Talk:Bachelor of Laws

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been assessed as Low-importance on the assessment scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Brief cleanup attempt 2 Abbreviation 3 Layout 4 Becoming a lawyer 5 Abbreviation again 6 Postgraduate? 7 English 8 Pat Robertson's Bachelor of Legal Letters from Yale 9 Honorary 10 Variations on the LL.B 11 Second-entry ≠ Graduate-entry 11.1 References 12 Plural

[edit] Brief cleanup attempt

Much of the original text seemed culled from an external site [10]? Over a short time though the article will probably go in new, different directions.

Removed: [re foreign law degrees holders need] "...often study to receive an LL.M., the masters degree equivalent, before qualifying for bar admission procedures."

This was (probably) wrong in most areas. Admission procedures do vary between states {ABA link1, link2} but the American Bar Assoc. state on their site the LL.M is not considered a criterion for admission. I rewrote that part and made it fairly broad but'd welcome further clarifications.

I think a single article referring to the LL.B as used across common law territories (current structure) is best. Most of the article fused the application of the degree in the UK/US/etc clearly. I made a few general corrections and cleanup changes though esp. for clarity/inconsistency; plus added section headers. Also removed stub boilerplate - was this premature? Whitehorse1 23:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abbreviation

Though (to my surprise, as it goes against normal abbreviation conventions) the degree is usually abbreviated "LL.B.", it's also sometimes abbreviated "Ll.B." (see [11], [12], [13], [14], [Ll.B], etc.). I've added this to the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's perhaps superfluous to mention the "alternate" version in parentheses. The "correct" abbreviation in fact is a lower-case 'l'; however, both variants are not correct (strictly speaking). When I (re-)wrote the article I opted for using upper-case simply because that version is far more commonplace. Didacticism is well and good but so is being understood and easy on the eye ;).
If you (or anybody else) wishes to change all occurrences in the article to use a lower-case 'L' that's fine of course. I do feel, personally, that a note in parentheses explaining it frequently appears in lower-case form (especially given its bold type) just adds clutter to the article IMO. :) Whitehorse1 05:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone ever alternates the two... I don't really understand your objection, though; there are two usages, so the article uses the more common but mentions the less common. That's surely Wikipedia (and general reference-work) convention. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have included the British (and British-derived) LLB. Given that LL.B is almost certainly the US version and, as the LLB isn't prominent in the US, I think it's appropriate to include LLB. Note that this is also consistent with the LLM page. --- Nicknz 03:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

My immediate last edit changed some layout elements. Since these're potentially contentious edits & some reverted edits made by a far more experienced Wikipedian than I... some explanation is probably due from me.

1. {{TOCRIGHT}} template removal. This template is - or was the topic of a heated discussion recently. In terms of this specific article I believe it doesn't fit well and skews the article into having an angular appearance. Thoughts?
   
2. noeditsection. My edit also re-inserted this. I feel more strongly bold about this issue. The article's by nature a short one. Without the supression of sectional edit links there are six edit hyperlinks on a brief page. Additionally, one section for example is just two short sentences/two lines long - having an edit link there just looks "silly". Whitehorse1 05:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

1. I've no feelings either way about the "tocright" issue.
2. I do, however, think that the edit links should be returned; I don't share your aesthetic response to them, and they can be very useful (aside from other considerations, people who use them at least have something in the edit summary, even if they don't add a proper summary). What do other editors think?
3. With regard to your other edits: Wikipedia policy is that the summary has no heading; the "LL" should be in inverted commas (to show that it's being mentioned not used), not italics (which don't really mean anything). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Becoming a lawyer

I've just moved this (after tidying and wikifying it) from the article:

"In Commonwealth countries in which where the distinction still exists between barristers and solicitors, a barrister generally takes and passes all the requirements of a solicitor, but also takes the Bar exam (so called because a barrister traditionally stood at a horizontal bar and spoke, hence "bar table", "bar jacket", etc.). In these countries, a barrister has to take various courses, and is then under a year's supervision of the "reading programme", so-called because the new barrister reads (learns) under the guidance of a more senior barrister."

