Talk:Juris Doctor/Archive 3

message: Dear editors: I have done some copyediting and moved some new material added by another editor down into the relevant section. These edits hopefully do not change any substantive meaning in a material way. This article seems to be vastly improved over what it was many months ago (and I can take no c
redit for th
at).
I like this article better now, in part because its sourcing seems to have improved. I think the whole "this degree is or is not equivalent to that degree" argument that was going on here for a while was a bit strange, but the article's sourcing has made the article much stronger.
On the legal research thing, I would think most if not nearly all law schools require extensive training in legal reseach and writing. My law school had what I considered a very good full year of this, which was required for all students. However, I have no backup for the statement that "most" (i.e., over half of all) law schools require this -- so I changed "most" to "many" and deleted the citation tag someone else had put there. It won't break my heart if someone wants to add the tag back, based on the word "most." Maybe it should be "some"??
Anyway, my hat is off to those who have been working on this article. I haven't been paying attention for a long time. Yours, Famspear 20:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Various copyedits

message: What are the arguments for and against removing Ph.D. references from the J.D. definition page? 76.212.13.178 14:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't get to edit other people's facilitation of the discussion... Readers understand the use of an unattributed word as information that implies no endorsement.  Here is the statement that you deleted: '2. A user has suggested that the Wikipedia entry for the J.D. avoid comparison to "ANY" other degree.' 76.212.13.178 17:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting perspective. I don't get to "edit", you say? Well, I just did. And I believe your definition of "other people's facilitation of the discussion" is quite subjective. How is paraphrasing another person's statement to the possibility of taking the statement out of context not contradicting what you've just said regarding editing statements by other people? Did you not just "edited" my "facilitation of the discussion?" Curious contradiction indeed, would you mind to offer a justification? Justicelilo 17:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no contradiction. You can add to the discussion, but not edit anoother's comments directly. Redacting an open discussion is typically the work of a novice. 76.212.13.178 17:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Relative to your point that the J.D. is "also an academic credential," in what way does law school incorporate a nonstandard, variable length process in which an original contribution to new knowledge in the discipline occurs? 76.212.13.178 17:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think  user HarvardOxon is missing the point. The PhD and the JD degrees are fundamentally different. As 76.212.13.178 correctly pointed out, the PhD is a terminal research degree that confers an academic qualification on its holder, namely certifies that he/she is a junior scholar, capable of conducting independent, original research in a certain field. The JD on the other hand is a preliminary professional qualification that enables its holder to take a bar examination and, if successful therein, later practice Law. Although it is true that a JD degree is normally sufficient to obtain a faculty appointment in most US Law Schools, the JD per se is not considered a doctoral qualification in academic circles.  The US doctoral qualification equivalent to a PhD degree in the field of Law is actually  the SJD degree, not a JD. 161.24.19.82 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Ph.D. References

message: "...Melbourne, Hong Kong's City University of Hong Kong, and the newly opened faculity of Law of the Chinese University of Hong Kong offer both first-entry and second-entry first professional degrees in law..."  Why does it have to state that the Chinese U's school of law is "newly established?" This is an unnecessary qualification to be added. If CU school of law is qualifed in the said context, then is it necessary to mention the age of any university every time that unversity is mentioned? For example, "the 200 years old univesrity of La La land offers an XOXO program." Kinda weird if you ask me......
I suggest that it should be changed to: 
"A number of universities such as Australia's University of Melbourne, Hong Kong's Chinese University and City Univesrity offer both first-entry and second-entry first professional degrees in law..." Justicelilo 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . This is a good suggestion, but I anticipate that the page will be unprotected relatively soon once the issue of JD/PhD comparison is settled, and then you will be able to make the change yourself.  Admins are discouraged from making changes to pages that have been protected because of edit warring, so it wouldn't be appropriate for anyone to make the change right now. I'm afraid that your suggestion is being held up by the edit war. CMummert · talk 17:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: requesting change on protected page

message: In the introduction of the article (as stated below)has provided a fair and sufficient description of the JD degree. I suggest that we take out the section of "The relationship of the J.D. to the Ph.D., and degrees beyond the J.D" completely, and then add a short sentence   in the "title" section to address the JD/Ph.D situation.
(introduction)---here for reference, no change intended
"In the United States, it is a first professional degree, usually earned after three years of full-time (four years of part-time) study after earning a bachelor's degree. One of the main purposes of the degree is to provide the professional training for those who wish to become lawyers. The J.D. (or its equivalent) is the degree required for admission to the bar in nearly all U.S. state and territorial jurisdictions.[1] (Some U.S. law schools award the first professional degree in law using the English terms Doctor of Law or Doctor of Jurisprudence rather than the Latin term Juris Doctor.)"
(the edit suggested to the section of "title")
"Licensed attorneys in the United States may append a variety of titles to their names, most of which are intended to convey that the person is licensed to practice law in at least one jurisdiction. "Attorney," "attorney-at-law," "Esquire" ("Esq."), "lawyer," and "J.D." are all generally acceptable titles that an attorney may use. However, "J.D." may be used by anyone who has received the degree from a law school, regardless of whether or not licensed to practice law. Those who are not admitted to practice law, but nonetheless represent or imply they are an attorney, may be subject to penalties for the unauthorized practice of law or impersonating a lawyer, both of which are criminal offenses in many jurisdictions.
The Juris Doctor is a postgraduate degree and may be regarded as a "doctorate degree of taught program", in contrast to a "doctorate degree of research program". Few U.S. attorneys who hold the J.D. use the title "Doctor", a term reserved mostly to physicians or a holder of a doctorate degree of a research program. One possible reason for this is that former rules of professional conduct prohibited self-laudation. The ABA, and many state ethics committees, now permit anyone holding a J.D. degree to use the title of Doctor (ABA Informal Opinion 1152).[1] Some attorneys do use the title when they are testifying as expert witnesses. One should noted, however, that J.D. is different from Ph.D in terms of substance (of things learned) and form (of how the program is organized)."
Justicelilo 17:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with removing the section, but what sentence do you suggest in the title section? The J.D. is a professional degree, such as the Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.), so it has no relationship to the Ph.D. 76.212.13.178 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Duh, I see this now. Cool. This is a good start. Let me see if I can tweak this last sentence a little bit. 76.212.13.178 22:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, the ABA says this and that, but just because somebody promulgates baloney does mean that Universities or anybody else is obligated to eat it.  The J.D. is not a doctoral qualification in higher education; in reality, the J.D. holder is roughly equivalent to a Ph.D. student who has passed comprehensive exams and is in the process of proposing a dissertation topic. In sum, please stop posting these silly, self-serving promulgations by the ABA... 76.212.13.178 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your frustration. I myself do not endorse the view that JD holder should refer himself/herself as doctor, almost as bad is someone referring himself as "esquire". Nonetheless, our duty owed to the wiki community is to present unbiased view. The reason the ABA comment on doctor surfaces in my edit is simply because someone has pointed out that an ABA decision is relevant to the subject matter at hand. Whether the reader agrees with the decision or not is strictly his own business. what is important is that we present objective facts, nothing more or less than what is relevant. Justicelilo 00:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You've missed an important point. The context is higher education; only Ph.D.s (and similar degrees requiring a dissertation) have completed a doctoral process and have earned the right to be called "Doctor". Like, the J.D., M.D., is not a doctor of the university. 76.212.13.178 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr./Ms. Sawagener, your point had been raised by others numerous times before. In fact, I raised a similar point earlier. I am not accusing you of anything, but if you do not have any new idea to say, it is better not to enter this "messy affair." The more people join in, the more it seems like this is a "controversial" topic, while it is becoming clear that this discussion does not deserve our attention. (sincerely) Justicelilo 00:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: final resolution on the issue of comparison between JD and other degrees

