all changes but re-inserting the paragraph explaining the facts of the titling of the law degree J.D. It is all fact not opinion and needs to be there and is supported by a cite to the Dept of Education statement so not my own opinion. For people who are not Americans I feel the following facts are important:

1. J.D. is a "doctorate" simply because they have chosen to call it that just like in other professions in the U.S.

2. Calling first professional degrees "doctorates" is an American practice rarely used in other countries. Most other countries have first or second bachelors or masters degrees in these subjects

3. The U.S. Dept of Education has stated J.D. and other "professional doctorates" are not research doctorates and not equivalent to the Ph.D. This is their opinion not mine.

While I support perhaps editting this statement if it can be written better, please do not remove it entirely again as these facts are important for people to know who are not familiar with U.S. practices.

As for LL.B vs J.D. I believe it is fair to say that these are equivalent degrees. But if you Americans want to insist it is different or imply it is "superior" then I'm not going to fight over that but the clarification of the J.D. as a "professional doctorate" and how/why it can be called a "doctorate" stays. 192.88.165.35 18:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Objective facts can be used to support a subjective opinion. What we are trying to do here is to provide an uncontroversial description of the JD degree. By adding the new statements, you've procured another chance for a needless debate on JD's usage of the doctor title again. I say "again", because this has happened before, please scroll up and read all the arguemnts related to it. Now to address your points:

1. J.D. is a "doctorate" simply because they have chosen to call it that just like in other professions in the U.S.

No problem with the statement overall, but the phrase "simply because they have chosen to call it..." has a negative tone to it. However, the article already provides information similar to what you've added.

2. Calling first professional degrees "doctorates" is an American practice rarely used in other countries. Most other countries have first or second bachelors or masters degrees in these subjects

Japan, too, has introduced the JD degree. You miss the point that while the degree is the first in that subject, it is also the terminal degree, functionally.--Lawman15 07:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is where it gets needlessly controversial. Lawyers who call themselves doctors are considered to be pretentious. It is not only rarely practiced in other countries, but also within the US as well. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to prove that the use of the doctor title is an "american practice", because it is impossible to round up all the US lawyers and to get them to admit that they have used the doctor title before. Furthermore, this is not helpful to the goal mentioned above: to provide an uncontroversial description of the JD degree.

3. The U.S. Dept of Education has stated J.D. and other "professional doctorates" are not research doctorates and not equivalent to the Ph.D. This is their opinion not mine.

this point is not disputed. and it is also stated in the paragraphs that are already in the article. However, in choosing to present a piece of information, you have already gone through a selective process of reasoning which deems which piece of information as worthy to present for your purpose. In selectively picking which fact/opinion/information to present or express, you have practically expressed your opinion. Thus, whether a message is objective or not is not decided by its sender, but by its recievers. We can only strive to achieve objectivity with the best intention possible.

4. The titling of first professional degrees as "doctorates" is mostly an American practice that is not utilized in most other countries. In many other countries, the equivalent degree is often a bachelor's (even if it is a second bachelors degree) or master's degree. Many countries award doctorates only for academic research degrees.

Nothing here is unknown. You are correct that LL.Bs are common, however, if you have read this article carefully enough, you would notice that postgraudate professional law degree is quite common in other countries across the globe. And I will not address other parts of your statement due to the lack of necessity.

5. As for LL.B vs J.D. I believe it is fair to say that these are equivalent degrees. But if you Americans want to insist it is different or imply it is "superior" then I'm not going to fight over that but the clarification of the J.D. as a "professional doctorate" and how/why it can be called a "doctorate" stays.

Again, the current version exists as it is to avoid giving off an impression that Americans are making JD more superior to LL.Bs. I refer you back to the article: "U.S. attorneys who hold the J.D. do not often use the title "doctor", a term reserved by custom mostly to physicians (who, like lawyers, hold professional doctorate degrees) or a holder of an academic doctorate of a research program, usually a Ph.D. One explanation for the restraintive behavior might be that the former rules of professional conduct prohibited self-laudation."

