![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The JD is a professional doctorate (Yes). The JD like other professional doctorate, (MD, DDS), is not equivalent to the PhD (Yes). Those statement are not opinions but facts. Please stop messing with the JD pages trying to push your agenda; you can't have it both ways.-- Viscountrapier ( talk) 14:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
So, you are saying that it is the PhD claiming that the JD is equivalent to the PhD ?-- Viscountrapier ( talk) 18:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
My edits are "sourced" from known and trustworthy sources; I did not make the wiki rules. You can rewrite my piece to make sure that it is fair, but you cannot remove the gist of the topic, which is : The JD is a professional doctorate, but professional doctorates, not only the JD, are not equivalent to the PhD and other PhD equivalent degrees. Not my words, but the sourced words of the US Government,and the National Science Foundation. If you have a problem, take it up with them. -- Viscountrapier ( talk) 18:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, the Department of Education is part of the US Government. They act for the US government in all matters concerning Education. Also the OPM, the Federal government agency in charge of hiring all federal government employees, places the JD beside Master degree. I can provide you with a source if you are interested ? This should be about facts and not opinions. -- Viscountrapier ( talk) 18:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I have changed it to the Department of Education. -- Viscountrapier ( talk) 18:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I have also removed any generalization language. In your case, I find it funny that you are willing to keep a statement from a "single" voluntary, non academic group, and non-binding group, but are quick to try to remove sourced material from the US Department of Education, and the National Science Foundation; the National Science Foundation for the love of God! . To me this is about facts, and not opinion. -- Viscountrapier ( talk) 19:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
What a load of tripe. As a practicing lawyer holding both a J.D. and an LL.B. (different jurisdictions) I can say there is no practical difference in the education necessary to obtain these degrees; and contrary to much of the discussion, simply obtaining a J.D. (cf. LL.B.) DOES NOT make one ready to practice law (even though technically in the U.S. one simply need obtain the degree, write the bar exams, and hang out a shingle - pity the client who relies upon the services of a sole practicing brand new American attorney!). It is only with practice, articling or working under senior lawyers for several years, experiencing hands-on legal work, that any lawyer, regardless of the degrees they might hold, truly becomes a practicing lawyer (rather than someone who knows how to conduct legal research). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.91.194 ( talk) 21:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I finally tracked down this reference. It appears that this is from the Malet Street Gazette (cited by Mwenda as http://www.malet.com/_ArticleFile/000000b8.htm which I couldn't find). Pappas [2] is a NC attorney with an LL.B. from a U.K. school and an LL.M. from a U.S. school (among other degrees, including an M.Phil. in Law). Several ac.uk web sites described it as a "web based journal" [3], [4] and it has been cited in other peer-reviewed articles [5] but it isn't clear just how well-known and well-regarded it is. It doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed. The LL.B. article here uses it as a source Bachelor_of_Laws#References. JJL ( talk) 04:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
From two authors at the U. of Sydney: Loughnan, Arlie and Shackel, Rita, The Travails of Postgraduate Research in Law, Legal Education Review, Volume 19 Issue 1/2 (2009):99-132 [6]. The article says in part (while discussing research degrees in law in Australia, including the S.J.D.): "In keeping with the North American model on which it is based, the JD is not a doctorate and does not bring with it the right to use the title 'doctor'." JJL ( talk) 14:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
From the ABA [7]: "the ethics committee reversed course in light of the newly adopted ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility. Disciplinary Rule 2-102 permitted a J.D. or LL.M. (master of law) recipient to use doctor with his or her name, the committee concluded in ABA Informal Opinion 1152 (1970)." (Emphasis added.) So, the ABA considers having either a J.D. or a master's degree sufficient to entitle one to use the title 'doctor'. As an aside, this is interesting reading on the S.J.D. vs. the Ph.D.: [8]. I wish there were more detail here [9]: It sounds as though the judge's law degree didn't qualify him as a 'doctoral recipient' but his management degree did, if valid. JJL ( talk) 19:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Per recent edits, while it's true that the professional doctorates and the research doctorates are different, even among prof. doctorates the J.D. is viewed differently. We have many cites indicating that it isn't universally perceived as a true doctorate (unlike, say the M.D>), and that in practice it receives differential treatment compared to other prof. doctorates (e.g., the commissioning grade for lawyers vs. physicians/dentists/pharmacists/etc.). Some editors seem to want to impose a simple, rigid, logical taxonomy on what is after all an uncoordinated system--schools largely make their own rules, within reason (as determined by