Could people correct it and replace it? I know that some of it is off-target with regard to the U.K., at least, but I'd rather someone more expert made the changes. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abbreviation again

The alternative form "Ll.B." was removed from the article; I've reinstated it. For uses, see for example: "External Programme Subject Guides: Ll.B. - English Legal System", "they award Ll.B. degrees", "Mr. Kevin Sweeney, C.A., Ll.B ". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Postgraduate?

User:Mel Etitis, where is the LLB considered a postgraduate degree? I'm aware of the Bachelor of Civil Law, but that's a different degree. A graduate-entry LLB is still considered an undergraduate-level degree at all universities I'm aware of. Cheers Natgoo 20:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a quick look around. It seems that some universities in the UK erroneously use 'postgraduate' when they mean 'graduate-entry'. I don't think this terminology should be reflected in this article, as the LLB is an undergraduate-level qualification regardless of the level of prior achievement of its candidates - thoughts? Natgoo 10:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing erroneous about the standard use (in this country, at least) of "postgraduate" to mean (surprise!) "after graduating" (from another degree), or what you call "graduate entry". As calling it an undergraduate degree would be misleading to some users (those from the U.K., at least), and it would seem that calling it a postgraduate degree would be misleading to others, wouldn't it be better not to label it in the summary (or to explain its status in full)?

Do you have any idea, incidentally, why a course would demand a first degree when it was no higher than a first degree? It's not a notion with which I'm familiar, and though there's doubtless a reasonable answer, I can't think of one. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Graduate entry first degrees are offered in all sorts of disciplines - law, social work, education, physiotherapy, medicine - is this really the first time you've come across the concept? As this article states, all LLB programs in Canada are offered this way. From the Australian Qualifications Framework implementation handbook:

"the graduate entry degree, which is a minimum of two years in duration, is specifically designed on the assumption of graduate entry, sometimes in a specified discipline, often as a shorter alternative to the standard four year (or longer) degree for initial professional preparation".

The level of qualification attained is that of a first degree in that discipline, but it's an accelerated program. All of the UK 'postgraduate LLB' programs I've seen are of this style. The use of the word 'postgraduate' as an adjective indicates a level of advanced study beyond that required for a first degree - a postgraduate legal qualification is (for eg) an LLM, and a person claiming a postgrad qualification when they have an LLB would be misleading, regardless of whether or not the program required a degree for entry. LLBs are not postgraduate qualifications. Natgoo 13:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"is this really the first time you've come across the concept" Pretty well; you seem to be assuming that what happens in one country must happen in all.

"LLBs are not postgraduate qualifications." Again, you're using the term "postgraduate" in its Canadian & Australian (?) acceptation in order to make a universal generalisation — but that's the whole point: the term means different things in different places. In the U.K., an Ll.B. is a postgraduate degree because "postgraduate" means that it's taken (of necessity) after another degree. This is why I suggest that we don't use any simplifying term in the summary, but actually explain the situation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Colloquially that may be true (although I've found evidence to the contrary - a quick look at a few uni websites offering a 'postgraduate LLB' find all list an LLB as a requirement on the generic 'postgraduate entry requirements' page) but the Framework for higher education qualifications and the Higher Education Statistics Authority disagree - the graduate status of the individual is irrelevant to the degree's classification as an undergraduate-level qualification. This article is about the LLB, which is not a postgraduate-level degree - referring to postgraduate students in an LLB program may be correct, but the LLB is always an undergraduate degree, as it is the first qualification needed for practice (or the attainment of further, postgraduate qualifications). Natgoo 20:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the term "postgraduate" to refer to the LLB is confusing. In the U.S. and Canada, postgraduate degrees refer to master's and research doctorate degrees. An expression used in Canadian academic circles to describe undergraduate programs such as law, medicine, dentistry (yes, the M.D. and D.M.D. are considered undergraduate degrees in Canada), etc. that require a degree or partial study towards one are referred to as second-entry programs (rather than postgraduate programs). http://www.google.ca/search?q=second-entry+degree+law&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N

--Aquarius Rising 14:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, this misses the point of what I've been saying; I agreed that the term will be misleading to one set of readers however it's used, because it's used differently in different places — therefore we shouldn't use it (or "undergraduate"), but should explain the situation in full. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is fine as it is now - any further explanation is likely to be confusing. Natgoo 20:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English