I am going to leave your paragraphs in the article for a few hours, but I do have the intention of reverting the article back to its previous form. Justicelilo 19:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you remove it, then I or others will reinsert it. I think that the addition by 192.88.165.35 is fine. The paragraph doesn't challenge or claim that the J.D. is not a doctorate, it merely states the context in which it is a doctorate in a clear and objective way and let's people decide for themselves.

There's nothing factually incorrect (which you Justicello have admitted above) about the paragraph. Does it somehow "lessen" the claim that the J.D. is a "doctorate" in some way. I guess you could say that if you people want to claim the J.D. is equivalent to a research Ph.D degree or if you want to claim that the J.D. is superior to other first professional degree that don't pretentously call themselves "doctorates". That paragraph obviously challenges those claims explicitly with facts.

But without the paragraph, the article is allowed to state that the J.D. is a "doctorate degree of taught program" which assumes of course that the J.D. is a "doctorate" degree at all. A lot of people don't think so. A lot of people consider it a professional degree which uses the word "doctor" in its title, not a "doctorate" degree.

With the additional paragraph, it provides a balanced description. The following paragraph about it described as a "doctorate degree of taught program" is not removed but the preceding added paragraph does make it more clear on what basis the J.D. can claim it is any kind of "doctorate" at all. It is a "doctorate" in the same sense as all other first professional taught degree programs which have chosen to call themselves "doctorates". It is not a "doctorate" in the sense that it is superior to other first professional degree that haven't chosen to call themselves "doctorates". Nor is it a "doctorate" in the sense of being a degree showing substantial original research as its requirement.

To wikiant: What exactly about that paragraph is "hyperbole" and uncited claims? The US. Dept of Education specifically says that the JD is a first professional degree not equivalent to a research doctorate. Why don't you read it yourself:

[6] It is also important to recognize that first-professional degrees in these fields are first degrees, not graduate research degrees. Several of the degree titles in this group of subjects (see Degrees Awarded below) incorporate the term "Doctor," but they are not research doctorates and not equivalent to the Ph.D.

The J.D. is a first professional degree which has "doctor" in its title. In most other countries, first professional degrees are bachelors and masters not doctors degree. Most countries don't have JD and MD they have bachelors of law and bachelors of medicine. Nor do most countries outside the U.S. have degrees like "doctor of chiropratic" "doctor of physical therapy", etc. Sorry that you pretentious lawyers don't like facts that diminish the "doctorate" status of the degree but the paragraph is written factually and in a neutral tone.

As I noted in my comment, I was taking issue more with the style than the content. For example, the first sentence of the deleted paragraph said, "After the end of the first semester, one final, monolithic challenge remains..." "Monolithic" certainly makes for interesting reading, but is hardly NPOV. Plus, stating statistics (e.g., "About 10% of students will make the law review journal...") without citation contributes to the perception of fluffery. Wikiant 12:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The comments about pretentious lawyers are misguided and rather lacking in maturity. The difference between a U.S. J.D. and an LL.B in other countries is that U.S. J.D.'s have to complete a full course of undergraduate study before they can pursue a J.D. In the UK, an LL.B does 3 years of undergraduate work to become a solicitor or 3 + Bar to become a barrister. The J.D. requires 7 academic years of study to complete, which includes both more general study as an undergraduate and rather focused study as a graduate. Further, while the J.D. is a First Professional degree, it is also an academic specialization, which lends further credence to the argument that it is a true doctoral degree. People here seem to miss that there is a significant academic community surrounding the law and a very large number of the learned in the law do not go beyond the J.D. in order to enter that community or be taken serious in their research study.