accrediting bodies)--with multiple players. The view of the ABA, which is very partisan, is not the view of the U.S. govt., for example. Until we see evidence that holders of an M.D. have been criticized as being unqualified to hold high academic office, the difference remains, whether one thinks it should or not. The J.D. is a platypus. It isn't going to fit neatly into a simple category. JJL ( talk) 15:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to address Wikiant's question about purposes germane to the degree, and I take it he is referring to the J.D. in particular (please correct me if you were speaking more generally), aside from being able to teach a law school course, or more specifically, a course that covers legal materials (as opposed to say, an elective course on writing, or some sort of other policy-related law school course that tackles policy and political considerations, among others, other than legal content), the other point of getting a professional doctorate would be to get the training necessary to be qualified to apply for and receive a license to practice the profession. But if it's just teaching, the J.D. should be sufficient. Maybe that's what the ABA meant with its recommendation. Since most universities will insist on hiring faculty members with Ph.D.s (or at least prefer them over all others), the J.D. should be given the same treatment, so as to allow a degree holder to teach law in universities. That is, of course, reading a bit into the ABA recommendation, and I hope I am not too far-off when I do so. On that note, can't we just ask ABA for an opinion, and cite that? :) Rmcsamson ( talk) 17:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that the IPs are back. I put in a request for temporary semi-protection. Wikiant ( talk) 18:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I undid the edit noted as content that was well referenced and seemingly factual was replaced by an unsourced statement from the ABA that only stated that the ABA would seek to have this degree made equivalent to a Ph.D.
vulture19 20:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This same IP keeps deleting this section claiming that the council statement is not recommending. It is true that the word, "recommend" does not appear. However, it is also true that the council statement itself says that the statement is non-binding. I'm not sure what else one calls a non-binding statement other than a "recommendation". Wikiant ( talk) 00:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
By saying it's not binding is merely telling laymen the obvious--to avoid misunderstanding. It clearly states that in this statement "all appropriate persons [are] requested..." to behave as stated. A recommendation and a request are synonymous enough, aren't they? Zoticogrillo ( talk) 04:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
An anonymous user (who appears to be a Canadian nationalist, or is just sick of Canada jokes from down south) keeps messing with the Canada section. This user takes out almost anything that might be slightly disparaging to that country, even if it includes healthy citations, and has never contributed to this discussion page. The user rarely even includes comments in the editing. One common action by the user is to remove references to the LL.B. in Canada and to mislead the reader into thinking that the J.D. is the primary law degree. This is despite the fact that the citations to the previous content were more than sufficient and clear, and he replaced those with citations which usually provide little to no support for that user's content. This has been ongoing for more than a year, but instead you guys argue ad nauseum about subtle interpretations of citations and crap. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 16:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
So, with no further comment, here's what's going to happen: After a few days if no further comments are posted, I'm going to change the article to reflect extant and previous citations, the changes will remain for a few months, anon editor will then reverse all changes restoring that editor's content with inflammatory edit summaries and no contributions to the discussion page, and we will then remain with a ridiculously inaccurate, non-verifiable and contradictory Canada section. Anyone care to place a bet? Zoticogrillo ( talk) 00:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC) I know it sounds retarded, but I really have tried a number of other strategies already, some of which were carried through with no result or no other editor support. Therefore, I invite support for a temporary editing lock on the Canada section after content is repaired. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 00:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
.... is being a lamer, I suggest a mod ban this guy from editing any further for a little, please and thank you. No particular interest in Law, just not cool with wiki-defamation, calumny, and slander. Joshua Torelli ( talk) 01:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Howdy folks. I am just as eager to verify whether or not the J.D. has now overtaken the LL.B. in Canadian law schools as anybody. Knowing firsthand that the University of Calgary has just made the switch (legally as of September 2010, physically as of December 2010) I do know changes are happening. Please stop the edit war and I will make it my business to check every university website to see. OK? Best, A Sniper ( talk) 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Asserting the Executive Juris Doctor degree is "not widely accepted" is a bald face assertion lacking any supportive evidence. In other words, it's a simple opinion.
