Talk:First professional degree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Professional doctorates

The June 22 2007 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education has a great article on the rise of professional doctorates from professional M.S. degrees in the U.S. (e.g., physical and occupational therapy), and concerns related to them. JJL 02:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MBA as a Professional Degree

An MBA is NOT an advanced professional degree. It is arguably not a professional degree at all. Professional degrees are typically necessary for the practice of a particular profession. General business is not a "profession," and an MBA confers no specific privilege. At the very least, at two years with no prior topical education necessary, it is not "advanced," in the context of professional degrees.

I'm not sure why you say so. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and citations

I edited out a lot of POV content regarding the comparability of a MD, DDS or JD in the US to a similar professional degree outside the US. One sentence I removed stated that a MD, DDS and JD are actually professional undergraduate degrees. This statement was followed by a citation that did not support that POV, which is an additional issue. The justification for this article is further questionable, as there is evidence that it's a POV branch of the professional degree article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Opps, I meant that I think it's a POV fork. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Professional and academic degree

As explained in my edit, professional degrees and academic degrees are mutually exclusive categories. Why then retain the definition of a professional degree as an academic degree? Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well...at the first instance, a professional degree is a college degree, hence a degree from an academy, hence an academic degree (vice a Fahrenheit degree or the third degree or some other use of the term 'degree'). Within college degrees, some are considered truly academic while otehrs are considered professional. So, I made a dierct link to academic degrees but what I really wanted was an indication that a prof. degree is a type of college degree, not a Masonic degree or sonme such. I wanted a clear defn. in the first sentence (not that I really think it'll be confused with any of the above, frankly). Let me try a change. JJL (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Good change. Thanks. But I think that in this instance, specificity is key, because there is an important difference in a professional degree (e.g. bachelor in accounting or engineering) and an academic one (e.g. bachelor in sociology). For many readers, the terms "academic" and "research" are interchangable. Therefore, I think that linking to "academic degree" is still not ideal. We could remove the link altogether, as it is not necessary, and add a link to the "academic degree" article as a related article at the end of this article, if it's not already there. Confirm? Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that 'academic' is being used in both a general and a specific sense here and that's a bit confusing given the specific subject of this article. To me the main thing is that the first sentence should say something like "A first professional degree is a type of university degree that..." in order to clearly define the term. Right now Academic degree uses the term in the broad sense, and I don't think that's inappropriate (at least not w.r.t. the U.S.). Indeed, in Academic degree the first sentence says "A degree is..." so perhaps it should be moved to University degree and the redirects switched. But frankly it's fine by me as is. A (first) prof. degree is a type of academic degree; regrettably, the language has evolved so that it's a professional academic degree ratehr than an academic academic degree. JJL (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] J.D. and LL.B. comparison