Your description of the UK system of legal training is not accurate. A 3-Year BA in Law/Jurisprudence (sometimes also called an LL.B) is not a sufficient condition to practice Law in the UK. Individuals who want to become barristers still have to complete the Bar Vocational Course and go through an internship period ("pupillage") in a certified barrister's chambers. Prospective solicitors on the other hand must complete the equivalent Legal Practice Course and also take an apprenticeship (known as a "training contract"). Adding all up, it normally takes something like 2 or 3 years of additional training beyond the BA to practice Law in the UK. On the broader discussion of JDs x PhDs, please see my comments above where I basically agree with previous posters who claim that the American JD is not a doctoral qualification (the only true doctoral degree in Law in the US being instead the SJD). 161.24.19.82 20:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess the source of the confusion is the somewhat convoluted history of the use of the terms "bachelor", "master", and "doctor" within the English university system. As far as I understand it, back in medieval (en-GB mediæval) times, university studies always began with the study of the seven "liberal arts" (grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music). After completing a liberal arts education, a student could then move to a "higher faculty" to study e.g. law, medicine, philosophy, or theology. Following this medieval model, the first (undergraduate) degree awarded by the universities of Oxford and Cambridge was typically the degree of "Bachelor of Arts", as it is still the case today both in Oxbridge and in a few American universities like Princeton. The so-called "higher (or second) bachelor's degrees" such as the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery, the Bachelor of Civil Law, the Bachelor of Divinity, and, later (starting in the 19th century), the degrees of Bachelor of Letters, Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Philosophy, were in turn graduate degrees, available only to candidates that already held a BA. A doctor's degree on the other hand (e.g. Doctor of Divinity, Doctor of Laws, Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Sciences, Doctor of Letters, etc.) was awarded only to senior members of the university, usually after many years of professional activity, to certify that they had reached a distinguished and eminent level of scholarship in their respective fields.

In the 20th century however, the English degree system underwent several changes while still retaining some elements of the old medieval system. First, the graduate bachelor's degrees in letters, science, and philosophy ceased to be awarded and were replaced by graduate master's degrees like the MLitt, the MSc, and the MPhil. The Bachelor of Science degree on the other hand (BSc in England) was downgraded to an undergraduate degree in most English universities (with the notable exception of Oxbridge where the BSc simply ceased to exist and either BAs or so-called undergraduate master's degrees like the MSci, MPhys, MChem, MMath, MEng etc. are now awarded as the first academic degrees in the natural sciences and engineering). Likewise, the Bachelor of Law was also downgraded to an undergraduate degree in most universities, although, once again, not in Oxbridge (Cambridge only awards BAs in Law, not LLBs, and in Oxford, the BCL remains a graduate degree, equivalent to a Master of Laws/LLM in other UK universities). The Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery degrees retained however a graduate nature in the sense that they normally require 6 years for completion (3 years of pre-clinical studies and 3 years of clinical studies attached to a university hospital) and, at least in Oxbridge, students are also awarded a BA "in cursu" towards the MB/BChir, normally at the end of the pre-clinical course. At the graduate level though, the most important change in the English system was the introduction in the 20th century of the PhD (or DPhil) as a research degree conferred not upon senior scholars based on the ensemble of their work, but awarded instead to resident students, necessarily by examination, upon submission of a single research thesis representing an original, albeit perhaps narrow contribution to a certain field of knowledge. The older "higher doctorates" like the LLD, ScD, LittD, etc. continue to be awarded in England, usually based on the recommendation of an ad hoc committee of experts based on the analysis of a portfolio of publications/works, but the PhD, with its distinctive structure of university residency requirement, submission of a research thesis and a final oral exam, has become by far the most commonly awarded doctoral degree in the UK. Whereas the PhD is usually awarded to junior scholars (normally in their mid-20s in the UK, or late 20s in the US), the higher doctorates are only rarely conferred upon someone below 40 years of age. Toeplitz 13:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: In modern US universities, the structure of the PhD program has been further refined to include coursework requirements and approval in preliminary qualifying exams in addition to the traditional submission of an original research thesis and approval in the final oral exam.

Stepping stone

Lawman15 inserted the comment, "Thus the J.D. degree is not a stepping stone towards a PhD, and therefore, in the academic setting, it is the normal doctoral degree in the field of law." Following this argument, the MFA is a doctoral degree because it is not a stepping stone toward a PhD. So too is the master electricians license, etc. I'm replacing the word "doctoral" with "terminal." I am not making a statement about the status of the JD. Wikiant 11:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

After further research, I'm deleting the entirety of the comment. The SJD is the highest research degree in law. The LLM is required for admission to the SJD program (see www.law.ucla.edu/home/index.asp?page=1721). In turn, admission to an LLM program requires a law degree (www.llm-guide.com/llm-faq). Hence, the JD clearly is a stepping stone to a higher research degree. Wikiant 11:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Terminal degree

The article says that the JD is a terminal degree. There are two facts that contradict this: (1) it is also called a *first* professional degree implying that the LLB, a professional degree for which the JD is a prerequisite, is a more advanced professional degree; (2) the JD is a prerequisite for the SJD, which *is* a terminal (academic) degree. Wikiant 22:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The J.D is not a prerequisite for an LL.B as you claim above. The LL.B and the J.D are both first professional degrees in Law. In fact, the LL.B used to be the standard first degree awarded by Law Schools in the US before the J.D. was introduced.