I would like others to join me in re-writing the Executive Juris Doctor section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasmonkeyfarm ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The text is this:
"Although the American Bar Association has issued a Council Statement[127] advising that the J.D. be considered as being equivalent to the Ph.D. for employment and educational purposes,[128] the United States Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, and the European Research Council do not include the J.D. or other professional doctorates among the degrees that are equivalent to research doctorates,[129][130][131] and there has been some confusion regarding the differences between the J.D. as a professional doctorate and research doctorates such as the Ph.D., with some sources noting that they are not equivalent.[132][133][134][135]"
The "some sources noting that they are not equivalent" is logically unnecessary; it's a non-issue. From what I can tell, no source actually says that the J.D. and the PhD are equivalent. The only thing that comes close is the ABA saying that the JD should be considered the same as the PhD for hiring purposes. This is not the same as saying that the degrees are equivalent, and it's already been stated in that very same paragraph that the JD is not a research doctorate.
The text says "there has been some confusion" - has there really? What sources maintain that the JD is exactly like the PhD? The only thing that has been claimed is that the JD should be equivalent to the PhD for hiring purposes - none of the sources that follow actually address this.
Saying "Although" implies that the sources that come after it contradict the ABA; but they don't. The ABA saying that JDs should be hired alongside PhDs in a teaching context has nothing to do with whether the European Research Council will award a JD holder grant money. It just doesn't make sense, logically. These are two separate issues.
(Not to mention the general weirdness behind comparing the "American" Bar Association to the "European" Research Council.)
Deep Purple Dreams (
talk)
22:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Reference to the European Research Council not accepting JD's as research degrees is irrelevant. First, the cited website doesn't mention JDs at all, merely refers back to the NSF (essentially saying, "we do what they do.") Consequently, since the NSF is already mentioned, the ERC is redundant. Second, the ERC, like the NSF, as others have noted, is primarily a science research entity. It goes without saying that funding for someone with only a law degree would be a bit out of place. (I would be surprised if the NSF gave any research grants to anyone with only a PhD is art history, too.) Third, JDs aren't used in Continental Europe -- or, for all intents and purposes, in the EU at all -- making the ERC reference utterly irrelevant. (If anything, the constant desire to reinsert the ERC reference, despite several editors' removing it, seems to involve some strange hang-up by a particular editor. Is this all about JD law professors getting paid more than the average PhD?) Epstein's Mother ( talk) 05:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
All undergraduate degrees in Italy, no matter the subject, are awarded as "dottore" giving the right of the graduate to call themselves "Dottore" (Doctor). Therefore, if you do what would be considered a B.A. in the U.S. in Italy you are still awarded a dottore degree. The comparison here is spurious and gives a sense of inaccuracy as it suggests that somehow in Italy undergraduate law degrees are special degrees awarding the dottore title, while the reality is ALL undergraduate degrees award this title! The Italian undergraduate degree in law is equivalent of the LLB/JD. 86.163.24.60 ( talk) 02:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
"The approach of the English degree can be seen in the required curriculum, in which there is no study of civil procedure, and relatively few courses in advanced law such as business entities, bankruptcy, evidence, family law, etc." ... What??? This statement is clearly wrong and you can figure this out by quickly examining any LLB in England and its curriculum! Plus, you completely exclude the LPC in England which is a required element of the English legal education that is specifically designed to cover off practical elements of the education. Even so, LLBs in England do cover these topics, for example Oxford University ( http://www.law.ox.ac.uk/themes/all_courses.php) or the University of London ( http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/prospective_students/undergraduate/panel/law/scheme_a.shtml). LLBs in Scotland have mandatory subjects ( http://www.lawscot.org.uk/becomingasolicitor/students/studying-the-llb/professional-subjects) which are: public law and the legal system, conveyancing, Scots private law, evidence, Scots criminal law, taxation, European community law, Scots commercial law (that includes practical elements of bankruptcy and business entities specifically!!!). As a Scottish lawyer working in the UK, I find this article wholly an inaccurate reflection and demeaning of th UK's education system. 86.163.24.60 ( talk) 02:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
In The Netherlands, a meester (master) university degree is required to become a judge, attorney or notary. 95% of lawyers only gets this agree. Historically, it is supposed to be some kind of professional doctorate, which is the reason why lawyers that write a PhD disseration (the other 5%) are not supposed to call themselves "Dr." but only "Mr.", as a tradition (they are allowed by law to use the "Dr." title though - which is a crime otherwise). I leave it to others to integrate this information into the lemma itself. Rbakels ( talk) 12:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for inviting me to comment on the changes I made to the Juris Doctor article, which you un-did because the changes "didn't appear constructive." My changes were made because the content was inaccurate.