message: "What is there", JJL, is factually incorrect. Not every law school has an LL.M. program (some only go as far as the J.D.). To earn the LL.M. one must have the J.D. (or a foreign equivalent). To earn the S.J.D. one must have the LL.M. Check out the requirements for these degrees at any reputable American law school. Further, check out law school faculties: Harvard, for instance, as a pretty good example, has 204 faculty members in its law school, of whom 8 earned an S.J.D., and 4 an LL.M. -- for a total of 12 with degrees beyond the J.D., or 6 percent of the faculty. Compare that with the ratio of Ph.D.'s to non-Ph.D.'s on the faculty of havard's grad schools of English, History, Economics, etc., and you'll see the ratio is reversed. harvard's Law School is one of the most prestigious in the US and its faculty is as highly qualified as you will get anyplace. The same facts will be found at any good law school or university. Hence, the S.J.D. is indeed very rare, even on law school faculties.HarvardOxon 00:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page didn't say that every law school offers the LL.M. You are once again using a straw man ("straw page") argument, making things up that were never there and then claiming they were wrong. It's incorrect that one always needs the LL.M. to obtain the J.S.D.; I found counterexamples at the first two JSD programs I found (Stanford and Columbia), as detailed here . I don't think 6% is "very rare" but no one disputed that it's rare. The rarity issue is clearly OR, as your comments and calculations above indicate, and unnecessary, so I removed it. Please consult WP:OWN, unless you're simply a Harvard undergrad. trolling for fun. JJL 01:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, I replied where you posted this on my user talk page: . I'd prefer to keep it here. In summary, you're wrong and tiring. JJL 02:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you provide a link? I don't see that here  (which does show the SJD). JJL 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JSD/SJD 

message: :Let's not substitute the Ph.D/J.D. debate with a JD/LL.B debate. 
:Edit 1: "Nevertheless, the J.D. is simply a renaming of the program of study which was previously called the LL.B (and which is still called the LL.B in most other countries outside the U.S.) rather than a new program of study. For this reason, individuals who hold an American LL.B can request a re-issue of their law degree re-titled with J.D. for a nominal administrative fee if they choose to do so."
:whether JD is "simply" LL.B is subjective, and not beneficial to furthering the purpose of providing a simple and objective description of a JD program.
:2: "The Juris Doctor is a postgraduate basic first professional degree program in law which has chosen to use the title of "doctor" in its name. In the U.S. many professions (including for example Chiropractic, podiatry, physical therapy, etc.) have decided to use the name "doctor" in the title of their basic first professional degrees. Despite the use of the name "doctor", all these degrees including the law degree, are…"
: This is an over-simplified statement mixed with subjective opinions. The previous version which this paragraph of text has replaced is more objective and less controversial.
:3: "(However, holders of an LL.B from certain foreign universities may be entitled to write a state's bar exam witbout the need for an LL.M)"
:This is a perfectly true statement, however, it belongs to the LL.B wiki-page, not the JD page. 
:minor note to 192.88.165.35, due to the recent "messy affair" that happened on this page, it might be wise to express what you are about to edit on the discussion page, rather than recklessly implementing your changes, which might cause another needless controversey. Thank you. (sincerely) Justicelilo 06:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Justicelilo's removal of the LL.B comparison to J.D.'s.  It is not relevant here.  There are severe methodological problems with most LL.B. programs (which is why American and British lawyers dominate the global legal services industry) but this article is not the place to tackle that subject.   --Coolcaesar 22:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent change regarding LL.B by 192.88.165.35 now gone, reverting back to previous version by justicelilo

message: Lawman15 inserted the comment, "Thus the J.D. degree is not a stepping stone towards a PhD, and therefore, in the academic setting, it is the normal doctoral degree in the field of law." Following this argument, the MFA is a doctoral degree because it is not a stepping stone toward a PhD. So too is the master electricians license, etc. I'm replacing the word "doctoral" with "terminal." I am not making a statement about the status of the JD. Wikiant 11:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stepping stone

message: Wikipedia tends to list the English form of degrees rather than the Latin.  For example, the article for Medicinae Doctor (M.D.) is Doctor of Medicine, the one for Philosophae Doctor (Ph.D.) is Doctor of Philosophy, and so forth.  Shouldn't this article be then called "Doctor of Law"?  I find it unique that we are sticking with the Latin form here when no other degree or article tends to do so.  What do you think?
:I strongly disagree with your proposal.  Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Juris Doctor is overwhelmingly used by the vast majority of law schools in the United States as the common name of their first-professional law degree.  The diploma on my office wall is "JURIS DOCTOR," not Doctor of Law.  Also, neither Doctor of Law nor Doctor of Jurisprudence are literally correct translations; the literal translation is Teacher of Law (I studied Latin in high school), and there is a lot of disagreement among the few law schools awarding a law degree named in English as to which translation is correct!  It makes no sense to rename this article to a name that the vast majority of Juris Doctor holders would not recognize.  --Coolcaesar 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, in Germany, the research doctorate in Law (equivalent to a Ph.D) leads to the degree of Doctor iuris (Dr.iur.), that is, "iuris" with an "i". The alternate spelling "juris" with a "j" would be incorrect in classical Latin, as our German friends were very kind to remind us in the Doctorate article! 161.24.19.82 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Title