Please see talk page of J.D. for information on the difference between LL.B. and J.D. Citations should be added to POV that LL.B. = J.D. in every respect. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In the US the terminal degree in Law would the the Doctor of Judicial Science, not the JD or LLB - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_degree Jwri7474 (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting issue. I have not found any sources that say one way or the other. There is evidence that the J.D. is considered a terminal degree by some in that the highest degree of the president of Columbia University (Lee Bollinger) is a J.D. (a terminal degree is required to be a university president). The wiki article you cite is not really correct. The JD and DJS are very different and cannot be compared because a JD is a professional program and the DJS is an academic program. The terminal professional degree for law in the US is the JD, but the terminal academic degree is the DJS or PhD in law. See [this document] (at page 9) that defines Professional Doctorate, and [this document] (at page 8) that talks about how a professional and academic (or research) degree are different and one can't be seen as superior than the other. Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that the Terminal degree is the same thing as the first degree (only one degree you can earn in the field of law)? What about an LLM? (the JD is below the LLM) I understand what you're saying, however the LLM is a "professional law degree" (not to mention the DJS) and is above the JD, meaning the JD is not a terminal degree in the subject of Law. Where did get the information that you "must have a terminal degree to be a president"? Also, just because the president at one particular university claims his JD is a terminal degree, doesn't mean that the JD in general world wide now becomes a terminal degree. Jwri7474 (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide citations for your claims. It saves time.
The LLM is not higher than the JD because the LLM is also a research or academic degree, and the J.D. is a professional degree. You can easily say, however, that the LLM is lower than the PhD or DJS because they are both research degrees.
For example, the LLM programs at the University of Washington school of law are under the category of "academic programs". Also, if you choose the "online application" link for those LLM programs (such as this one it directs you to the application process through the graduate school. For their Asian Law program, their website states that admission must be through the graduate school as well as the Asian Law Center.
I cannot find anything anywhere that says the LLM is a professional degree, because it is not. There has been talk in some schools of making a professional LLM, such as in taxation, but this has not yet happened. Traditionally, the LLM has been seen as a route to becoming a law professor, and not a better attorney. You will notice that the sources I cited previously do not list the LLM as among the professional degrees. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You have not provided any support for the claim that the DJS is a professional degree.
My example of Lee Bollinger is not an isolated incident. He was also the president of the University of Michigan. The president of Harvard University, Derek Curtis Bok also had a J.D. as his highest degree. This document, in the third full paragraph on page two, is an example of the traditional university policy that a university president must have "a Ph.D. or someting equivalent," i.e. a terminal degree.
This job listing for a professor states that the professor should have "A terminal degree in management (PhD, DBA) or law (JD)" (see the fourth add from the bottom, entitled "Division of Business, Economics and Communication"). That is an example of a university that believes that the J.D. is a terminal degree.
I don't believe it is useful to consider a professional degree as a terminal degree, because the principle concern of a professional degree is entering a profession, not obtaining academic distinction. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The LLM is a Professional degree in Law as well as an "academic degree", I think we are getting mixed up in the language here. Most people enter a LLM degree after obtaining their JD degree as a way to "specialise" in particular field of law. Both the (JD and LLB) are equal basic entry level law degrees and are not "terminal" (or said another way the "highest level") degree you can earn in the field of law. In your last sentence it seems you agree with me on this point when you said, "I don't believe it is useful to consider a professional degree as a terminal degree".

Again, just because a couple of presidents of universities have JD degrees, does not de facto make them terminal degrees in the field of law, simply that the universities find it an attractive qualification to have for those applying for the position. A JD/LLB is not equal to a PhD. The US board of education states this, when they said professional doctorates are not true doctorates equivalent to a PhD. This statement "is" cited if you will review the article. Jwri7474 (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I provided some evidence that the requirement for being a university president is a terminal degree, and I provided examples of university presidents with a J.D. degree. It does take an exercise of logic to connect the two, but it is one of the most simple type. The source I provided does not state that a terminal degree is "an attractive qualification to have," but a requirement.
I agree with you that neither a JD nor a LLB is equal to a PhD. A research degree and a professional degree are very different. In saying, "A JD/LLB is not equal to a PhD," are you saying that a JD and LLB are equivalent? This is problematic, as a JD is a graduate degree (see this website, and this one), and the JD is a professional degree (see citation above). A LLB is neither a graduate program nor a doctorate (obviously). You'll have to verify your claim that an LLB is equivalent.
The citation I found in the article is this http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-professional-studies.html , is that what you are talking about?
That article states that, "first-professional degrees in these fields are first degrees, not graduate research degrees. Several of the degree titles in this group of subjects (see Degrees Awarded below) incorporate the term "Doctor," but they are not research doctorates and not equivalent to the Ph.D." It does not say in this article that professional doctorates are not true doctorates. It does say that there is a difference between research doctorates and professional doctorates. You can't put two items from different categories into a hierarchy. This article at page 8 verifies that there is such a thing as a professional doctorate, that it is different than a research doctorate, and comparing it to a research doctorate is not valid.
You have still not responded to the request for a citation that a DJS is a professional degree.
But returning to where we started, neither the DJS nor the LLM is a terminal professional degree, but the DJS is a terminal research degree. You made that claim in response to my request for support of the argument that the J.D. = LL.B. If you have responded to my prompt, I didn't understand it. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Graduate" LLB program is 3 years long and requires a previous bachelors for admission Yale Law school also offered LLB degrees up until the mid 70s when they changed to the JD degree. But guess what... regardless if you gradated in 1972 with an LLB (Yale) or in 1978 with a JD (Yale), you are still an equivalent lawyer.[1] or [2] Jwri7474 (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This program actually offers both for the same course(JD and LLB) [3]Jwri7474 (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Professional bachelors equal to North American doctorate

The example I gave is true: in medicine if you graduate with a "bachelor of medicine" and then become licensed to practice medicine in the US, every US state board of medicine allows you to use the title "MD" if you so wish to help reduce confusion. You are granted the exact same license and priviledges as any US-MD graduate.

