Talk:Juris Doctor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 More on J.D.'s Using the Title 'Doctor'
2 Ambiguity
3 Various copyedits
4 Grinding Axes?
5 Whole section deleted on relationship with PHD
6 editing change request
7 Removing Ph.D. References
8 requesting change on protected page
9 final resolution on the issue of comparison between JD and other degrees
10 I am about to implement the change as stated in the "final resolution"

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2

[edit] More on J.D.'s Using the Title 'Doctor'

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)

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)

[edit] Ambiguity

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:

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

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)

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] requesting change on protected page

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/u/r/Talk%7EJuris_Doctor_8389.html"