I'm not clear why my edits making the article's English consistent were reverted. The article was in U.K. English, the only exception being "programme", which appeared in both the U.S. and U.K. spellings. Aside from the question of consistency, the article states that the Ll.B. is no longer offered in the U.S., and the majority of the article concerns the U.K. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edits were to revert from my North spelling that I inserted when adding reference to the LL.B. "program" in Canada. So I was not reverting; I was restoring status quo. Your edit was marked 'tidying'; I don't see how that includes a change in the spelling of "program" from North American (US/Canada) to British spelling. The LL.B. is still offered in Canada and I had added content regarding the LL.B. program in Canada. --Aquarius Rising 22:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: I don't understand what you mean when you say that the article is mostly concernly the U.K. - it concerns other common countries as well. I agree there is a long section on qualifying law degrees in the U.K and sections haven't yet been done for other countries, but that's just a matter of time; the qualifying degrees section should probably be carved out and put into a separate article (e.g., list of British law schools) or moved into an article concering becoming a barrister or solicitor in the U.K. --Aquarius Rising 22:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There is significant Australian content in the beginning of the article (including content about the University of Melbourne programs that I've just added). By the way, look up the link for the University of Melbourne law school website and you'll see that they spell "program" the same way as Canadians now do. --Aquarius Rising 00:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that "programme" was spelt both ways in different places, and the usage needed to be made consistent; as the rest of the article was in U.K. English, general consistency was served by making it "programme" throughout. I'm puzzled that you're so incensed about this; is there some implication that I'm missing? (Oh, and making spelling consistent is a perfect example of tidying.)

I've just checked the History, and the article was originally written in U.K. English (changes from verbal "practise" to "practice", for example, were made later, without explanation). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that Aquarius Rising has simply ignored the above, and reverted the spelling again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Aquarius Rising also spent much time yesterday expanding and improving the article, for which you acknowledge no credit to him. I note that you mention in your edit summary that you reverted from U.S. to U.K. spelling. I used Canadian spelling (which also happens to be Australian spelling, and coincidentally U.S. spelling). This article is about the LL.B. (a degree found in most common law countries and some non common law jurisdictions. No reason to favour U.K. spelling as it is just one of the common law countries. By the way, the UK-centric material was moved to Legal education in the United Kingdom which is where the preexisting UK usages mostly were. --Aquarius Rising 17:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

One expects fellow edits to improve articles; one doesn't expect them to ignore good-faith Talk page discussion and revert. Normal Australian spelling is "programme" — see, for example, Google; it's difficult to gauge the popularity of the U.S. spelling there, because of the occurrences of the computer-related term "program". Canada is also difficult, because of the French sites, but Google indicates that "programme" is pretty common there too. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, aside from our disagreement on spelling of the word in question (and I assume you're not insinuating lack of good faith on my part just because I happened to disagree with your position on that question for reasons I've explained above - I'm closing that subject for now), I have made some very good edits to the Bachelor of Laws and Juris Doctor that have expanded and improved those articles. And I did the carveout of contents and put them into new namespace Legal education in the United Kingdom which I think greatly improves the readibility of the Bachelor of Laws article. --Aquarius Rising 23:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Robertson's Bachelor of Legal Letters from Yale

How does this degree, listed in the [Pat Robertson]] article, compare to the other legal degrees discussed in this article? Edison 17:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honorary

That sentence is incorrect, some institutions award LL.D. as earned degrees:

The LL.D. is an honorary doctorate, while an S.J.D. or a D. JUR (Doctor of Jurisprudence) is an earned degree, differeing only in the institution offering the education.

[edit] Variations on the LL.B

Is anyone able to expand on this section to make it a little more useful? Perhaps another example or two would suffice. — Nicknz 21:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second-entry ≠ Graduate-entry

This discussion refers to the various edits and reversions of the second sentence of the third paragraph.