message: In my ongoing research for Attorney at law, I discovered that Robert B. Stevens, the Yale law professor whom I cited in this article, actually expanded his writings on the history of law schools to a full-length book that was published in 1984.  And then he became Chancellor of the University of California, Santa Cruz for a few years. 
One of these days I will have to get that book and then we will finally have a good source for this article and for Law school in the United States. Or if anyone else lives closer to a library that has it, and could get the book, that would be great too.  --Coolcaesar 23:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently figured out something about Robert B. Stevens 

message: I don't understand why you (Wikiant) have removed the section.  What facts specifically are you disputing?  All factual claims have been supported with generally accepted and non-disputed sources.
As for the J.D. title in Chinese and Japanese, your request for evidence of a correct translation is also unusual since it is a simple non-controversial fact that is easily verified with any English-Chinese-English dictionary.  One possibility, for your convenience, is to check Google Translate (of which I am sure you are aware).  Here is a list of profiles in Chinese of the attorneys at Morrison Foerster, one of the most well known firms in the world.  It, like all other firm websites in China, translates J.D. to 法律博士 (Fa3 lv4 buo4 shi1). Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm disputing the unspoken implication. This article went through a long back-and-forth on JD's using the title "Dr." The agreement was to leave out discussion of titles as it is irrelevant to the article. This paragraph reintroduces the contentious topic. Whether or not the JD title in Chinese and Japanese translates as "doctor" is irrelevant to the article. Further, the translation is denotative, not connotative. Hence it is not clear that the translation (assuming it to be factually correct) carries the same implications as does the title "Dr." in English. Wikiant (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your doubts are not factually based, that is, you have not provided any reasons or evidence on which your doubts are based, and the evidence presented is very credible to the general public.  Your burden is to provide contrary evidence, which you have not met.  Since the J.D. degree exists in China and Japan, the title is relevant. Until you "play fair," I will continue to undo your edits. Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please go back and read the extremely lengthy discussion on this topic. The discussion spans more than a year and includes contributions from many editors. The discussion ends with the agreement to remove discussion of titles from the article. Wikiant (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if that were sufficient reason not to discuss it further, why would you only erase part of the section you dispute? Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That is a professional title applicable to all lawyers, even if they have no academic titles whatsoever.  Titles for lawyers and holders of a doctorate are different.  As a holder of a doctorate, a JD holder uses the doctor title in a Japanese academic environment. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It sounds like you're making a circular argument: "The Japanese title for a lawyer is 'Dr.' because the JD is a doctorate." This, as I argued when you first made this edit, re-raises an issue that has been already settled following much discussion by many editors. Wikiant (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the holder of a doctorate, a J.D. holder can use the appropriate academic title in Japan and China.  I have studied and commented on the text above to which you refer.  I see no evidence of consensus.  How does an old conversation close the book on any further discussion?  J.D. still stands for Juris Doctor, no matter how long you discuss it. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You've restated the circular argument: "as a holder of a doctorate, a JD is a doctor." I'd like to think that any conversation does not close the book on further discussion. My problem with your edits was that you were making them *without* the further discussion you now invoke. Wikiant (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have paraphrased my statement, and in my opinion you were not precise.  However, the center of the circle you describe is still the term "doctor," which definition I am still suprised you are grappling with.  You have also pointed out my arrogance: I didn't add to the discussion above because I thought it was senseless.  I had no deceptive intentions. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  J.D. "Titles" and Chinese characters 

message: I find the opening statement a little silly, as it does so little to describe the degree.  This is because of the debates above about the nature of the degree.  I still don't understand how anyone could think that this degree CANNOT be called a graduate degree or a doctorate.  I think that this article needs a section dedicated to this debate. Nonetheless, the simple name, J.D., says it all. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Professional degrees are not graduate degrees. For the most part, graduate degrees are those under the Dean of the Graduate School. (There are exceptions.) Hence medical/dental/law/etc. degrees are not graduate degrees. They are professional degrees, intended to prepare one for a profession rather than to educate a person broadly. As to 'doctorate', compare the DPT degree. Are they doctors? JJL (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the DPT degree is a doctorate.  Why not?  I don't understand your unique definition of graduate education, which seems to contract all other sources as well as common knowledge, and seems to be self-serving. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you follow that link to graduate education? It links to Graduate school, which says The term "graduate school" is primarily North American. It also does not usually refer to medical school (students are called "medical students"), and only occasionally refers to law school or business school. I think that's consistent with what I said (some business schools are considered to be part of their school's graduate school) and hence your sense of "common knowledge" is perhaps...self-serving. JJL (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I, like yourself, am an intelligent person, so of course I checked the article.  In my universe, the link routes to the article "Postgraduate Education," and there is a relevant section under "Modern times" which does not support your statement.  Not sure why the same link is routing to different articles.  I can't find the article you are referencing, nor any content that supports your statement.  I can't believe I'm arguing with someone over whether a medical school or law school is a graduate school.  You are obviously more interested in splitting hairs, and have more time on your hands than I.  You didn't answer my question either, which would have been more interesting and less time consuming. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, graduate education redirects to Postgraduate Education, and the lead paragraph there contains a link to Graduate school which has the text I quoted. Try going directly to Graduate school. Medical and law schools are not graduate schools, and their students are not graduate students. I grant that it's a fine distinction; certainly, my dentist thinks he went to graduate school just like I did (for my Ph.D.). JJL (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, so I didn't link to that article.  Is that an appology then?  Thanks for pointing out the article.  You've mis-quoted the article.  It does not say that medical and law schools are not graduate schools.  It says, "It also does not usually refer to medical school (students are called "medical students"), and only occasionally refers to law school or business school."  Note the terms "usually" and "occasionally."  Not definitive, as you claim. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What it does not say is that they are not graduate degrees.  This contains a proposed definition of "first professional degree," and is not a sample of a widely used definition.  It is from a non-profit connected to education institutions, but is not a faculty at a university. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It says that they are not graduate *research* degrees. The definition of "first professional degree" is not proposed; it's quoted. The definition (at least in the US) is established (I believe there is an article in Wikipedia on First Professional Degrees). Wikiant (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a definition from a government department that defines categories for statistical purposes--it is not a defintion of a law degree, nor does it try to be.  According to that category, it is possible to have first degrees that are undergraduate degrees, therefore there is the wording of that category.  It does not state that the J.D. and M.D. are not graduate degrees, it says that degrees in this category are not graduate research degrees.  I don't think that the J.D. is equivalent to a Ph.D., and I don't think that comparison is useful. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This is ad hominem. Wikiant (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Experience shows that this leads to arguments that distract the page from the J.D. to a comparison between degrees. The matter is contentious and it's likely best to downplay the matter. Trying to infer that someone disagrees with you because of foolish reasons is not likely to be helpful. JJL (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I say foolish?  I don't think either of those reasons for opposing some of the proposed changes are foolish.  Why do you think so?  I am not "attacking the individual" (ad hominem)--I have laboriously addressed all of your comments.  I am just inquiring into motivations or perceptions.  Mistakenly attributing comments to me and falsely accusing me of psuedological reasoning is indeed not helpful. I agree that comparing degrees is contentious, and I would add not useful.  Many of the arguments seems to counter popular perceptions and definitions (e.g. defintion of graduate degree), and the extensive research required to make some of your arguments is evidence of this. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: OIC, JJL you must have been refering to my "some strange envy/disgust" comment, and the either/or questioning.  You are right, that is an inference of foolishness.  Although, most people would agree with you if you had a disgust for American lawyers ;) Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening defintion 

