User talk:Zoticogrillo/JD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comments

1. The first three paragraphs under "Debate about academic status" read as POV and possibly OR. It sounds like the author is trying to minimize the debate that is outlined in the remainder of the paragraph. I'd lose these three paragraphs. Also: "The first academic degrees were all law degrees..." I find this extremely hard to believe.

2. As it reads now, the "Debate about academic status" is US-centric. Add a paragraph that talks about the academic status of law degrees in Europe (see JD discussion page under heading 38).

3. The picture of the JD recipient with the doctoral stripes is gratuitous. Lose it.

Wikiant (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really like the "debate" section either. It's hard to introduce so much new content and have it all publish-perfect. If you are interested in "the first academic degree" you can read more about it in the sources I've cited, and the other wiki articles to which I have linked (such as University of Bologna and glossator).
Please explain why law degrees in Europe is relevant to that section. Did you read later in the article where law degrees in the UK and Canada are discussed? Is that the kind of content you mean?
I don't understand why the picture is "gratuitous." Is it the caption to which you object?
Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It's gratuitous because it appears that the purpose of the picture is to act as support for the "JD as doctorate" argument alongside. In fact, the implied argument is the old circular one -- JD's are doctorates because they're called doctorates. Wikiant (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
There is little interesting that can be said about a single academic degree. Academic regalia is one of the few interesting things. If the picture belongs anywhere, it is here. I'm not trying to be difficult--I like the picture because it's interesting and adds considerably to the appearance and relevance of the article. I've added verifiability. Please respond to the more interesting request in the next section. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Let us be honest with each other. The picture has nothing to do with making the article interesting and everything to do with supporting the position that the JD is a doctorate. I'm all for a rewrite of the article, but let's keep it NPOV. Wikiant (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Really, you think I value this as a piece of evidence? It's almost funny. There must be something you feel is convincing about it for some subjective reason. It's not POV because it's verifiable. It's not synthesis because it's a simple fact that is directly stated by a single authoritative source. It is relevant, it adds information... and it's innocuous. So, can you tell me again, why do you object? Because it carries probative weight? Can you please say it again, because I'm really getting a chuckle out of it. ;) I've edited the caption, and I've added a citation. Can we just move on and address other issues? Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and a Ph.D. is a doctorate because you call it such. The program as it exists now is very different than the doctorate that existed in the 18th century. And why is the M.D. a doctorate? You can answer these questions with the citations I've provided in this article, by the way. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You are using a straw man argument to defend a circular argument. Wikiant (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you've forgotten; the argument is thus: there are innumerable authoratative sources which state that the J.D. is a doctorate, and you have not found any sources that state it is not. If you were to find one, it would contribute substantially to the article, and that would be great. I've read books, article, and spend considerable time editing. Please, I invite you to contribute your own efforts to this article. Or at least address some of the citations, use of citations and content of the article. Resurrecting old discussions has no end effect. The content of this proposed article is substantial, and honestly it's belittling for you to ignore my research. I'm doing my best to treat you respectfully, but I don't know what end effect this will have on the quality of the article, and it might be more logical for me to ignore you. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Here are five sources.
Bond University Law School: Please note that the despite the name, the JD is not a doctoral-level award and graduates are not entitled to use the honorific title "Doctor". (http://www.bond.edu.au/study-areas/law/degrees/pg/jd.html).
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences: The J.D. is not a terminal degree. (http://www.acjs.org/pubs/uploads/FAQforACJSAcademicCertification2-29-08.pdf)
Technological Institute of Aeronautics: Despite its name, the J.D. is not a doctoral degree... (http://www.ele.ita.br/~bruno/phd_info.pdf)
Monash University: The JD is not a professional doctorate and therefore graduates are not permitted to refer to themselves as 'Doctor.' (http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/handbooks/courses/3387.html)
International Center for Legal Studies: The American Heritage Dictionary (Second Edition) defines the Juris Doctorate as, "An academic degree that is the equivalent of a [LL.B.]." In the United States, as with the rest of the world, the advanced law degree above the JD continues to be the LL.M. or Master of Laws and the degree above that is the SJD, JSD or LL.D. - – true "Doctor of Laws" degree. (http://www.legaltutors.com/frequently_asked_questions.htm)
Wikiant (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Great stuff! Thanks. This would be useful on the main article discussion page. The citations you give will be useful.
The article already addresses the status of the J.D. in jurisdictions outside of the U.S. and reasons for the variants. Bond University is in Australia, as is Monash, and those web pages are referring to the J.D. in Australia. However, they are useful for the content re: Australia.
The "Tech. Institute of Aero." doc has typos, appears to have been written by a prof in Brazil and appears only on that prof's personal website. It's not clear what the content was used for or even if it was ever published. So it is merely unpublished opinion from an unauthoratative source. However, it is useful for the content re debate.
The final statement is opinion from an unauthorative source, and it incorrectly quotes authority. I just looked at the edition of the dictionary cited, and it does not have a listing for "Juris Doctorate." In fact, there is no such statement from any edition of ANY dictionary or encyclopedia that I found in the library. Which makes the website even less authorative/credible. I don't think it is useful in any context, other than showing intellectual impropriety.
My prodding you was very productive! I am tempting to do it some more, however I fear it would make things personal (causing the lion to retaliate), as opposed to this reaction. Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the Tech Institute doc is questionable. I didn't track down the source quoted on the Monash Univ page. However, regardless of whether the quote pans out as genuine, the existence of the quote reflects Monash's position on the topic. Thus: (1) Monash's page should be taken as evidence, but (2) it should be noted (if it is the case) that Monash incorrectly quotes American Heritage. Don't fear prodding. In general, I have found our back-and-forth to be productive and (unlike many disagreements on Wikipedia) non-acrimonious. Wikiant (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, my format wasn't clear. "The final statement" refers to the legaltutors website. Monash doesn't quote American Heritage. Monash's statement reflects the status of the J.D. in Australia. Please read the relevant section in my proposed article so that we're somewhere in the ballpark of the same page, and so I don't have to reproduce the content here. Thanks for your re-assuring. I look forward to your feedback to this content. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've gone back and studied the content under heading 38 a number of times, and I can't figure out what you would like me to add that hasn't already been added. Can you be more specific? Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have time to respond to everything. There are some objections for which I beg your patience if I do not respond to from now on. They are objections to verifiable content. The proper course of action to object to verifiable content is to repond to the validity of the citation, or whether the content is an accurate reflection of the citation's statement--these kinds of objections will catch my attention and will receive a response. Of course I will respond to objectios to un-verifiable statements, and will remove such content that is objectionable on its face. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