The Bachelor of Medicine and the Doctor of Medicine degrees are truely equivalent qualifiations. The state boards of medicine in the United States state this. This also goes for the Bachelor of Dentistry and the Doctor of Dental Surgery or Dental Medicine, etc. Jwri7474 (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand why you would say so. On a professional level, both the MD and the MB could be considered equivalent in that they are both first professional degrees.
However, on an academic level they are not because the MD is a graduate degree, and the MB is an undergraduate degree. The MD requires a lot of science courses at the undergraduate level as a prerequisite, not to mention the liberal education required by the first degree. The MD also receives more practical training. In speaking to UK MB graduates who went to the States, it was not their opinion that the experiences are equivalent.
I would be interested to see the State Board statement. It would be useful for this article as well. There are so few citations in this article, which I've been trying to remedy.
Your editing removed some information regarding the law degree, I think. I will try and go back and find a way to preserve both your content as well as mine. Luckily with the history it's easy to fix things. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Who's opinion are you basing this information on that MBBS students recieved less training? Please show your sources. I'm not sure if you are aware, but there are 6 year MD programs for students out of High school in the US. Many Australian Universities have 7-8 year long combined BSc/MBBS programs for students out of High school too. Also, there are many MBBS programs in Australia or the UK that are "graduate-entry" meaning they are 4 year long and REQUIRE a previous bachelors for admission, and have the same curriculum as a US MD program. By the way.. "technically" speaking, the MD is also an "undergraduate medical degree" in North America as well. -> Example ... Wisconsin University MD program "considers applications from people without previous bachelors degrees". So it is not a hard and fast rule.

They are 100% equivalent medical degrees.

PHY-993 Use of the M. D. Title: The Wisconsin Medical Society: 1) defends the use of the M.D. title by physicians who graduated with an M.B.B.S. and are licensed to practice medicine in Wisconsin; and, 2) believes in clarifying Wisconsin statute so that International Medical Graduates licensed to practice as medical doctors can use the title M.D. (HOD,0495)[4] Jwri7474 (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

An undergraduate degree is also unnecessary for a DD.S. However, both the M.D. and DD.S. are graduate and doctorate degrees. Yes, professionally there is equivalency, but an graduate degree is not an undergraduate degree.
I have to duck out of researching whether a medical degree outside of the US has less practical training than in the US, I simply don't have the time. Sorry.
You're right, I didn't cite sources for saying that I thought that the MD required more practical training, but I didn't put that in the article. I've looked at your sources, and what they don't say is that the MD in the United States is an undergraduate degree, as you claim. I don't see sources that say that a MBBS is a doctorate either. I find it so odd that McMaster grants an undergraduate M.D. As far as I know, it's an extremely unusual practice. Don't they know what the D stands for? It would be interesting to know the history of establishing that degree. There are many sources that say that the M.D. is a professional doctorate, such as this one. It's simply common knowledge. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The MBBS is not a doctorate, I never said it was.. but then again neither is the MD. (not a true doctorate like a PhD)[5] The MBBS and MD are equivalent degrees in Medicine. I cited a source where the Wisconsin Medical Soceity states not only that they are equal, but also.. that when MBBS grads obtain their license to work in the US they are allowed to even use the "MD" title. It is possible for a professional program (MD, MBBS, DDS, etc) to be "undergraduate" and still be "graduate entry".. meaning requiring or prefering to admit students who already have a previous bachelors degree.