The J.D. or an equivalent first degree like a foreign LL.B are however prerequisites for an LL.M ("Legum Magister" or "Master of Laws"). The fact that a master's degree (the LL.M) ranks higher than a degree of "Doctor of Jurisprudence" is yet another evidence of how misleading the J.D title is and another good reason for Law Schools in America to go back to awarding LL.B's again instead of J.D's. 161.24.19.82 18:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, those LL.B holders must be really sore about the fact that American lawyers spend three years completely focused on law while LL.Bs are juggling undergraduate studies! Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that American lawyers dominate the global legal services industry. We hear all the time about U.S. firms taking over French, German, Japanese, and Chinese firms, not the other way around. --Coolcaesar 19:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Title

Wikipedia tends to list the English form of degrees rather than the Latin. For example, the article for Medicinae Doctor (M.D.) is Doctor of Medicine, the one for Philosophae Doctor (Ph.D.) is Doctor of Philosophy, and so forth. Shouldn't this article be then called "Doctor of Law"? I find it unique that we are sticking with the Latin form here when no other degree or article tends to do so. What do you think?

I strongly disagree with your proposal. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Juris Doctor is overwhelmingly used by the vast majority of law schools in the United States as the common name of their first-professional law degree. The diploma on my office wall is "JURIS DOCTOR," not Doctor of Law. Also, neither Doctor of Law nor Doctor of Jurisprudence are literally correct translations; the literal translation is Teacher of Law (I studied Latin in high school), and there is a lot of disagreement among the few law schools awarding a law degree named in English as to which translation is correct! It makes no sense to rename this article to a name that the vast majority of Juris Doctor holders would not recognize. --Coolcaesar 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, in Germany, the research doctorate in Law (equivalent to a Ph.D) leads to the degree of Doctor iuris (Dr.iur.), that is, "iuris" with an "i". The alternate spelling "juris" with a "j" would be incorrect in classical Latin, as our German friends were very kind to remind us in the Doctorate article! 161.24.19.82 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

J.D. Thesis

Could someone with access to current American law school regulations explain what kind of thesis or dissertation is normally required for the degree of Doctor of Law? NRPanikker 17:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean these regulations? I dunno what field you're in, but in law almost everything important is online nowadays. The law school approval standards are all online at the ABA Web site. Each chapter is a separate PDF file and then there's a link on the right side to download the whole book at once.

I think what you're looking for is covered in Standard 302 (look at this pdf and scroll down to the page numbered 17 on its bottom margin). All the ABA requires is "one rigorous writing experience in the first year and at least one additional rigorous writing experience after the first year." Interpretation 302-1 sets out some factors for evaluating the "rigor of writing instruction" including number and nature of writing projects, opportunities to meet one-on-one with a writing instructor, number of drafts per project, and form of assessment used by the instructor. Yes, this is a really, really vague standard that gives law schools a lot of room to maneuver. There isn't any requirement for a huge formal thesis or dissertation in the sense of a Ph.D. thesis or dissertation. Hope that answers your question.--Coolcaesar 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistant.

As an Australian lawyer, I was very interested in learning more about the whole 'JD' thing and why the US have decided to 'move the goal posts' for non-US educated academics. I found a supreme court document that was most enlightening on the matter[7] yet have subsequently found that this article is quite contrary in both intent, times, dates and purpose to that outlined in the supreme court document dealing with JD's.

Perhaps this is a NPOV issue? Given that the document I have linked to above cites the universities jealousy of independant law schools 'doctorate' programs. Further perhaps some explaining is in order, or direction perhaps, in relation to D.Juris and JD's being granted honoris causa to LL.B graduates. The whole 'your first degree is your doctorate' is abstract not only to me, as an Australian, but even to most American lawyers I know. The downside is, they shrug and say "That's just the way it is." when I question them on it, so trying to pin it down and describe something which, at first sight, may seem irrational allocation of title is very difficult.