The ABA writing requirement states: Law schools "shall require that each student receive substantial instruction in …legal analysis and reasoning, legal research, problem solving, and oral communication … [and] writing in a legal context, including at least … at least one additional rigorous writing experience after the first year.” ([ quoted by one of the references in the J.D. article]
The chart in the JD article contains numerous citations which all say the same thing: the writing requirement is for the students to demonstrate professional legal skills in writing. Legal memoranda and briefs are typical of a paper fulfilling this requirement. Papers which fulfill the writing requirement may be scholarly, such as containing original research or academic analysis, but this is not a requirement. Law journal articles are typical of these kind of scholarly papers. Sometimes "research is required," by schools implementing the ABA writing requirement, but this means legal research, and is not the same as the primary source research required of scholarly papers. Indeed, legal research is a key professional skill. Even if the paper is scholarly, it must still show competence with the professional skills of legal analysis.
The Juris Doctor article clearly explains in many places that when the J.D. was created, it was the only professional degree in law and that other law degrees were academic degrees. The category of "scholarly content required" on the chart shows, as stated elsewhere in the article, that the original U.S. J.D. degree is still one of the only strictly professional degrees in law, and that the degree in other places, even though they are called a J.D., still include academic content traditionally required by the scholarly law degrees (LL.B., etc.)
It is not necessary for there to be so many citations. The citations all say the same thing. This stacking of citations is suspicious, as it is typical of POV-pushing. Indeed, as I have discussed, the inclusion of the citations was even a mistake, because they all state that the writing requirement is intended to fulfill the ABA requirement that students demonstrate professional legal skills in writing.
Therefore, the edits I proposed to the article are not only acceptable, but also demonstrate good housekeeping. That is, my edits were extremely constructive ;) 173.51.131.223 ( talk) 21:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :) 173.51.131.223 ( talk) 06:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The professional application of law is a topic of a professional degree, not a research degree. A thesis or dissertation requiring original research is not required for the traditional JD degree because it is a professional degree. The ABA writing requirement is not a thesis, but merely a paper which demonstrates professional legal skills in writing. 204.126.64.99 ( talk) 22:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
An unregistered editor has persistently deleted the section of the article addressing the equivalence of the JD to the PhD. Please note that this issue has been extensively discussed here (check the archives linked at the top of this Talk page). I'm sure that we're willing to reopen the discussion, especially if there is something new to add. But ignoring the discussion and other editors by simply deleting the section - over and over again - isn't acceptable. ElKevbo ( talk) 03:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The reference to the European Research Council is completely irrelevant. The ERC document specifically discusses their criteria for assigning grants; the ERC performs scientific research and has no connection whatsoever to law. Therefore, it is irrelevant to the JD article. Deep Purple Dreams ( talk) 04:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The following is copied from a section at Wikipedia:Help desk. I make no claims regarding its accuracy or value.
Looie496 ( talk) 16:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
ALSO
Somebody please correct this sentence: "Professionals who pass the required bar examination are known as lawyers or attorneys, and they are designated by the suffix esquire (Esq.) or J.D.". The bit about 'Esq' is wrong and only remotely close in the USA - see the linked page about Esq for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.234.45 ( talk) 14:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Under "Modern variants and curriculum", the table erroneously states that J.D. is sufficient education for license in Singapore. This is incorrect. The J.D. from the Singapore Management University (SMU) merely makes the graduate a "qualified person" under s.5A(2) of the Legal Profession (Qualified Persons) Rules. A "qualified person" is entitled to attend the preparatory course leading to Part B of the Singapore Bar Examinations, the satisfactory completion of which is necessary for admission as an Advocate and Solicitor (i.e. license to practice). Being a "qualified person" alone does not mean one is licensed to practice.