Here are more examples of medical programs:

Canadian: undergraduate MD undergraduate MD undergraduate MD

US: undergraduate MD undergraduate MD undergraduate MD undergraduate MD

Australia: MBBS program requires previous bachelors MBBS program requires previous bachelors MBBS program requires previous bachelors

Israel: undergraduate MD

All these medical programs regardless of what they call their degree or what they require for admissions are equal degrees in the field of Medicine. They teach the exact same things at the exact same level. Jwri7474 (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

Please remember the wikipedia fundamental that every article must contain "verifiable" back-up for claims made in the article (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). This article will soon be revised according to this rule. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

First the MD does not allow one to become licensed to practice medicine. One must alsoFurrball2 (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC) pass the United States Medical Licensing Exam Steps I through III and complete one year of post-graduate training -- internship. The primary care specialties; Family Practice, Emergency Medicine, Internal Medicine, Pediatrics; require three years of post-graduate training -- with research minimal requirements -- and one must sit for the board exam of their specific specialty.

Second, the MD degree does qualify an individual -- in the United States -- to run a research lab, apply for NIH and NSF grants, to be a department chair in a basic sciences department, to become a university president, and yes to train graduate students working towards their PhDs and master's degrees. Having earned both MS and MD degrees, I am well aware of the differences between the MD and PhD, but I am also well aware of how little that really means when it comes to tenure and grant money. Frequently it is much easier for the MD to get both.

[edit] Credential inflation citation

This citation has been removed because it is POV that contradicts other more credible sources. Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That information is very relevant. A good source on aspects of it is given here: Talk:First_professional_degree#Professional_doctorates. JJL (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the concern with credential inflation is relevant, however the source is not a good one. There are other sources that discuss credential inflation in a more objective manner. This article from the same field of study discusses this issue (I've already used that citation, but I don't have time to find another). Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sources for new edits

I have removed POV content that is not verifiable and will continue to revise. Here are some sources which contradict the old content.

The J.D. is a graduate degree

UC Berkeley general catalog lists the graduate degrees offered at Berkeley. The list includes the J.D. and states that "The J.D. (Juris Doctor) is the basic law degree. It is a graduate degree." [6]

The USC catalog includes the J.D. under its list of graduate degrees [7]

University of Melbourne JD degree site, states that the JD is "a fully graduate law degree" [8]


A J.D. is a professional doctorate

Association of American Universities Data Exchange, Glossary of Terms for Graduate Education, page 9.

Time to Degree of U.S. Research Doctorate Recipients, NSF 06-312, March 2006. Under "Data notes" mentions that the J.D. is a professional doctorate.

[9] under “other references” and differences between academic and professional doctorate, and statement that the J.D. is a professional doctorate

[10] The J.D. degree is listed under doctorate degrees.


The J.D. is distinguished from a research doctorate as a professional degree, and is also classified by some as a first professional degree.

There is such a thing as a professional doctorate, it is different than a research doctorate, and comparing it to a research doctorate is not valid. Task Force on the Professional Doctorate, Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (June 2006), page 8

Department of Education article about first professional degrees [11]

Definition of a research doctorate, as opposed to a professional doctorate, such as a M.D., DD.S., etc.: "A research doctorate is any doctoral degree that (1) requires the completion of a dissertation or equivalent project of original work ( e.g., musical composition) and (2) is not exclusively intended as a degree for the practice of a profession." Lori Thurgood, et al., U.S. Doctorates in the 20th Century, National Science Foundation, June 2006 (117).


Creation of the J.D.

James Parker Hall, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Dec., 1907), pp. 112-117. Commentary by James Parker Hall of University of Chicago (who was the dean when the UofCh was the first law school to offer a J.D. exclusively) on the process of creating the J.D. degree, and extant degrees at the time (1907). The J.D. was established as the equivalent of the J.U.D. in Germany to reflect the advanced study required to be an effective lawyer. It was not a conversion of the LL.B. degree, but a graduate degree to be distinguished from undergraduate programs. The J.D. was established by the faculty of law at Harvard for this purpose, and while it was pending the approval of the administration, the degree was introduced at all the best law schools in the nations, such as Stanford, Pennsylvania, and Berkeley. Subsequently, other law schools tried to also implement the degree in order to boost the prestige of their universities, but the programs did not meet the rigorous standards of those at the better law schools.