Either way, I find this article to be NPOV along the lines of advertising for a law school, there's no critical examination of it, there's loose tie in's such as mentioning the history of the PhD tracing back to ye olde England and tripe such as that which tries to draw the reader into effect that the JD is ancient when it is, in fact, a modern conception that is purely located in the US and mirrored in a few countries to save their lawyers, solicitors and barristers having drama if they choose to be lawyers without borders.

Perhaps this article needs a bit more work?  :/ Jachin 01:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I read that document. It's simply the personal comments of a solo practitioner that were filed with the Supreme Court of Florida. Do you have caption pages in Australia? The caption page simply indicates which court the document is being filed with and by whom. It does not indicate that the writer of the document is directly affiliated with a court, or can bind that court with his statements, in the sense of serving as a judge, law clerk, or staff attorney. A document published by a court in its official capacity is recognizable because (1) the caption is much shorter and usually does not take up a full page; (2) it contains opinions by multiple judges, who sign their names as "J., [last name]" and don't include their address or state bar number after their name; and (3) it orders something to be done and gives the rationale rather than trying to persuade a judge to do something.

But anyway, I agree with you that the article as it stands is still rather messy. --Coolcaesar 08:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Some professional fields of study require the student to first complete a undergraduate degree program before he or she can be admitted. These field include Chiropractic, Dentistry, Law, Medicine (Allopathic, including surgery), Optometry, Osteopathy, Pharmacy, Podiatry, Theology (ordination qualifications), and Veterinary Medicine. There are many more professional fields of study in the United States, but those listed here are unique in that they are not offered at the undergraduate degree level.

It is also important to recognize that first-professional degrees in these fields are first degrees, not graduate research degrees. Several of the degree titles in this group of subjects (see Degrees Awarded below) incorporate the term "Doctor," but they are not research doctorates and not equivalent to the Ph.D. Master's degrees and research doctorates in these fields of study are awarded, but they have different names and students enroll in those programs after having earned a first-professional degree. -U.S Dept of Education.

-K. Lewis 09/10/2007

Wonders will never end; the equivalent degree to a JD is a Bachelor Degree in Law LOL. What kind of mess up doctorate is this LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.60.194 (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Recently figured out something about Robert B. Stevens

In my ongoing research for Attorney at law, I discovered that Robert B. Stevens, the Yale law professor whom I cited in this article, actually expanded his writings on the history of law schools to a full-length book that was published in 1984. And then he became Chancellor of the University of California, Santa Cruz for a few years.

One of these days I will have to get that book and then we will finally have a good source for this article and for Law school in the United States. Or if anyone else lives closer to a library that has it, and could get the book, that would be great too. --Coolcaesar 23:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Supreme Court of Texas permit a lawyer who is a graduate of an accredited law school with a Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence degree to use the titles "Dr.," in social and professional communications.

The Supreme Court of Texas permit a lawyer who is a graduate of an accredited law school with a Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence degree to use the titles "Dr.," "Doctor," "Doctor of Jurisprudence," or "J.D." in social and professional communications so long as such use is not false or misleading in the specific circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.102.144 (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Language regarding "license" to grant graduate degrees

Regarding this verbiage:

As neither the ABA nor the Supreme Court of Texas are licensed to grant graduate degrees, their opinions are meant merely to clarify what they consider to be legal and professionally permissible.

First, Wikipedia is not in a position to render its own unsourced judgment as to what the American Bar Association or the Texas Supreme Court "mean" when those bodies issue pronouncements. We can, however, report on what reliable, third party published sources say the ABA or the Texas Supreme Court "means." If a reliable third party source has made this statement or has made a statement fairly close to this, then I suppose this statement could properly be added without violating the rule on Verifiability.

In the case of a court of law (such as the Texas Supreme Court), saying that the court is not "licensed" to do something is nonsensical. A court of law does not need a "license" to "grant graduate degrees," or indeed to do anything else.

