Talk:Juris Doctor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Juris Doctor is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page.

Reviewers: To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.)

Date: 11:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
⚖
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.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
High This article has been assessed as high-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.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] New article proposal

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

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

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

When do we change to the new article? The current one is a complete mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Trying to draft a new section. See "debate" on discussion page of proposed article. Without new section on "debate" problems may arise. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of previous discussion

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

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

[edit] Juris Doctor(ate)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The dispute tag is inappropriate because your comments are already represented in the article ("debate" section at end), and because you offer no source which directly contradicts the content of the article.
It is clear that you have not studied the article in its entirety and are kind of just throwing out comments from your armchair without really researching the matter. I do wish you would read the article closely, but as a starter, I think you would find this source particularly insightful: Hall, James Parker, [American Law School Degrees], Michigan Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Dec., 1907), pp. 112-117. Particularly page 2 (pg. 114). It is cited in the wiki article. It was written by one of the creators of the J.D. around the time of its implementation.
Other references used in this wiki article include peer reviewed scholarly works published by prestigious universities such as Oxford (a U.K. university of course), and written by some of the very individuals who played a hand in developing the degree, who are world reknown scholars of law.
There are no authoritative references which support your point of view, and all of the best references directly contradict it. Googling on the internet is no substitute for research in the library--I encourage you to do so.
I'm not sure which references you are discussing when you state: 1st, 2nd, etc. Based on the context of your comments, I've guessed.
First reference: does not cite answers.com as authority, but merely for more information. Other definitions do not use any authority. The Association of American Universities Data Exchange is an authoritative source in and of itself.
Second reference: don't know to what website you are referring. But if it is the U of Melbourne, USC, Berkeley or the National Science Foundation (the only other citations in that range), I'd love to see their reply to you, if they reply at all--I'm sure it would be entertaining.
Third reference: Whose bar association? It is merely representative of an opinion expressed by other bar associations in the U.S., after research by that entity. Even though they are a professional organization and might represent a vested interest, their official opinion is not irrelevant and represents common knowledge in the profession.
Fourth reference: Again it is unclear to what website you are referring, but I hope you'll share their response (see note to second reference in this comment).
Fifth reference: The german article is the result of research and cites authoritative sources published in the U.S. One of the reasons imperfect sources such as this have been used is because they are one of the few that can be viewed on the internet. It is useful because it cites to other useful sources. Ignorance of German is no excuse (no offense intended in the tone, just a play on a common latin phrase).
Sixth reference: Again, imperfect sources were sometimes used because of their availability on the internet. I'd like to learn more from you about the M.D. not being a requirement to practice medicine.
I'm not sure if you are familiar with the discussion in the archives, which thoroughly discuss all the points you have raised here. An attempt to represent all of those arguments (plus others made in other fora) was made in including the section of this article titled "Debate about Academic Status." Please explain why this is not sufficient.
Examples of a professional doctorates offering degrees after the doctorate include the D.D.S. and the M.D. Again, this has already been discussed, with citations to sources, in previous discussions (see the archives).
Arguably, it is possible to pursue a doctorate in almost any field without a certain undergraduate major--it is the discretion of the department to admit such students. Some common examples include: history, political science, sociology, etc.
The J.D. is in fact a unique degree that was carefully engineered to fit the needs of the field. Comparing degrees across disciplines is problematic and not useful. There are some graduate degrees that do not require four years. Please see the archives for discussion.
The term "graduate entry" is not a universally understood term and it is not used in U.S. institutions.
Your citations (in order):
Georgetown: why did you cite this? Relevant content is not apperant.
Kinsella: Just the unsupported opinion of one attorney. But if we examine it, we note the following: the principle problem with "juris doctorate" is that it's grammatically incorrect. This lawyer is, as he admits in the last sentence of his entry, ignorant of the history of the J.D., and his comments contradict sources cited in this wikipedia article (see article). This opinion is represented and discussed in the "debate" section of this wiki article.
LSU: great use of archive.org. Not sure why you've cited it, however.
dictionary.com: not an authoritative source, and it's wrong. No edition of webster's has such a definition. However, if Webster's did state this, it is understandable, given the history of the LL.B. and the J.D. in the U.S. (see "creation" and "debate" sections of the wiki article).
Legaltutors.com: not an authoritative source, and contradicts authoritative citations in the wiki article. There are no academic or historical sources which support the claims made re: J.D. compared to LL.B. It's citation of the dictionary is not a direct quote and misleading. It's even wrong about the LL.B. "[meeting] the legal education requirements," as in nearly every country that has the LL.B. (particularly the U.K.) additional classroom education, and often a pupillage, are required before becoming licensed. This is unlike the J.D., and the reasons can be understood by reading the sources cited in this wiki article.
Wake Forest: An obscure school. It does state that the degree in the U.S. changed from the LL.B. to the J.D., however it does not provide the historical context of this change, which has been beautifully summarized for you in this wiki article (complete with sources, which I encourage you to study).
RMIT: School of Accounting AND Law?! (snicker snicker) Ok... Yes, this does represent the policy in Australia, which is discussed in the wiki article already. But thanks for this cite--I will add it to the article among the others.
Indiana: Not sure why you cited. Yes, the article is full of such discussion already.
Missouri: Ok, same as others above. Also note that it states that the J.D. implements skills based courses--a characteristic traditionally unique to the J.D., but slowly being implemented in other law degrees in other jurisdictions. Please read the wiki article for more about this.
Wayne: ditto from above.
Bond: I believe this is already in the article. See comment to RMIT above.
Monash: ditto from above. and, just what the hell is a Master of Laws (Juris Doctor) anyways?! Those silly aussies :P
Thanks for your input, and for the RMIT citation. We look forward to your contributions to this article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LL.M.