In general, I think the submission is well written and the sources are well documented. Some of the material seems to be repeated in multiple sections. For example, the lack of dissertation shows up in the opening section and in the section immediately below it (Debate about Academic Status). Since not everyone will read the article from beginning to end, perhaps that is appropriate, but I thought it was worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.7.93 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, there are a number of things that are repeated throughout the article, and it still needs some editing. Some of the things maybe can't be changed, not sure... I'll examine it further. Thanks for your contribution. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] debate section

I think that the debate is sociologically interesting and highly relevant (given the contention this issue of the J.D. raises), so I think it deserves fair treatment.

How about this for the debate section: we just have the arguments against the J.D. fully-developed with no counter-arguments, qualifiers or comments? But, the section can be concluded with the following sentence (only):

Notwithstanding these points, there is historical justification for the J.D.<citations>, the J.D. was created by one of the world's top universities<citations>, it is only a few years younger than the Ph.D. (in English-speaking universities)<citations>, and there is no contention among U.S. universities that the J.D. is a legitimate professional doctorate<citations>.

The citations used for that last sentence (provided elsewhere in the article already) will have direct and unqualified statements of the above clauses, and will not be used to synthesise or infer.

Since the arguments against the legitimacy of the J.D. often reflect opinion, it's fine that there are no rules as to POV/OR/verifiability. The section would be most rich, however, if it provides numerous citations to individuals raising the points made in this section (usually in blogs, bbs, etc). I think the section would be best if it were no more than a standard browser view long.