In Canada, all entry-level law degrees — whether LLB or JD — are second-entry degrees. They are referred to as second entry by virtually every law school in the country. There is a reason that institutions such as Queen’s Law, Osgoode Hall Law, Waterloo Law, Western Law, Toronto Law, etc., refer to the first professional degree that they grant as a second-entry degree and not a graduate degree:

• a prior undergraduate degree is not required (notwithstanding that the majority of students have indeed earned one) unlike the requirement for entry to graduate level programmes; and
  
• these institutions offer true graduate-entry degrees that can be obtained after the LLB/JD: These are called LLM (Masters of Law) and PHD (Doctorate)

As much as those of use who have Canadian LLBs wish that the word, bachelor, did not form part of the degree title, since that word fails to recognize the degree of study and training required, our wishes cannot change the facts: The LLB is a second-entry degree and not a graduate entry degree. The two are not the same. In fact, my own alma mater has been embroiled in a debate whether it should change its first professional degree from an LLB to a JD. However, the Dean of the school clearly understands that the University Senate and the University Secretariat clearly designate the degree not as graduate, but as second-entry. This is apparent when he says, “The Americans and Canadians, long ago we developed a very different model of legal education, one that’s a second-entry program.”^[1] [Emphasis added.]

Jwri7474 keeps changing second entry to graduate entry in the Bachelor of Laws article. He cites as his authority another wikiarticle which he created for the apparently sole purpose of boosting his claim that Canadian LLBs are graduate and not second-entry. That wikiarticle in turns cites yet another wikiarticle, of which he is a primary editor, and that is itself under dispute as to WP:NPOV and WP:CITE.

I believe his edits are incorrect. — SpikeToronto (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Second degree/Graduate Entry Whichever term you prefer to use, Australia is currently undergoing a nationwide restructuring of its law programs similar to Canada. In another 5-10 years all Australian Law schools will require a previous degree and will most likely grant the JD degree.^[2],^[3],^[4],^[5]Jwri7474 (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You are writing about Australia in a paragraph that is about Canada. Australia is not Canada. You cannot equate them as you are doing simply because you want to. In Canada, undergraduate law degrees are what they are, second-entry. Your saying they are something else does not make then so. You seem to think that you know more about Canadian law degrees than either the insitutions issuing them or the persons who have earned them. Talk about arrogance! In point form, this is what is wrong with the paragraph as you keep writing it:

• You cannot combine Australia and Canada into one paragraph as their treatment of the LLB/JD is apparenly different
  
• The stuff you are writing about Windsor’s joint programme is more appropriate in another section. I was trying to put it there — along with comments about Toronto already changing to JD and Queen’s preparing to follow suit — but your constant reversions of edits made it impossible to add!
  

• By the way, even Windsor refers to its programme as second entry.

• Canadian entry-level law degrees are clearly not graduate entry degrees; they are second-entry degrees, as clearly and officially stated by virutally every law degree-granting instution in Canada
  

• One can enter a Canadian law programme with as little as two years of undergraduate study in another area, without having completed any prior degree (which often occurs); hence, why it is a bachelors degree.
  
• A graduate law degree in Canada is called a Masters (LLM); a post-graduate law degree in Canada is called a Doctorate (PhD): One cannot call a bachelors degree a graduate degree just because it is a first-professional degree
  
• Neither a law degree-granting instution in Canada, nor a recipient of a Canadian LLB, would ever call an LLB a graduate degree
  
• Just because you say second-entry=graduate does not make it so. That fiat is not yours to issue

Let’s keep the Canadian and Australian stuff separate. For intance, you can leave the third paragraph of the article about Canada and add a paragraph about Australia wherever it would be appropriate. You write all you want about Australia’s system, and let others more familiar with Canadian law schools correct the Canadian stuff. Is that an acceptable compromise?

Finally, and as a reminder, once the discussion is started in the TalkPage — as it now has been — it is supposed to be resolved here, before further contentious editing. In fact, on this graduate versus second-entry thing, this had been resolved here earlier, back in 2006! However, instead of following the wikinorm and trying to work through the issue on the TalkPage, you are starting a revert war that could very well cause administrators to block your access on Wikipedia. You are already skating close to the three-revert rule. You ought to make no more edits until this has been resolved. — SpikeToronto (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologies for adding the Australian information in the Canadian area. That was my fault, I thought i was adding that information to the "general information" at the top of the article. Also, I was in no way meaning to come off as sounding arrogant. So, again I apologies for any misunderstanding.