message: I propose that the reference to legal education in Germany be removed, as it is not directly relevant to this subtopic.  That is, Germany does not have a J.D. It could be put under "other law degrees" which could also include discussion of the LL.B., LL.D. and degrees in civil systems (France, Italy, etc.)  There are other wikipedia articles which provide good info on this. Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO a very small section on "other law degrees" is more appropriate, since the article is about the J.D. only.  I think that much of the information in "the JD elsewhere" is misplaced, since it doesn't mention the JD in those countries at all (eg the three paragraphs after "Specific national examples include.") The paragraph on germany states that the degree it discusses is an academic degree, therefore it is more similar to a JSD than a JD. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany reference in "the J.D. elsewhere" 

message: This article needs a section dedicated to the disputes raised on this talk page.  The section would discuss the reasons and evidence for each of the viewpoints.  Then all content in the article which solely advocates one viewpoint over another should be removed.  It is proposed that when the neutrality of a clause or statement is not clear, the popular public perception should be given preference, with the alternate viewpoint or interpretation following in another clause or in parenthases.  This would include labels of this degree as a graduate or post-graduate degree, and as a doctorate. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that's a bit too vague for me. Discussing on the article page whether or not it's an actual doctorate is reasonable. However, "the popular public perception" is a questionable standard for an encyclopedia to take. JJL (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it more polite than labeling yours a  fringe theory ;)  Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: huh, don't know what happened to your reply JJL (see talk history).  Yeah, of course I read the archives.  There are still a couple of questions I raised to which you did not respond. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: There is a dispute as to whether a J.D. is a doctorate and whether it is a graduate degree.  Even though it (debatably) fits both definitions on its face, there is some debate on the issue, which debate is not reflected in the article content.  Please comment on how to represent the debate in a neutral manner in the article content. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a graduate degree that does not provide a "Doctor" title. The name is misleading as it is from Latin. --Niyant (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The J.D. is a graduate degree in the U.S. and the treatment of the LL.B. as a graduate degree in times of yore was one of the driving factors to eliminate the LL.B. and replace it with the J.D.  The American LL.B. and the American J.D. are equivalent.  The program of study in the first 1.5 years of the J.D. is very similar to that gained in the LL.B. in the U.K.  The 1.5 years of practical study in the American J.D. is in addition and optional to academic study.  The un-sourced statement in the opening paragraph is too general.  The program of study between students in the same American J.D. program can be remarkably different in terms of focus (practice seminars, scholarship, history, philosophy etc.)  The opinion that that the J.D. is a doctorate degree is up to debate and not uniformly accepted.  It is not one of the "also termed" definitions in Black's Law dictionary 8th edition: "juris doctor Doctor of law -- the law degree most commonly conferred by an American law school. -- Abbr. J.D. -- Also termed Doctor of Jurisprudence; Doctor of Law."  I would not consider my J.D. program to be a doctoral program, and our professor with a juris doctor, master of laws and doctorate of laws does not style himself "Dr.", although with 7 years of graduate study in the law and several dissertations and books, he probably could.  I think the term juris doctorate is a misnomer.  We generally do not mix Latin and English words in clearly Latin abbreviations.  It may have come from use, but those of us who are Latin teachers would raise-a-ruler-to-the-wrist in response to such a translation.  Latin is never misleading, only missing from an education.  ignoratia linguae Latinae non excusat!  Legis Nuntius (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the United States, you cannot obtain a JD from an accredited law school unless you have first obtained an undergraduate degree. Therefore a JD is certainly a graduate degree. As for whether a JD is a doctorate, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a doctorate as "the highest degree awarded by a university faculty".[ http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/doctorate?view=uk] In the United States, a JD is the highest degree in law offered in most universities providing a legal education. Therefore, a JD is both a graduate degree and a doctorate, although a person who obtains a JD is not accorded with the title of Doctor. --Ian Struan (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: No, in the US, the JD is a pre-requisite for the LLM (Master of Laws). The LLM, in turn, is a pre-requisite for the SJD (Doctor of Juridical Science). This would suggest that the SJD, not the JD, is the highest degree in law. Some (on this page) have made the argument that the LLM and SJD are different "tracks" from the JD thereby making the JD the highest degree in law. However, the fact that the JD is a pre-requisite to the higher degrees appears to make the "different tracks" argument merely one of semantics. Wikiant (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right. My mistake. One could make the "different tracks" argument, but I think that this is more than mere semantics. It is important to point out that the vast majority of law professors (or judges for that matter) in the US do not have either a LLM or a SJD. It is doubtful that the lack of a LLM or SJD would act as the same barrier to a career in academia that the lack of a Phd would (i.e. possession of a mere Masters). The majority of accredited law schools do not offer a LLM or SJD (though this is changing). Of the top 20 law schools in the country, not all of them offer an SJD and at some of those law schools the LLM is designed for international students or for special legal areas such as tax or intellectual property. This is quite different that the situation in other academic areas, like History or Physics. One would have virtually no chance of ever obtaining a position as a professor without a Phd in those fields. Whereas possession of a LLM or SJD is not a prerequisite to enter legal academia. Thus there is certainly a difference between the law and other academic areas. How this effects the question of whether a JD is a doctorate is up for debate. I for one am not convinced either way. It is clear that a JD is a graduate degree, I think we can all agree on that. How about simply call it a graduate degree and try to steer clear of the doctorate argument, or perhaps incorporate the fact that 1) there are higher degrees offered; 2) a JD is the highest degree offered by most accredited law schools; 3) that LLM and SJD are not prerequisites to academic careers as PhD's are in other academic areas. --Ian Struan (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: We've tried to steer clear of the doctorate discussion entirely (and were successful for about a year). However, as new editors come on board (or old ones come across new information), the issue comes up again and we end up rehashing all the arguments. Many editors have come to the same conclusion as you -- no conclusion in either direction. Yesterday, I inserted a section offering arguments for and against the JD as a doctorate. My hope is that we can (via a *short* list) represent the major points on both sides thereby bringing the reader to the same point as the editors -- no clear conclusion. Your "different tracks" argument is good. I encourage you to pare it down and include it as a bullet on the list. Wikiant (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: Over multiple years, editors have gone back and forth arguing the status of the J.D. A year or more ago, the editors reached an agreement simply to expunge mention of the title "Dr." -- this sidestepped the argument by avoiding to address the issue. Recently, Zoticogrillo has resurrected the debate and we find ourselves back where we started. I suggest a different approach (something which, I believe Zoticogrillo called for earlier). Let us include a section in the article that enumerates the arguments on both sides. In this way, the article can maintain the neutrality we had achieved on our first agreement a year ago while introducing some of the issues Zoticogrillo raises. I suggest the following be inserted in the section currently titled "Titles" (listed arguments to be edited by other editors after the structure is inserted).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been some controversy as to whether the J.D., regardless of it name, is a doctoral-level degree and so whether an attorney holding a J.D. may refer to himself as "Doctor". Compelling arguments can be made on both sides. Some are:
Arguments that the J.D. is a doctoral-level degree
*The American Bar Association allows lawyers who hold the J.D. to use the title "doctor."[ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 2-102(E)]
Arguments that the J.D. is not a doctoral-level degree
*The Oxford English Dictionary defines a doctorate as "the highest degree awarded by a university faculty." In the study of law, the L.L.M. (Master of Laws) is a higher degree than the J.D., and the highest attainable degree is the S.J.D. (Doctor of Juridical Science)Fulbright New ZealandHarvard University
*Because 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.Yale University, Admissions Requirements to the School of Law While all terminal degrees are not doctoral-level, all doctorates are terminal degrees.
   An LL.M. is not necessarily a prerequiste to acheiving a J.S.D. see http://www.law.columbia.edu/llm_jsd/jsd
   Also, you have to be pretty damned pretensious to call your self doctor with a J.D. (certainly noone else will).
   I have several law school professors with J.S.D.'s and even they don't have the nerve to call themselves "doctor".
   A lawyer is not a doctor, but maybe a J.S.D. is as close as one can get.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.87.165 (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think you're right to propose such a resolution. I'd prefer to see a shorter statement on it as I fear writing this much gives the debate undue weight, but I'm basically in agreement that something like this is a good idea. Hmmmmm, let me cogitate on this. JJL (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: All other things equal, I'd also prefer to see it short. It may come to pass that "shortness" becomes a function of constantly culling the list. Once there, people are going to want to expand the list on whichever side they support. But then, without the list, people are going to keep inserting POV throughout the article. I suppose the benefit here is that the list collects all the POV in one place. Wikiant (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Hello again. I don't think the current version of the article gives fair weight to both sides of the argument either. Moreover, I think pointing out the whole range of argumentations would put undue weight at the topic. Therefore, maybe someone should create a fair article on "professional doctorates" using the abovementioned sources and simply refer to it in this article. I think this might be the best resolution as most professional doctorates don't seem to be terminal and one should try to treat equal thinks equal. Fred Plotz (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Resolution