Albert James Harno. Legal Education in the United States. Lawbook Exchange, NJ 2004. Historically legal education in the United States has taken inspiration from the approach suggested by the famous Judge Blackstone of England. This approach emphasized the importance in legal training of a foundation of broad liberal education in history and philosophy. Legal skills would later be learned in an apprenticeship. However, most law schools in the 19th century did not require any post-secondary education before pursuing legal studies. As a result, these undergraduate programs mixed much theoretical study with their curriculum (16). However, Professor Langdell at Harvard took upon himself the calling of improving legal education in the United States, and proposed that students should start the study of law as a graduate degree. This would allow students to dedicate intensive study of the logic and application of the law through his case and socratic methods. Therefore, a graduate law degree was established, the Juris Doctor, using the case and socratic methods as its didactic approach (50).

Schoenfeld, Marcus. 1963. "J.D. or LL.B as the Basic Law Degree," Cleveland-Marshall Law Review. Vol. 4. 573-579.) quoted in Joanna Lombard. LL.B. to J.D. and the Professional Degree in Architecture. Proceedings of the 85th ACSA Annual Meeting, Architecture: Material and Imagined and Technology Conference, 1997. pp. 585-591. Marcus Schoenfeld, a law professor in the 1960’s, studied the history of the creation of the Juris Doctor, and compared this degree to that of the LL.B. and other graduate degrees, such as a masters degree. He concluded that “the first degree in law should be a Doctorate simply because the very high level of achievement over three years is not sufficiently rewarded by a Mastership” (579). This is evidence that the J.D. has met the goals of Professor Langdell in his establishment of a rigorous graduate law degree.

Also see the citations in the section of this talk page "J.D. and LL.B. comparison." Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] changing of name from MB or LLB to MD or JD

There are no citations for the POV that the creation of the MD and JD degree (indeed, all professional doctorates) was from a mere changing of the name of their undergraduate counterparts. There are able sources, some of which have been cited recently, which clearly explain that the creation of professional doctorates was a complete divergence from the previous didactical system from which the undergraduate degrees arose. As the citations state, there was a concern for the quality of the education of these professionals, and therefore a more rigorous and concentrated program was created (for example). Also as these citations state, the undergraduate programs contained a lot of theory and philosophy, or liberal arts (such as here). Therefore, by requiring an undergraduate degree for these new intense professional programs, the full time of the student could be spent in acquiring professional skills. Assuming that academics in the United States were simple minded enough to merely change the name of their degrees and fabricate a "doctorate" is really biased and has no support. There are fundamental differences between the undergraduate and graduate professional degrees (such as the LLB and JD). The citations for this are plentiful, but for now just one or two will do, because no citations for the alternative POV have been offered. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually many articles have been written about how Canada is now changing their LLB programs to JD mainly because Canadian graduates are working in the US and being offered less money than someone with a JD simply because of the title of the degree even though both programs (Canadian LLB and US JD) require a previous bachelors for admission and have almost identical curriculum. Not to mention that Universities can CHARGE MORE for a degree that is titled a doctorate than a bachelors. America is the world's center of capatalism (ie. when in doubt.. follow for the money trail for your motivation).[12],[13],[14]. This is the same reasoning that has been implicated in the change from the once American BSPT (bachelor of Physical therapy) to then a MSPT and finally now the DPT. Are the DPT graduates REALLY that better trained and is the program THAT much harder? Or.. do you think that professional politics and money are the real reason for the change. Obviously the universities can charge more for the DPT than the BSPT or MSPT degree. Also, with many chiropractors trying to market themselves as "sports medicine" specialists and fringing on the border of practicing Physical therapy. The PTs now want fight back. So they now prefer to ALSO have a "doctorate" and be called Dr. too.. in the hopes of being able to practice without MD referrals and able to fight off the DC (chiros) and also make more money along the way. ... and of course, who doesn't prefer to be called "doctor".  :) Jwri7474 (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a question. How do you explain the medical, dental, law, etc programs in Canada and Australia that REQUIRE a previous bachelors degree (exactly like the MD, DDS, and JD and have identical curriculums), but continue to call them "bachelors"?