This misreading of the Rules is similarly reflected in (4.2 Descriptions of the J.D. outside the U.S.) --> (4.2.6 Singapore). Please allow for edits to correct inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.168.101 ( talk) 17:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The above has been noted and corrections have been made. AurekBesh ( talk) 09:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
IMHO this is nonsense. In particular as attorneys, JDs primarily defend their clients, using the legal system, even if they are crminals or accused of other improper behavior. Law enforcement is the task of the judiciary, not of individuals who happen to have an education in law. Rbakels ( talk) 09:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that the confusing chart comparing J.D. degrees among several countries be eliminated or reworked. First, it lacks useful support. The footnote supporting it simply refers vaguely to subsequent paragraphs which do not support the chart. Second, it seems odd to say that the U.S. J.D. does not contain "scholarly" material. This is odd because the major criticism of U.S. J.D.'s is that they are too academic and insufficiently practical. Many J.D. students are members of academic journals that have an explicit scholarly component and require students to produce original scholarly work. So, the factual accuracy of this chart is suspect. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2602:252:D5D:E7D0:C1B:C686:7A3E:785A (
talk)
02:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Juris Doctor. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I haven't looked at this article in ages.
The article incorrectly stated that to be admitted to the bar of a U.S. Federal district court, a person had to be admitted to the bar of the state in which the Federal district court is located. That is blatantly false. For example, for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas:
---from [12]. Famspear ( talk) 05:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
PS: Here is the erroneous language as it was found in the article before I corrected it:
Some Federal district courts apparently do have that rule. Obviously that's not the rule in the Southern District of Texas. Famspear ( talk) 05:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Another Federal district court that does not require that attorneys be members of the bar in which the court is located is the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado:
---from [13]. Famspear ( talk) 05:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's another example: the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois:
--from Rule 83.1, General Admission of Attorneys, Local Rules, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, at [14]. Famspear ( talk) 05:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The nonsense was added by an anonymous editor on February 23, 2016, here: [15]. Famspear ( talk) 05:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Juris Doctor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Juris Doctor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Juris Doctor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on Juris Doctor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
User Law School Prof has added Juris Doctorem as an alternative name for the J.D., with the claim in the edit summary that this is used at Georgetown University. A Google site search on georgetown.edu for the text "juris doctorem" returns no results, while there is plenty of material there using "Juris Doctor". It should also be noted that Juris Doctorem is the Latin accusative of Juris Doctor, which is therefore used on some degree parchments - this is not a separate title from Juris Doctor, merely the form Juris Doctor takes when it is the subject of a sentence in Latin. I suspect this is the cause of Law School Prof's confusion. My revert on this edit was re-reverted without explanation; to avoid edit-warring I have therefore tagged it as needing a citation and opened this discussion. Robminchin ( talk) 04:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I added Juris Doctorem as that is what is actually listed on the diploma. I contacted the Georgetown University Law School Registrar, the office responsible for diplomas, and they confirmed by email that both Juris Doctor and Juris Doctorem are appropriate designations for the Georgetown degree--one in Latin and the other it's English translation. I'm not sure how to cite to an email, but I am willing to scan into a PDF file. Any suggestions? Thank you. Law School Prof ( talk) 21:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
In the United States, the professional doctorate in law may be conferred in Latin or English as Juris Doctor (sometimes shown on Latin diplomas in the accusative form Juris Doctorem) and at some law schools Doctor of Law (J.D. or JD), Doctor of Jurisprudence, (also abbreviated JD or J.D.).