I propose (and prefer) that Wikiant or one of his like-minded associates create the content for this section. If none is provided, I will try and put my Wikiant hat on and do my best. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "debate" section

Old text pasted here for easier archiving.

Whenever there is break from rigid academic tradition, there is opposition, just as there was when the Ph.D. was first introduced in the English-speaking world at Yale[1] in 1861.[2] At that time (in the 19th century) one scholar refered to the Ph.D. as a novelty and “a trifle exotic,” and the Ph.D. took some time to gain credibility on par with the more traditional English degrees, particularly in England.[3] Even though the J.D. was established just a few years after the Ph.D., from time to time the legitimacy of the J.D. still stirs up debate.
The first academic degrees were all law degrees, and the first law degrees were doctorates. The origins of the doctorate dates back to the ijazat attadris wa 'l-ifttd ("license to teach and issue legal opinions") in the medieval madrasahs.[4] The first university in Europe, the University of Bologna, was founded as a school of law and the degree granted at that institution was the doctorate.[5] Many centuries passed in Europe until doctorates in fields other than law were granted at any university.[6] Even up until the nineteenth century at most universities doctoral degrees could only be awarded in theology, law, or medicine.[7] Therefore there is historical justification for a doctorate level law degree for practioners--in fact, through history such has been more common than the alternative (academic undergraduate degrees such as the LL.B.).
It is the universities which have the right to create and define academic practices and standards. The J.D. was created by academics at the prestigious Harvard University and received approval of the capable faculty there. It has since been implemented by many other of the most prestigious universities in the world. It is therefore suprising that legitimacy of this degree should be questioned.
Nevertheless there is debate outside of academic circles as to whether the J.D. is a doctorate or even a graduate degree.[8][9][10] The unique characteristics of the J.D. raise confusion, as does the history of the degree at Yale. Some of the debate arises in response to those asserting that the J.D. is the equivalent of the Ph.D., and some of it is carried by law graduates in countries where the LL.B. (an undergraduate degree) is the first-degree in law. Since both the J.D. and the LL.B. are both first degrees in law and requisites to become a lawyer, some assume therefore that they are equivalent. Another point often raised is that since all doctorates are terminal degrees (an unsupported assertion) and the J.D. is a pre-requisite for the L.L.M. which, in turn, is a pre-requisite for the S.J.D., the J.D. is not a terminal degree and, therefore, not doctoral-level,[11] which however ignores the fact that the J.D. is a professional degree and the LL.M. and S.J.D. are academic degrees[12][13]. The J.D. is the highest professional degree in law that can be obtained, but like the M.D. it does not require an original contribution to knowledge in the form of a dissertation, and this difference prevents comparison to the Ph.D. and other terminal academic degrees. The US government's Department of Education notes that, "It is...important to recognize that first-professional degrees in these fields are first degrees, not graduate research degrees. Several... degree titles... incorporate the term "Doctor," but they are not research doctorates and not equivalent to the Ph.D."[14].
Yale University implemented the didactical changes of Harvard University and University of Chicago, and required a B.A. to enter their law program, but resisted creating the J.D. on their campus, and did not do so until 1971[15]. When it was implemented graduates who were awarded the L.L.B. prior to the renaming were allowed to, retroactively, claim that they held the J.D.[16] Because of this history at Yale many wrongly conclude that the degree was created by merely renaming the LL.B. as J.D., which ignores the history of the creation of the degree[17]
Some of these issues, and a lack of understanding of the history of the degree has also caused variations of the J.D. to arise in universities outside the U.S. which lack the fundamental characteristics of a professional doctorate (see the modern variants section below). Such lack of understanding has even led one institution in Hong Kong to declare that their J.D. is not intended as a doctorate at all[18] (and upon examining the program of study at that institution, such is evident).

[edit] New JD vs. PhD Section

BRAVO! Your treatment of the JD vs. PhD is (IMHO) superb. The addition captures the entirety of the substantive debate and presents the whole package in a NPOV fashion. Kudos! Wikiant (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Thanks for the barn star as well. Much appreciated. Zoticogrillo (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)