message: Um, no. The Philippine legal tradition is primarily civil law, with some elements of Anglo-American common law. And we've been conferring the J.D. since 1991, which is an entire decade before Japan. If there's no objection, I'll be editing the paragraph within the next 24 hours. Rmcsamson (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan, the only civil law country to offer the J.D.? 

message: The link to Czech version of the page leads to a page containing information about Czech "JUDr." title, which is of course different to US "J.D.". - Core, Czech wikipedia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.93.175.22 (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong link 

message: Wikiant commented, in his removal of verifiable content, "http://www.pb.uillinois.edu/aaude/documents/graded_glossary.doc, which in turn cites http://www.answers.com/topic/doctorate, which in turn cites Wikipedia -- circular argument".  The citation does not rely on the answers.com cite as authority.  Other definitions on that source to not provide citations.  It was merely a reference to further materials.  Answers.com is not a credible cite.  The Association of American Universities is really good authority. 
Anyways, there are other citations.  I didn't want to clutter the article with citations for something so banal (the name of the degree is juris DOCTOR), but since you demand it... 
Again, you can't just claim something is the truth without any verification.  Find a comparable source that says that the J.D. is NOT a doctorate, then you'll be playing fair.  Until then... come on!  Put it in your blog, not here. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why I proposed the list of arguments for and against. We're talking at cross purposes. You keep asking for evidence; I keep giving evidence; you discount the evidence and offer what (as far as I can see) are fallacious arguments. Clearly, the editors can't agree (after *years* of trying). So, let's put that disagreement before the reader in the form of "evidence for and against." Wikiant (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Unequivocally it's not a graduate degree. It's not offered by a graduate school. It's a professional degree offered by a professional school (at least in the U.S.). I assure you that in the academic world the J.D. is not considered a doctoral degree despite its name, and the three year D.P.T. etc. are only making things worse. JJL (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Raise your argument with universities such as UC Berkeley, USC, University of Melbourne, or University of Utah University of Utah, not with us.  Your crusade is misdirected and assaulting the entirely wrong party in the completely wrong venue/medium.  Because it's misdirected, it's forgiveable, but annoying nonetheless. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: As a practicing attorney, I concur with JJL and Wikiant and disagree with Zoticogrillo.  I have always seen the J.D. described as a professional degree or a graduate/professional degree, but never as a doctorate.  As a three-year program, the J.D. is something sui generis, somewhere in between the master's (two years) and the doctorate (four to eight years).  Zoticogrillo, I suggest you propose your curious idea to the next attorney you run into in person and see how many quizzical looks you get.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether you are an attorney (or in what jurisdiction) or not is irrelevant.  Even attorneys don't know everything, something of which my assistant reminds me almost daily.  Just read the citations, because they don't agree with you, and they are what counts. As an attorney you should be familiar with the concept of authority in argumentation. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: btw, siamo piasani--I also went to UCLA, but got fed up with LA and moved up north for my law studies.  Since you're an attorney, maybe you could help Wikiant and JLL find some sources for their arguments.  Oh, and I'm surprised that while you were "walking" the fact that you were wearing doctorate robes didn't stike you as odd.  Adding velvet stipes to your robes probably didn't make the heat any more bearable! Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://www.pb.uillinois.edu/ cite and "circular argument" 