Next, neither having nor lacking a "license" to grant a degree is necessarily a qualification or disqualification for determining the proper use of the title of that degree. For example, the State Legislature of Idaho could pass a law tomorrow that says: "No one with a Master of Arts degree in sociology can use the title Master of Arts in this state." The State Legislature does not have a "license" to grant the degree, and does not need a "license" to grant the degree in order to pass a law about it.

Similarly, a court of law does not need a "license" to issue legally binding rules about the use of titles by officers of the court (e.g., persons licensed as attorneys).

Of course, it may well be correct to say that that the Texas Supreme Court (or, more specifically, the Ethics Committee of the Court) was indeed intending to clarify what it considers to be legally and professionally permissible. That's just my personal belief, and it may be editor Wikiant's personal belief as well. Our personal beliefs, as Wikipedia editors, are not, however, a proper basis for inserting that statement in the article. Insertion of the statement sounds a bit like POV pushing in my personal opinion. Yours, Famspear 17:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Famspear. Common law courts of sovereign states are able to regulate the use of titles, or any other aspect of the legal profession, because it is an inherent power of the court to regulate those who practice before them. It is original research, as well as silly and downright wrong, to assert that they need a "license" to do so. Whomever wrote that is clearly not a lawyer. --Coolcaesar 18:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the disconnect here lies in the difference between "naming as convention" and "naming as description." Clearly, the court (and any other organization) can issue opinions as to what titles it will and will not recognize as a matter of convention. Such opinions, however, have no bearing on the reality that the title represents. Therein lies my issue. It seems that these opinions are being quoted in an attempt to obfuscate the distinction between the naming of a thing and the reality of the thing. What neither the ABA nor the Texas court can do is to claim that the J.D. is equivalent to degrees that traditionally carry the title "doctor." Wikiant 22:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: I haven't visited this article in a while, but with all due respect, it appears that this article continues to suffer from the battle among editors over whether a J.D. degree is "really" a "doctorate," or whether it is really "equivalent" (whatever the editors think that means) to a Ph.D. or some other doctorate, or whether a J.D. is "really" a "terminal" degree, or whether a J.D. is "really" a "research" degree, etc., etc. These comments are in response to what fellow editor Wikiant has wrote, but I'm not picking on Wikiant in particular.

Although I have a J.D. degree, I am not in academia and I feel like an outsider reading and contributing to this talk page sporadically for the past year and half. As I have said before, I may be wrong but the debate appears to me as an outsider to be a debate between some people with J.D.s who are resentful (if that's the right word) of those who have Ph.D.s and people with Ph.D.s who are resentful of people who have J.D. degrees. I realize that it's probably more complex than that -- but unfortunately that's how the debate comes off. I am at a loss to explain why anyone mature enough to have earned either degree should care this much whether the one degree is or is not equal to the other degree, etc., etc. Maybe both J.D.s and Ph.D.s in the academic world have too much time on their hands??? I don't know.

Whether the American Bar Association and the Texas Supreme Court can or cannot "claim" that the J.D. is equivalent to degrees that traditionally carry the title "doctor" is not for us as Wikipedia editors to say -- and Wikiant has cited no source for that assertion, anyway. In my opinion, stating that the ABA and the Court cannot "claim" this does not appear to be a meaningful objection under the rules of Wikipedia.

Academically, the American Bar Association is the accrediting body in the United States for law schools. I don't recall off hand to what extent the ABA gets into the niceties of the question of whether a J.D. is "equivalent" to a Ph.D. The point is that the ABA or a committee thereof is probably within its legal and moral rights (and academic right, if there is such a thing) to make pretty much whatever statement it wants to make on the topic, and the ABA is sufficiently near the center of the academic aspects of U.S. legal education that the ABA statement may properly be quoted in a Wikipedia article on the topic of the Juris Doctor degree. As Wikipedia editors, it is not our job to decide who can or cannot pontificate on the topic, except to the extent that the material may violate the rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research, etc.