That makes perfect sense, especially given the confusion amongst law school graduates. A google search for Juris Doctorem finds many graduates who list their degree with that designation, so this explanation will help clear up the issue. Law School Prof ( talk) 14:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Juris Doctor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.aragon.unam.mx/oferta_educativa/posgrados/derecho/doc_derecho.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
So Buzzfeed (which despite the stupid name is now a legit and reasonably reliable news organ) has this article about something called the Executive Juris Doctor degree
I don't know if it's important enough to include in this already dense and long article, so I didn't, but on the other hand probably some none-zero number of people are going to search on "Executive Juris Doctor" which is a redirect to "Juris Doctor#Executive Juris Doctor", which section doesn't exist, so they are just dumped at the top of this article, which contains no info at on Executive Juris Doctor.
So maybe we ought to ad a section something like this, probably in the "Types and characteristics" subsection:
Some for-profit schools in the United States offer a legal education program resulting in an Executive Juris Doctor (EJD) degree. Despite the similarity in name to Juris Doctor (which is sometimes the source of confusion), this degree is not generally recognized in the legal profession and is not sufficient in any state to take a bar exam or practice law.
with Buzzfeed as the source. I don't know, what do you all think? Herostratus ( talk) 18:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Apparently there was some minor content in the article here about the EJD in the 2009-2010 time frame, but it was deleted in January 2011. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 03:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The JD is a professional doctorate (Yes). The JD like other professional doctorate, (MD, DDS), is not equivalent to the PhD (Yes). Those statement are not opinions but facts. Please stop messing with the JD pages trying to push your agenda; you can't have it both ways.-- Viscountrapier ( talk) 14:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
So, you are saying that it is the PhD claiming that the JD is equivalent to the PhD ?-- Viscountrapier ( talk) 18:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
My edits are "sourced" from known and trustworthy sources; I did not make the wiki rules. You can rewrite my piece to make sure that it is fair, but you cannot remove the gist of the topic, which is : The JD is a professional doctorate, but professional doctorates, not only the JD, are not equivalent to the PhD and other PhD equivalent degrees. Not my words, but the sourced words of the US Government,and the National Science Foundation. If you have a problem, take it up with them. -- Viscountrapier ( talk) 18:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, the Department of Education is part of the US Government. They act for the US government in all matters concerning Education. Also the OPM, the Federal government agency in charge of hiring all federal government employees, places the JD beside Master degree. I can provide you with a source if you are interested ? This should be about facts and not opinions. -- Viscountrapier ( talk) 18:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I have changed it to the Department of Education. -- Viscountrapier ( talk) 18:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I have also removed any generalization language. In your case, I find it funny that you are willing to keep a statement from a "single" voluntary, non academic group, and non-binding group, but are quick to try to remove sourced material from the US Department of Education, and the National Science Foundation; the National Science Foundation for the love of God! . To me this is about facts, and not opinion. -- Viscountrapier ( talk) 19:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
What a load of tripe. As a practicing lawyer holding both a J.D. and an LL.B. (different jurisdictions) I can say there is no practical difference in the education necessary to obtain these degrees; and contrary to much of the discussion, simply obtaining a J.D. (cf. LL.B.) DOES NOT make one ready to practice law (even though technically in the U.S. one simply need obtain the degree, write the bar exams, and hang out a shingle - pity the client who relies upon the services of a sole practicing brand new American attorney!). It is only with practice, articling or working under senior lawyers for several years, experiencing hands-on legal work, that any lawyer, regardless of the degrees they might hold, truly becomes a practicing lawyer (rather than someone who knows how to conduct legal research). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.91.194 ( talk) 21:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I finally tracked down this reference. It appears that this is from the Malet Street Gazette (cited by Mwenda as http://www.malet.com/_ArticleFile/000000b8.htm which I couldn't find). Pappas [2] is a NC attorney with an LL.B. from a U.K. school and an LL.M. from a U.S. school (among other degrees, including an M.Phil. in Law). Several ac.uk web sites described it as a "web based journal" [3], [4] and it has been cited in other peer-reviewed articles [5] but it isn't clear just how well-known and well-regarded it is. It doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed. The LL.B. article here uses it as a source Bachelor_of_Laws#References. JJL ( talk) 04:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
From two authors at the U. of Sydney: Loughnan, Arlie and Shackel, Rita, The Travails of Postgraduate Research in Law, Legal Education Review, Volume 19 Issue 1/2 (2009):99-132 [6]. The article says in part (while discussing research degrees in law in Australia, including the S.J.D.): "In keeping with the North American model on which it is based, the JD is not a doctorate and does not bring with it the right to use the title 'doctor'." JJL ( talk) 14:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
From the ABA [7]: "the ethics committee reversed course in light of the newly adopted ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility. Disciplinary Rule 2-102 permitted a J.D. or LL.M. (master of law) recipient to use doctor with his or her name, the committee concluded in ABA Informal Opinion 1152 (1970)." (Emphasis added.) So, the ABA considers having either a J.D. or a master's degree sufficient to entitle one to use the title 'doctor'. As an aside, this is interesting reading on the S.J.D. vs. the Ph.D.: [8]. I wish there were more detail here [9]: It sounds as though the judge's law degree didn't qualify him as a 'doctoral recipient' but his management degree did, if valid. JJL ( talk) 19:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Per recent edits, while it's true that the professional doctorates and the research doctorates are different, even among prof. doctorates the J.D. is viewed differently. We have many cites indicating that it isn't universally perceived as a true doctorate (unlike, say the M.D>), and that in practice it receives differential treatment compared to other prof. doctorates (e.g., the commissioning grade for lawyers vs. physicians/dentists/pharmacists/etc.). Some editors seem to want to impose a simple, rigid, logical taxonomy on what is after all an uncoordinated system--schools largely make their own rules, within reason (as determined by accrediting bodies)--with multiple players. The view of the ABA, which is very partisan, is not the view of the U.S. govt., for example. Until we see evidence that holders of an M.D. have been criticized as being unqualified to hold high academic office, the difference remains, whether one thinks it should or not. The J.D. is a platypus. It isn't going to fit neatly into a simple category. JJL ( talk) 15:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to address Wikiant's question about purposes germane to the degree, and I take it he is referring to the J.D. in particular (please correct me if you were speaking more generally), aside from being able to teach a law school course, or more specifically, a course that covers legal materials (as opposed to say, an elective course on writing, or some sort of other policy-related law school course that tackles policy and political considerations, among others, other than legal content), the other point of getting a professional doctorate would be to get the training necessary to be qualified to apply for and receive a license to practice the profession. But if it's just teaching, the J.D. should be sufficient. Maybe that's what the ABA meant with its recommendation. Since most universities will insist on hiring faculty members with Ph.D.s (or at least prefer them over all others), the J.D. should be given the same treatment, so as to allow a degree holder to teach law in universities. That is, of course, reading a bit into the ABA recommendation, and I hope I am not too far-off when I do so. On that note, can't we just ask ABA for an opinion, and cite that? :) Rmcsamson ( talk) 17:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that the IPs are back. I put in a request for temporary semi-protection. Wikiant ( talk) 18:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I undid the edit noted as content that was well referenced and seemingly factual was replaced by an unsourced statement from the ABA that only stated that the ABA would seek to have this degree made equivalent to a Ph.D.
