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  No  Dec  pp   Particularly page  pg   It is cited in the wiki article  It was written by one of the creators of the JD 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 UK 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 libraryI encourage you to do so  Im not sure which references you are discussing when you state st nd etc  Based on the context of your comments Ive guessed  First reference does not cite answerscom 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 dont 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 Id love to see their reply to you if they reply at allIm sure it would be entertaining Third reference Whose bar association  It is merely representative of an opinion expressed by other bar associations in the US 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 youll 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 US  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  Id like to learn more from you about the MD not being a requirement to practice medicine  Im 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 DDS and the MD  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 majorit is the discretion of the department to admit such students  Some common examples include history political science sociology etc  The JD 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 US 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 its grammatically incorrect  This lawyer is as he admits in the last sentence of his entry ignorant of the history of the JD and his comments