Similarly, under American law the highest court of a jurisdiction has what is called inherent power to impose rules on those persons licensed by the jurisdiction to practice law, including rules on uses of titles such as "juris doctor." If the Texas Supreme Court, or a committee thereof, issues a formal ruling that says that it's OK for persons with a Juris Doctor degree to use the title "doctor," there is no Wikipedia policy that prohibits a mention of that ruling in the Wikipedia on "Juris Doctor" -- regardless of whether editor Wikiant or I agree with that ruling, and regardless of whether Wikiant or I personally feel that the ruling has "no bearing on the reality that the title represents" (as Wikiant put it).

The article would not be materially harmed by the exclusion of the references to the pronouncements of ABA and the committee of the Texas Supreme Court. Likewise, I personally see no valid "Wikipedia" reason for preventing the inclusion of the material. Yours, Famspear 23:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Name of degree

An anon keeps adding "Doctor of Jurisprudence" at the beginning of the article without comment, and reverting other editors who remove it. I think the article should show both terms (Juris Doctor and Doctor of Jurisprudence) near the beginning of the article, but I have reverted the anon anyway.

I haven't read the entire, extensive talk page for this article. Should the introduction be changed to something like "Juris Doctor (or Doctor of Jurisprudence)" etc.?? I know the term "Doctor of Jurisprudence is mentioned further down in the article. Any thoughts, anyone? Famspear 01:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know but my initial feeling is against mentioning Doctor of Jurisprudence in the lead. It depends on how many schools actually use Doctor of Jurisprudence, which is an incorrect translation anyway, and it's also simply the wrong name (most J.D. holders do not specifically study jurisprudence, the study of law as a science or philosophy). My understanding is that Doctor of Jurisprudence is still very much a minority usage, because lawyers as a group tend to be conservative. Even the University of California awards the Juris Doctor, though all its other schools and colleges award degrees with English names and English honors rather than Latin names and Latin honors. --Coolcaesar 17:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm no Latin scholar, but I was thinking that "juris" (IURIS) in Latin roughly translated "philosophy of law" as opposed to merely "law." I'm at work right now and my copy of Black's Law Dictionary is at home, and maybe a Latin dictionary would be more appropriate anyway. My diploma says "Doctor of Jurisprudence." I guess I have always thought of "juris doctor" and "doctor of jurisprudence" as the Latin and English translations for essentially the same thing.

Also, I don't know how your law school was, but mine was pretty "theoretical" and I would argue that the philosophy of law more accurately describes my experience than merely the study of "law." However, I consider the "philosophy" of law to be a broader concept than what we would probably find in a specific course in "jurisprudence." I do agree that most J.D. holders (myself included) probably did not take a course in "jurisprudence" (as more narrowly defined as the study of the science of law, or the study of the form, as distinguished from the content, of systems of law).

Anyway, I don't have a strong position one way or the other.

And I can't make up my mind.

But I'm not sure either.

Can I go home now? Famspear 18:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

At Harvard the diploma reads "ad gradum Juris Doctoris" and the commencement program lists the J.D. as "Doctor of Law". Overall, I think that "Juris Doctor" is the most popular form of the degree offered, but "Doctor of Jurisprudence" and "Doctor of Law" do occasionally show up. I agree that the article should mention this early on. Sawagner201 06:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The name of the degree is "Juris Doctor". Who said so....the The American Bar Associations (ABA) that’s who. The degree is not called a Doctor of Law, Juris Doctorate or Doctor of Jurisprudence. I do not know "one" American educated lawyer who has a diploma that reads anything other than Juris Doctor. Philosophy in Law...LOL. Don’t make me laugh. No matter what you doctorate degree wanna-be’s call the JD, the degree is still only equivalent to a Bachelor of Law (LLB).....Doctorate degree indeed lol. Pleaseeeeees lol -K. Lewis 5.00 PM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.60.194 (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear K. Lewis: Thanks for sharing your feelings with us. Famspear 21:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

K.Lewis does have a point; from what I have read....it does seem that some people are trying to make the JD more than it is. Why can't we just stick with the ABA's degree title instead of grabing for straws?

Uh, no, sorry, K. Lewis does not have a point. And "grabing [sic] at straws"? Hello? Get serious.

I believe that in the Middle Ages universities were granting doctorates in canon law long before anyone had the faintest idea of using the term "doctor" to describe, for example, a "physician." Clue: The terms "Doctor of Jurisprudence" and "Juris Doctor" are used extensively by ABA (American Bar Association) accredited law schools in the United States. The abbreviation for both is "J.D."