First professional degrees are just that. The "first" degree you can obtain in a particular subject. They are "entry level" courses (this includes the MD and DDS) and should technically by definition be a "bachelor".[15]. Just because you have a previous degree in "biology or chemistry" doesn't mean you have already have a basic education in "medicine or dentistry" as these are technically different fields of study in different university faculties. When you enter into studying the entry-level, basic dental or basic medical degree (BDS, MBBS, MD, DDS, etc) you study this for the very first time. By the way.. they changed to the MD and DDS titles in the United States way before the requirement for a previous degree anyways. People were graduating from dental school with a DDS degree in the late 1800s and early 1900s in the USA after only 2-3 years of study out of High School.[16] So, I hightly doubt that the reason was because the American programs were that much more challenging or taught at a higher level than the British programs. The English and commonwealth universities have simply chosen to retain the more traditional bachelor title for first professional degrees.[17] Remember America fought for independance from England and their system, so finally.. the US may change also just to be different. :) Jwri7474 (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, even the JDs in Canada will continue to require a traineeship before becoming fully qualified as an attorney, which is not required in the US. Because JDs in the US are different in their curriculum and their focus than those first degrees in Canada, so there is no traineeship or apprenticeship requirement in the US for becoming fully licensed. First degrees in law outside of the US includes a great deal of study of the theory of law, which is not addressed in the US programs. You can see from the articles I sighted, one of which was written in 1907 by one of the individuals who helped create the JD degree, that the goal of the creators was to make a program which was much more challenging than what was previously offered. Feel free to read that article--it is interesting. I wonder what you think about the fact that even though a JD has been required to be an attorney in the US for many years, and yet US attorneys do not wish to use the title of Dr. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that is interesting. To some extint however, law by nature is different from country to country as laws and the legal systems are different. This doesn't really apply to all professions. (ie. you can't say that just because medical education in Germany, US, and Italy grant the doctor of medicine degree... medicine is taught at a higher level or that it is more challenging than medical schools in England and Australia because they grant the bachelor of medicine degree). But in regards to law, maybe.. It would be nice to have some input from someone who is currently enrolled in either a Canadian or Australian law program though. Jwri7474 (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One would have to find someone who has attended or has personal knowledge of both the Australian system and the US system. One can compare the course lists found on the websites of the Canadian and Australian law schools and those of the US schools. You will notice that it is rare to find Canadian and Australian schools with many clinics, while most US schools have numerous each. You also won't see many contract drafting, trial advocacy or client communication seminars in Australian or Canadian schools. Their system is different, as described in one of the articles I cited: they emphasise theory and liberal education, while US schools assume that knowledge from the BA and concentrate on professional skills. I have spoken with UK and Australian medical graduates, and they do generally believe that the US programs are more rigorous. The same comparisons of curriculum could be done. However, it should also be kept in mind that as a young student spends more time in university, that student's faculties and capacities grow at a fast rate. Therefore, students who have spent more time in university might be more capable of more intense studies than those younger ones. This is reason for the general requirement of most medical programs in the US that the student already have a first degree. I don't understand how one could say that students who have spent seven to eight years in school have the same educational level as others who have only spent three to five years in school. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it would be nice to have someone who has experienced the legal system in both countries to comment on this article. Regarding the medical programs. Again, the Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery MBBS program at the Australian programs I cited earlier are 4 year programs which require graduates to already have a bachelors degree. So, Yes.. they would have been in University for 7-8 years. University of Sydney does have an accelerated option also (7-years total)[18] of combining a Bachelor of Science with a MBBS med degree. Doctors in both countries regardless need to know the same material and be able to treat patients the same. Again... the legal system is different. apples and oranges.. can't really compare the two.Jwri7474 (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-reqs for first professional degrees?

Out of curiosity, I thought that pre-reqs were required (i.e. a prior period of university/academic study, even a full degree) to be admitted into first professional degree programs. For example, one can't just "jump into" veterinary medicine, first you have to obtain a BSc and then apply. It seems like our list here as some stuff which appears to be the first and ONLY degree required to obtain a 'designation' or licensing. Does anyone know the bottom line? CorticoSpinal 208.101.118.196 (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MEng in the US and the UK

The article should note that, while the MENg is normally a graduate professional master's degree in the US, it is nonetheless a first undergraduate professional degree in the UK that has largely replaced the older BEng degree in most top universities. A graduate master's degree in engineering in the UK is normally called an MSc or an MPhil, while the research doctoral degree is called a PhD (like in the US) or, more rarely, a DPhil. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)