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

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

[edit] new content/organization introduced May 3

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


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

[edit] Academic Inflation?

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

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

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

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

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

Did you see the treatment of this in the "debate" section at the end of the article? Feel free to add to that, if you wish. I think that if US attorneys with a JD referred to themselves as "Dr." that would make the case, but luckily such professionals have more social sense than to engage in such behavior... after all, if a shark isn't at least a little subtle, it will never eat. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
One point to consider is that while in other fields it is the scholars and such that are at the forefront as far as producing content, authority in law is largely based around the courts. In a rather simplistic example, a scholar in a science field can sometimes be viewed as an ultimate authority on a subject, but a legal scholar rarely (if ever) gets this distinction as their opinions on the matter are largely just interesting (or incredibly boring) reading unless the courts agree. So in reality, the only ones making actual contributions to the legal field with true authoritative weight are the courts. I think it's also important to remember that Doctor just means "teacher" in latin, which is the foundational meaning in JD. A holder of a JD should be qualified to "teach" law. I think this is underscored a great deal in the legal education system since they (largely) teach you how to analyze and think rather than just cram your heads full of facts (that's what bar review courses are for). Also, law school exams are largely miniature dissertations where you are required to analyze, present and defend a viewpoint, and as such are much more akin to "research" than bachelor's level education. However, it certainly isn't in-depth original research/ideas, which is why the title Dr shouldn't be applied to JDs (tisk tisk on those few that use it). Just some thoughts... Cquan (after the beep...) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
What about J.D. holding attorney working in a country where it is typical for an attorney (who only holds one university degree) to use the title of doctor? (such as in S. America) Should that J.D. holder avoid using a title to which she is entitled? Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually I meant in the US where the title has certain assumptions and it is unusual for a lawyer to use the title. If it is local convention, then there's no problem. Cquan (after the beep...) 04:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
What about Spanish language materials (marketing, website, letterhead, etc) of attorneys working in communities in the U.S. of people from those countries (such as in L.A. and Miami)? Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, I think that's another special case. If in Spanish it's common and not confusing usage, then sure. But those same people shouldn't use the title where it's not considered common or appropriate usage. Since the terms in both English and Spanish are related, the distinction due to language isn't especially evident. As an example, I haven't met a Japanese lawyer (and I know a good few) that goes by "Dr." in English, even though the equivalent title Hakushi means just that. In general, in U.S. English at least, Dr. immediately identifies a medical profession doctor or a PhD-type degree. Someone would have to think through it a bit to think a lawyer and meeting a lawyer that goes by Dr. would probably make someone think that they have another degree. Just my take on the subject. My mother has a PhD and JD so she never had to change her title one way or the other, which she was happy about:-P. Cquan (after the beep...) 05:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Combined LLB/JD programs

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

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

[edit] Hong Kong edits

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

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

The table:

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

The Hong Kong section:

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

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

[edit] scholarly vs. research

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

[edit] Citation comments

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

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

[edit] Executive Juris Doctor

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

  • The phrasing of the first sentence is misleading because it insinuates that there are other institutions that are not for-profit institutions which offer the degree.
  • The emphasis of accreditation by placing the clause in the beginning of the sentence makes the sentence structure strange. It is more clear to have it in a separate sentence.
  • Witkin is at the university, not vice-versa.
  • The last paragraph contained much unsupported opinion drawn from marketing materials of the schools.

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