message: In a nutshell, here's the history of this article: (1) reversion war in which evidence for and against the JD as a doctorate is inserted/deleted; (2) agreement to remove all discussion for/against; (3) arrival of Zoticogrillo who starts inserting evidence for JD as a doctorate; (4) removal of Zoticogrillo's edits with instruction to "see prior discussion"; (5) go to (1).
There are two courses of action: (a) return to the truce wherein all discussion for/against is removed; (b) insert a section listing arguments for/against with citations.
I offered (b). Zoticogrillo deleted (b) and resumed the reversion war. I'd rather that we not send flag the article for dispute resolution, but I'm not seeing any "give" on Zoticogrillo's part here. Wikiant (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that leaving it out is the only reasonable approach. It's a complicated matter. But like the British BPhil degree that is often a graduate degree despite the name and the Scottish M.A. that may be an undergraduate degree, you can't always judge the level of the degree by its title. Here's a sampling of the thoughts on this matter available on the web (not all WP:RSs by any means, and in many cases it's the comments that discuss it and not all are relevant):  (pg. 14, showing the JD as below the PhD), , , ,  (pp. 5-6), , , , , , , , , , , , , , . So, there is certainly disagreement out there, and plenty of people who see the J.D. as either a B.A.- or M.A.-level degree. Leaving it in invited endless WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. JJL (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work with compiling discussions.  You'll note that most of them contain comments from law students outside of the US (particularly Canada and other Commonwealth countries) arguing that their degrees are equivalent to the US J.D.  That kind of debate is much different than one amongst professors and deans debating the validity of the JD as a doctorate and graduate degree. Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find on closer inspection that that's just one of many arguments marshaled on either side of the debate. JJL (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment was a generalization, of course (many of the sites you've provided to have a connection with Canada).  Many of the arguments have been duplicated here.  Wikipedia is open to all verifiable information, as am I.  I didn't see anything new, but please feel free to quote here anything you pull from those sites. The department of labor document lists degrees in the order of average years required, so is not really a hierarchy (nor authoritative on academia either).  As I have said a few times already, I believe that these arguments are noteworthy. However, as common as they are, they are still opinions or complaints, and not facts. The WP:SYNTH is a perfect way of describing Wikiant's proposed content above, because not one of the claims (JD is not a graduate degree, JD is not a doctorate, etc.) can be supported solely with one single citation or quote. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The website clearly states that Yale offers the JD combined with other degrees. The site also clearly states that the JD/masters combination is a "masters degree," etc. Now, you won't find a specific sentence on the site that specifically says, "...when the Yale JD is coupled with a masters degree, Yale calls the combination a masters degree." However, if you're going to require that level of specificity, then you'll have to delete 90% of Wikipedia. At some point, editors have to be able state verifiable facts in their own words. Wikiant (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What the Yale website clearly says is "the Law School offers programs leading to a master’s degree and a J.D. (Juris Doctor) or to a doctorate and a J.D." It does not categorize the joint degrees as either "masters-level" or "doctoral-level." This is clearly just the opinion of the editor, not any rephrasing of "verifiable facts" in the editors own words. My problem with that is that it's a statement of opinion, and is based on original research. The argument that one will have to delete 90% of Wikipedia if that level of specificity is required is illogical, and misses the point completely. The point is that the assertion that the article makes about the existence of a debate ought to be grounded in sources pertaining to the debate, not resources individual Wikipedia editors have dug up as a matter of personal research to frame some sort of debate. That's because that will be misleading. Rmcsamson (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree.  Like I told Wikiant before, it requires logic to link together his "sources" to come to his conclusion, and he cannot find anything that actually states unequivocally his assertion. I'm toying with edits now, because I think the "debate" is interesting (and not just because this article gets vandalized by egotistical Canadian LLBs every other week (I'm joking)). Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed the misleading reference and tagged it. I've also tagged an earlier statement which states that the primary difference between the Ll.B. and the J.D. is that the former is an academic degree, and the latter is a professional doctorate. This statement is absurd, because the (American) Ll.B. was the forerunner of the (American) J.D., and both were meant to prepare students for careers in the legal profession, and at least for the span of time that both have existed, both have been the first professional degrees needed for that sort of job. Since that statement has no reference, I've tagged it too. Rmcsamson (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and get around to finding a cite for that.  I think that one of the extant cites actually has this.  You can read about some of this in the history section.  Basically, before the turn of the century legal education underwent a fundamental transformation, diverging from the traditional practice of the UK programs.  Part of that transformation was the introduction of the J.D. to reflect some of the changes.  Some more traditional institutions, such as Yale, took awhile to implement the J.D., but by the early 1900's all law programs approved by the ABA had implemented the didactical changes, which programs were similar to those in the U.S. today.  Therefore, even though Yale had the LL.B. until the 1970's, the program was identical to other J.D. programs and vastly different from LL.B. programs in the U.K.  Canada also implemented some of the changes that the U.S. system saw, but I don't know very much about the history of that.  Nonetheless, the Canadian programs are more similar to those in the U.S. than they are to those in other commonwealth (i.e. common law) countries. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds great, thanks. Just to clarify where I am coming from, I think we ought to clarify whether or not the (American) J.D. is any less(?) academic vis-a-vis the (American) J.D.. This is especially since the example used, of all law schools in the US, was Yale, which, at least according to its materials, has always seemed to place a very heavy academic emphasis on its program. Maybe we can outline, for example, curricular changes, if we can point to any? (As an example, the Philippine J.D. expands on the Philippine Ll.B. by requiring students to take more electives, as well as write and defend a thesis, all while cramming most of the Ll.B. core subjects into the first 2 1/2 years instead of spreading them out over 3 or 4 like the Ll.B.). Rmcsamson (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You meant American LL.B. vs. American J.D. I assume.  I know what you mean, and I think we've got it covered.  I'll look at it again, but I'm pretty sure that the sources we already have sufficiently established this, and probably clearly state it outright (i.e. that the J.D. is less academic than the early 19th c. LL.B. and the same as all law programs in the 20th c., Yale included).  The ideal of actually comparing the curriculum of 19th century curriculum to that of the 20th c. requires primary source material that will be almost impossible to locate.  If this is a lingering question for you after having read the history section in its entirety, then I should go back and revise my wording in that section to make this point more clear. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: (Reindent) Ah. I was just wondering, because if we're going to take Yale as an example, the study of law at Yale seems to have started as something more practical (apprenticeship), which eventually became more structured with the establishing of YLS. But then again, the rest of the article mentions the efforts to reform legal education by Langdell and the others, which seems to show a development towards something which is still academic. What I was wondering about, then, was how it was "less" academic, if ever it was, and if this was really the main difference between it and the older Ll.B., noting of course that the J.D. seems to have been developed to even be more academic than the Ll.B.. What do you think?Rmcsamson (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the sources say, Langdell and others lamented at the poor preparation of graduates for the practice of law, therefore they wished to introduce both a more rigorous program as well as the teaching of practical skills. Logic and objective argumentation are some of the main skills, which were to be developed through the case book and socratic methods. The case book method is just as it sounds: it's a book full of cases. The socratic method is implemented in class (and is often the exclusive in-class method) during which students are chosen at random and orally questioned by the professor first about the case, and then examined in an argumentative fashion about the reasoning of the case. These two elements are the foundation of the didactical reformation of Langdell. This effort was later built upon by the introduction of clinics and practicums, which are now a prevelant feature of legal education in the U.S. I'm not sure why you say that the J.D. has developed to be more academic. But one thing that law students from the U.S. learn when they visit a school in Europe (et vice versa), is that the curriculum of a traditional LL.B. program and a law program in the U.S. differ in that a traditional LL.B. spends a great deal of time on the historical development and philosophy of law, which is not required for a J.D. program (but does exist in some schools through elective courses). Therefore it is not uncommon for visiting students to feel like a "dunce" in the foreign institution. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Points well taken. I still fail to appreciate how this method of study is any "less academic," given that the average (American, or even non-American, as in my case)  J.D. student still has to do a considerable amount of study and research to get through law school, which involves more than just using case books or the Socratic method. This particular statement, which has no appropriate reference, is what I find particularly problematic: "the primary difference between a LL.B. and J.D. degree is that the LL.B. is an academic undergraduate degree and often requires the study of the history and philosophy of law, while the J.D. is a professional doctorate that concentrates on practical skills and requires no study of the history and philosophy of law." Most law students will be able to tell you that the study of the historical development of law and jurisprudence (legal philosophy, if you will) is a very real part of the study of core law courses such as constitutional law. Or were you referring to courses exclusively dedicated to the study of history and philosophy of law?  