And as far as the rant by our anonymous contributor about "jurisprudence," here's a clue. "Jurisprudence" means:

The philosophy of law, or the science which treats of the principles of positive law and legal relations. In the proper sense of the word, "jurisprudence" is the science of law, namely, that science on which legal rules are based, so as not only to classify those rules in their proper order, and show the relation in which they stand to one another, but also to settle the manner in which new or doubtful cases should be brought under the appropriate rules. Black's Law Dictionary, p. 767 (5th ed. 1979) (bolding added).

Similarly:

Jurisprudence [ . . . ] the course of court decisions [ . . . ] the science or philosophy of law [ . . . ] Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 628 (G.&C. Merriam Co., 8th ed. 1976) (bolding added).

Similarly:

Jurisprudence [ . . . ] the science or philosophy of law [ . . . ] Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 766 (World Publishing Co. 1970) (bolding added).

Similarly, Surya P. Sinha, Professor of Law at Pace University writes:

Jurisprudence has two meanings. In the civil law tradition of Europe it means the collectivity of decisions of a particular court. In the common law tradition of England, United States, and other common law countries it means legal philosophy. Surya P. Sinha, Jurisprudence: Legal Philosophy in a Nutshell, p. 1 (West Pub. 1993) (bolding added).

Cheers, Famspear 06:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And would you like a list of ABA accredited law schools where the degree is "Doctor of Jurisprudence?" Just google the term for starters. This isn't rocket science. Famspear 06:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hint: Based on a quick google search (I haven't checked the schools' official web sites, though), the law schools at the following institutions just might qualify as grantors of the "Doctor of Jurisprudence" degree: Stanford University, Georgetown University, Columbia University, University of Texas at Austin, Drake University, University of Houston, Texas Tech University, Southern Methodist University, George Washington University, Baylor University, Indiana University, Willamette University. Famspear 06:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Famspear...I see you forgot to add University of Pittsburgh to your list...even though it appears as the second entry on google when you search for the Doctor of Jurisprudence. Why would you ignore this... I wonder lol. The degree on your wall says Juris Doctor and not whatever you wish it said. Doctor of Jurisprudence.. indeed lol. You wish lol. Your Juris Doctor is equivalent to a Bachelor Degree. No matter how you try to spin it, no one is going to call you Dr. "Unless you get a real doctorate degree and not some degree that decided to change its name and add Doctor to it. The real degree call the Doctor of Jurisprudence is a research doctorate….follow this link to get educated http://www.law.pitt.edu/academics/jsd.php

K Lewis 10/03/2007 12.12 PM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.190.60.194 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear IP64.190.60.194/K Lewis: Actually, no matter how you try to spin it, the diploma on my wall says "Doctor of Jurisprudence." You may want to ask yourself why you seem so hung up on the issue of whether a "Juris Doctor" is the same thing as a "Doctor of Jurisprudence." (As a general rule, the two terms mean the same thing. There may be exceptions.)

By the way, if you believe that a J.D. is "equivalent" to a bachelor's degree -- as in a bachelor's degree in accounting or sociology or history or mathematics, I have a big orange bridge in San Francisco that I'll sell you.

A J.D. is or may be equivalent to an LL.B., which of course is denoted as a "bachelor's" degree. However, nobody really cares (at least nobody in this office cares) whether the degree from a particular law school is called "Juris Doctor" or "Doctor of Jurisprudence." Both terms mean the same thing. And nobody cares (at least nobody here in my office cares) whether someone is going to call me or any other person with a J.D. degree a "doctor" or not. I'm not in academia, I'm in the real world. In the real world in the United States, very few people refer to a lawyer as "doctor."

In some universities, however, some J.D. holders are in fact called "doctor" -- for example, the professor who was the head of the Department of Business Administration at the university where I received my accounting degree had an M.B.A. and a J.D., and no Ph.D., and every professor referred to him as "Doctor".

Sell your arguments to someone who cares. And let's keep this talk page reasonably related to a discussion on how to improve the article. Yours, Famspear 19:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)