Just to clearify to make sure we are on the same page, you stated,"Canadian entry-level law degrees are clearly not graduate entry degrees; they are second-entry degrees, as ....One can enter a Canadian law programme with as little as two years of undergraduate study in another area"

So, you're defining "Second-entry degree" as any program that requires "some" pre-requsite coursework at the University level for admission, and "graduate-entry degree" as any degree that requires a previous degree (at min a bachelors) for admission. This would also make the US-MD degree a second-entry degree and not a graduate-entry degree. Also, the Canadian LLB programs are 3 years in length (identical to the US JD). You already stated that Canadian LLB is a second degree meaning that "some" university education is required prior to admission. I would like to point out that at the Australian Universities that do still offer the LLB degree, these programs are 3-years in lenth as well if you've already obtained a previous degree and are thus applying through the graduate-entry admission route. However, if admitted into the LLB program directly, they usually require (at min) 4-5 years of study because of the addition of "some" university education prior to the standard 3-year curriculum that all (graduate entry or direct entry/combined law) must complete.^[6],^[7],^[8]Jwri7474 thus technically falling under either the second-entry degree or graduate-entry degree definitions.(talk) 09:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Jwri7474, I cannot really discuss the Australian situation since I know nothing about it. Therefore, what comes next is for general application to North America only. For the most part, in North America, first professional degrees divide into two groups: (1) first-entry undergraduate degrees, and (2) second-entry undergraduate degrees. First-entry undergraduate degrees are called “first-entry” because one can usually directly enter into them straight from secondary school (hence, why they are sometimes called “direct-entry” programs). Examples of these are chiropractic (D.C.; D.C.M.), pharmacy (Pharm. D.), dentistry (D.D.S.). However, one should note that some institutions have some of these as second-entry undergraduate degrees (e.g., dentistry (D.D.S.)). Second-entry undergraduate degrees are those that require the applicant to have already been attending a first-entry, undergraduate degree in another discipline, not necessarily professional (e.g., BA politics; BSc biology), and to have completed at least two years of that program (i.e., to already be in your third or fourth year prior to application to the second-entry undergraduate program), if not requiring acutal completion of a first-entry undergraduate degree; hence, why they are called second-entry undergraduate. Because of fierce competition for positions in second-entry undergraduate degree programs, in practice, most students are not actually accepted until they have completed the first-entry undergraduate degree. The level of admissions competition explains why some law schools, for instance, have more students who were accepted without having completed their first-entry undergraduate degrees than other law schools that have virtually all entering students having completed their first-entry undergraduate degrees. One of the reasons the United States moved from a second-entry undergraduate LLB to a second-entry undergraduate JD was to draw a distinction between those common-law jurisdictions that had first-entry undergraduate LLB programs (e.g., the United Kingdom) and its jurisdiction which had long before left first-entry undergraduate law programs behind. Similarly, some Canadian law schools are considering the same migration from second-entry undergraduate LLBs to second-entry undergraduate JDs since, in that country, there are no more first-entry undergraduate common-law programs. The University of Toronto has already completed this process. This is also the justification that the dean at the Queen’s Law School is using to justify his recommendation that Queen’s follow the UofT’s lead.

Another reason why North American law schools do not refer to their second-entry undergradaute degree programs (LLB/JD) as “graduate” is to distinguish them from the actual graduate degrees which almost all of them offer: the Masters of Law (LLM). (Of course, many also offer post-graduate law degrees, doctorates (i.e., PhD or D.Phil).) I notice that, in your example,^[9] since the University of New South Wales has bumped its LLB up to a “graduate” degree, it had to take the additionally odd step of bumping its Masters of Law (LLM) up to a post-graduate degree! Does that make their subsequent law doctorate the only post-doctoral law degree on the planet? What the heck is all that in aid of?! It seems to me to just be muddling up something that before was crystal clear to everyone in the profession. Moreover, why didn’t they just follow the lead of other Australian schools and switch their second-entry LLB to a JD and thus distinguish it from a direct-entry or first-entry LLBs?