Anyway, the source used in this article (Harno) does not seem to point at any decrease in the academic nature of the degree program. It does place an emphasis on very practical skills, yes, as this is a rather practical profession. Nor does the source seem to make the comparison that the statement I pointed out makes. About comparing the American and non-American programs, this article points out that it is problematic to compare programs across jurisdictions, since they differ. So wouldn't you agree comparing the American J.D. and the European Ll.B. probably isn't the best way to determine if a J.D. is any "less" academic than an Ll.B.?Rmcsamson (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I explained myself clearly, and I appologize. European law programs have, as their fundamental core certain characteristics, such as it's concentration on theory (philosophy) and history, which differ greatly from the American system.  If you read the sources, they will talk about how in the UK there was a fear that addressing professional skills would lead to a mere apprenticeship program, duplicating the role of the Inns of Court, and that they wanted the program to retain its academic characteristics.  Yes, having entire required courses dedicated to the study of topics such as history and philosophy (theory) is part of this.  A thesis is not a requirement for a J.D. (a 25-40 page writing requirement is a far cry from a dissertation or thesis), but a fundamental characteristic of many law programs in Europe. There are some comparisons that are perfectly valid among degrees, just as we can compare different colors--I think the article takes issue with determining a hierarchy or "equivalency" from such comparisons. The professional training characteristic of the J.D. is a fundamental characteristic, and extremely useful for explaining its existence (e.g. why change from LLB to JD, why have a JD and a SJD, why have a LLM after a JD, etc.). I'll have to check again, but I think the citations which exist are sufficient. The purpose of the article is not to provide proof in a debate, but to provide a minimally sufficient explanation. Further citations may enrich the article, but are not necessary. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No need to apologize. Okay, so we've pretty much settled that the European programs, at least generally, require some of these theoretical courses more than most of the American J.D. programs. But for the comparison made by the statement I brought up to make more sense, maybe we can establish the differences between the practices of law in America and in the UK, which, following the line of thinking you brought up, might be why the approaches are different. We'll have to note, for example, that there really is no inns of court in the US, which means that practical training for the legal profession will have to be had, more often than not, in law school. This is not to say that it is really very clear that the J.D. is "less" academic than the Ll.B. It's just that the US J.D. is designed to be practical. And the Ll.M. and J.S.D. are really there for those with a desire to pursue further academic interests in law, such as specializing in a particular field or training for a career in teaching law. Rmcsamson (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you want to change it? What makes you uncomfortable with the statement as it is? What evidence can you offer to contradict it? I don't believe that the nature of the degree has anything to do with the way law is practiced in the different countries, but the idea is interesting--can you elaborate? I don't see any reason to contradict something stated in sources for something else without any reason. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I see you are a law student, are you studying in the U.S.? Your ideas are possibly influenced by your experience? Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I'm not too comfortable with is that the statement asserts that the "primary" difference is that one degree program is more or less academic compared to the other. Both are definitely not as "academic" when compared to other graduate degrees (assuming that we're talking about degrees in law which you have to take after earning a first bachelor's degree). But that depends entirely on what we might mean by "academic." Do we mean spending much time dedicated to research? Do we mean churning out papers? My guess is that it depends entirely on the discipline one's taking up. But law is a practical discipline. Lawyers will probably fuss more about how to apply certain legal principles to a given problem, leaving the job of fussing over the more philosophical aspects of  case and the legal principles that ought to be applied to the judges. The case decisions, casually called jurisprudence, are the stuff where the judges and courts get into their philosophical discussions, or render judgment on the particular state of public policy. Then, all law students will, at some point, have to read through case decisions; in fact, more often than not, this is precisely what they read, in most, if not all classes. And this is what they discuss using that Socratic method. It looks to me, then, that law students actually spend a lot of time reading material which touches on the law's more philosophical points, even if their training is practical in its approach. Looking at it this way, then, we can say that the J.D. is no "less" academic than a comparable law degree. Or do we judge being more or less academic depending on the courses taken up in pursuit of the degree, especially if one requires certain courses and the other does not? Again, it's a question of approach: One program might not need separate classes in legal philosophy if material like that already largely taken up within the individual subjects (say, constitutional law, criminal law, torts, etc.).Rmcsamson (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Which brings me to my point about differences in law programs possibly being influenced by how law is practiced there. You earlier made that point about the inns of court in the UK. As I've already said, there's no inns of court in the US (none that I know of, at least), which means that law students there must be trained using an already practical approach (which many law schools today supplement with clinical programs). The same thing can be said of, for example, the Philippines (where I'm from): law's a very practical discipline, and we spend more time taking up black-letter law subjects compared to taking classes in legal philosophy. Incidentally, most programs here are Ll.B. programs, and they more often than not require students to take legal philosophy courses or courses in Roman Law. This, however, is also a requirement in most, if not all, J.D. programs here. In this regard, the J.D. is not "less" academic than the Ll.B. The J.D., incidentally, requires students to take more courses, and to write and defend a thesis. In this regard, can we say that the J.D. is "more" academic? I'll concede the possibility that I have been influenced by my experience, but I don't think that makes my earlier points about the statement being possibly problematic any less valid. Rmcsamson (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From your statements, and our conversation, I can see that the J.D. in the Phillipines is much different than the J.D. in the United States.  This can be addressed in the article.  But even though there is variation in jurisdictions, the J.D. is primarily a U.S. phenomenon, and the intention of the degree is that it be a professional doctorate, just like an M.D. or a D.D.S.  This is according to the source material.  I recommend you find a place to add a description of a J.D. in the Phillipines.  You could compare it to this program, which is very typical of a U.S. J.D. program (and my alma mater, incidentally). Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the link. Very interesting. I have placed short descriptions already. A more thorough comparison is found here. Hmm, maybe the question now goes into what a professional doctorate is, but that seems beyond the scope of this article and this discussion. I think we agree on the following things: (1) the J.D. is a graduate degree, (2) it is a professional doctorate, and (3) it has, in some jurisdictions, replaced the Ll.B. as the basic law degree. Rmcsamson (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  IMHO, there's never been any question regarding its status as a graduate degree. A 4-year degree is a pre-requisite for the JD, hence the JD is (by definition) a graduate degree. Much of the debate on this page would be cleared up if we had a clean definition of "professional doctorate." The only definition I've seen here is that it is a degree that prepares one to practice a profession and which is called a doctorate. The second part of the definition is clearly circular. Wikiant (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was someone who said the J.D. is not a graduate degree, but I guess that went away.  If we accept the statement that a doctorate is the highest degree in that area, then a professional doctorate is a terminal professional degree (as opposed to a terminal academic degree).  This also explains why most educators in medical, law and dental schools hold no more than a M.D., J.D. or D.D.S.  It could be said that a Ph.D. is preparation for a profession as a professor, but then why do professional schools not have more Ph.D.'s? Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The J.D. is a postgraduate degree, but as it's not under the Dean of the Graduate School but rather under the Dean of the Law School it's a professional, not graduate, degree. Would-be lawyers go to law school, while would-be philosophers go to graduate school. Graduate degrees are offered by Graduate Schools, generally speaking. This is a rather fine distinction and it isn't important to me to see it made; I do think the debate has spilled over much too much into the article, though (especially the lede). JJL (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, the LSE in the UK offers a joint LL.B/J.D program in cooperation with Columbia University in the US. The joint program allows an undegraduate student from the UK to graduate in 4 years with a dual J.D degree from Columbia and a bachelor's degree from LSE (not a master's degree like an LL.M or a research doctoral degree like a Ph.D). That seems to underscore that, despite the name, an American JD is viewed in Europe as a bachelor's level degree.161.24.19.112 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 12:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Restatement of Proposed Resolution

message: This is an interesing article about the debate of changing the LLB in Canada to a JD.  Representative of some concerns about a transition to a JD.  For example, mentions that the law degrees in Australia and the UK "are not a very sophisticated legal education" because all that is required is three years of undergraduate-level study after high school.  Also has a chart comparing the law degrees in the US, Canada and the UK.  Note that for admission to an LLB in Canada, only two years of undergraduate education is necessary, whereas in the US a completed four year undergraduate degree is mandatory.
Also note (not in this article, but allusions to this fact in it) that the Canadian LLB is a mix of the academic characteristics of the UK/Australia LLB AND the professional education in the US.  They have implemented some of the changes made in the US at the turn of the 20th century, which is why it is a second-entry program.  Therefore, even though some Canadian schools are merely changing the name of their degree, the nature of their educational program has already gone through a transformation many years ago (much like the change Yale endured before changing the name of its degree).  Yet the Canadian education still puts lets emphasis on professional skills than in the US, so there still remain some differences.  The reader will note that the justification for the change at Queens (in the article) is not for academic, but professional reasons.  Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LLB in Canada 

message: I will be re-organizing the article and doing some revisions which will actually be minor, but will make the article look pretty different.  There will be minimal substantive changes (or so I'm planning).  I will be adding a new section for the "debate" stuff.  I'll be trying to make it less US-centric.  I'll make my changes piecemeal so that if there is an issue, it will be easy to "undo" that stage of revision (or all of them, but Wiki only lets you "undo" and article 3 times a day, so hope that won't cause inconvenience).  I'll be disappointed if some of my changes don't prompt at least a little discussion, so please comment or protest freely. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New revisions 

message: I have finished my first draft of a new article for "J.D." and propose that it replace the one currently posted.  It can be found here.  Please place your detailed comments on the discussion page of that page and save discussion on this page for general comments.  The main changes from the current article include: more detailed history, elimination of irrelevant content, organization and ease of reading, verifiability of content, and pictures.  I will replace the current article with my proposed article when edits to the proposed article have finished.  Unlike with this article, please make very detailed comments to all changes to the proposed article in order to facilitate a useful creative process for all. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Wikiant for your contributions. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ! Proposed new article ! please comment