In any event, this is what I prospose we do here:

• I would like to restore the third paragraph in the introduction to just being about Canada
  
• You might want to consider inserting the following about Australia:
  

• A paragraph of general introduction after that third paragraph
  
• Add a new section after Bangladesh to discuss the Australian LLB, between what is now headings 3 (Bangladesh) and 4 (Becoming a lawyer)
  
• Add a new section between 5.4 (Pakistan) and 5.5 (Variations) to discuss the Australian JD
  

• I would like to restore the Canadian LLB to being second-entry in the third paragraph in the introduction to the article
  
• I would like to move the bit about the University of Windsor (and correct it) to section 5.1, or create a new section there, as well as edit out the line of advertising copy that reads, “which will allow them greater employment opportunities worldwide.”
  
• In that same section, I would like to add how migration to a second-entry undergradaute JD from a second-entry undergradaute LLB is underway in Canada with specific reference to the University of Toronto and Queen’s University.
  

Would this resolution of our differences be acceptable to you? I hope so! — SpikeToronto (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks spiketoronto.. that sounds like a good plan. Again, I'm sorry for the confusion and I'm really unable to comment or explain the motivation behind the nomenclature of the programs in Australia. I'm simply just trying to share with everyone the current situation in this region. Thanks agin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwri7474 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Jwri7474, I have made the changes outlined above via-à-vis Canada. You can insert stuff about Australia anytime now. It should be very interesting! What I’ve learned about Australian first law degrees from you so far is interesting … confusing, but interesting. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

1) As far as the legal profession is concerned, traditionally speaking of course, whether one obtains an LLB or a JD, these are both considered "undegraduate" law degrees, as the LLM, BCL(Oxford), the JSD or SJD, the PhD in Law, and LLD (an earned degree usually called a "higher doctorate" in the UK and Europe, as the holder must already possess a PhD or another doctorate degree, and is awarded upon an extensive, well- recognised publishing record), are considered "graduate" law degrees. 2) As for the Graduate Entry LLB, the MAIN requirement or prerequisite, of the Graduate Entry LLB ("all over the UK",and not only in Scotland, as this article indicates) is another undergraduate or graduate degree and not necessary in law. Hence, "graduate- entry." It can usually be earned in 2-3 years of law study in a Law School, or Law Faculty. I personally know, as I earned all of the above degrees from both UK and US Universities. I have taught Law School both in the UK and the US, and I have never heard so much mis- information in about the study of law, as in these articles/ pages... Moreover, any of the LLB's at my UK Law School, did not required the study of philosophy or history, as the Wakipedia JD degree article misleadingly indicates. <--autosigned by TempleBarrister-->

[edit] Plural

Why does the degree use the plural form (legum – of laws)? Civil law and common law? Civil law and canon law? Does anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.112.139 (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

well I believe that this is because of the difference in the various Schools of thoughts on the nature and classification of Law. While some jurists believe that law is a system of its own and therefore the term law according to them refers to an entire disciple which as various branches and sub-sets, like the law of contracts, criminal law, corporate law etc. Therefore this School of thought considers law as singular and thus refers to law. On the other side a second school of though exists with the foundation that law essentially is a conglomeration of various specialized disciplines and when these taken together, it refers to them as laws. The reason for this plural reference of law is their analysis that various branches of law (as we know them now) never had a common origin but instead these developed in different settings and contexts like for example commercial law developed from the practices of the merchants and traders and the generally accorded rules between their dealings later took shape into concrete non-derogable rules which led them to be regarded as law. Therefore this school seeks to define law in the plural format, referring to the various non-similar branches of law bunched together. This distinction between law and laws has faded in the last few centuries with most jurists now referring to law in the plural format. This is also reflected in the degrees that are conferred by law schools these days. Like LL.B., which refers to the "Bachelor of Laws" (the alphabet 'L' being used twice to imply pluarity of law). However the reference to singular form of law still exists in various parts of the world. For example in South India various law schools still grant the degree of B.L. which refers to "Bachelor of Law". Tarun2k (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)