vulture19 20:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This same IP keeps deleting this section claiming that the council statement is not recommending. It is true that the word, "recommend" does not appear. However, it is also true that the council statement itself says that the statement is non-binding. I'm not sure what else one calls a non-binding statement other than a "recommendation". Wikiant ( talk) 00:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
By saying it's not binding is merely telling laymen the obvious--to avoid misunderstanding. It clearly states that in this statement "all appropriate persons [are] requested..." to behave as stated. A recommendation and a request are synonymous enough, aren't they? Zoticogrillo ( talk) 04:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
An anonymous user (who appears to be a Canadian nationalist, or is just sick of Canada jokes from down south) keeps messing with the Canada section. This user takes out almost anything that might be slightly disparaging to that country, even if it includes healthy citations, and has never contributed to this discussion page. The user rarely even includes comments in the editing. One common action by the user is to remove references to the LL.B. in Canada and to mislead the reader into thinking that the J.D. is the primary law degree. This is despite the fact that the citations to the previous content were more than sufficient and clear, and he replaced those with citations which usually provide little to no support for that user's content. This has been ongoing for more than a year, but instead you guys argue ad nauseum about subtle interpretations of citations and crap. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 16:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
So, with no further comment, here's what's going to happen: After a few days if no further comments are posted, I'm going to change the article to reflect extant and previous citations, the changes will remain for a few months, anon editor will then reverse all changes restoring that editor's content with inflammatory edit summaries and no contributions to the discussion page, and we will then remain with a ridiculously inaccurate, non-verifiable and contradictory Canada section. Anyone care to place a bet? Zoticogrillo ( talk) 00:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC) I know it sounds retarded, but I really have tried a number of other strategies already, some of which were carried through with no result or no other editor support. Therefore, I invite support for a temporary editing lock on the Canada section after content is repaired. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 00:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
.... is being a lamer, I suggest a mod ban this guy from editing any further for a little, please and thank you. No particular interest in Law, just not cool with wiki-defamation, calumny, and slander. Joshua Torelli ( talk) 01:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Howdy folks. I am just as eager to verify whether or not the J.D. has now overtaken the LL.B. in Canadian law schools as anybody. Knowing firsthand that the University of Calgary has just made the switch (legally as of September 2010, physically as of December 2010) I do know changes are happening. Please stop the edit war and I will make it my business to check every university website to see. OK? Best, A Sniper ( talk) 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Asserting the Executive Juris Doctor degree is "not widely accepted" is a bald face assertion lacking any supportive evidence. In other words, it's a simple opinion.
I would like others to join me in re-writing the Executive Juris Doctor section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasmonkeyfarm ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The text is this:
"Although the American Bar Association has issued a Council Statement[127] advising that the J.D. be considered as being equivalent to the Ph.D. for employment and educational purposes,[128] the United States Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, and the European Research Council do not include the J.D. or other professional doctorates among the degrees that are equivalent to research doctorates,[129][130][131] and there has been some confusion regarding the differences between the J.D. as a professional doctorate and research doctorates such as the Ph.D., with some sources noting that they are not equivalent.[132][133][134][135]"
The "some sources noting that they are not equivalent" is logically unnecessary; it's a non-issue. From what I can tell, no source actually says that the J.D. and the PhD are equivalent. The only thing that comes close is the ABA saying that the JD should be considered the same as the PhD for hiring purposes. This is not the same as saying that the degrees are equivalent, and it's already been stated in that very same paragraph that the JD is not a research doctorate.
The text says "there has been some confusion" - has there really? What sources maintain that the JD is exactly like the PhD? The only thing that has been claimed is that the JD should be equivalent to the PhD for hiring purposes - none of the sources that follow actually address this.
Saying "Although" implies that the sources that come after it contradict the ABA; but they don't. The ABA saying that JDs should be hired alongside PhDs in a teaching context has nothing to do with whether the European Research Council will award a JD holder grant money. It just doesn't make sense, logically. These are two separate issues.
(Not to mention the general weirdness behind comparing the "American" Bar Association to the "European" Research Council.)
Deep Purple Dreams (
talk)
22:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Reference to the European Research Council not accepting JD's as research degrees is irrelevant. First, the cited website doesn't mention JDs at all, merely refers back to the NSF (essentially saying, "we do what they do.") Consequently, since the NSF is already mentioned, the ERC is redundant. Second, the ERC, like the NSF, as others have noted, is primarily a science research entity. It goes without saying that funding for someone with only a law degree would be a bit out of place. (I would be surprised if the NSF gave any research grants to anyone with only a PhD is art history, too.) Third, JDs aren't used in Continental Europe -- or, for all intents and purposes, in the EU at all -- making the ERC reference utterly irrelevant. (If anything, the constant desire to reinsert the ERC reference, despite several editors' removing it, seems to involve some strange hang-up by a particular editor. Is this all about JD law professors getting paid more than the average PhD?) Epstein's Mother ( talk) 05:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
All undergraduate degrees in Italy, no matter the subject, are awarded as "dottore" giving the right of the graduate to call themselves "Dottore" (Doctor). Therefore, if you do what would be considered a B.A. in the U.S. in Italy you are still awarded a dottore degree. The comparison here is spurious and gives a sense of inaccuracy as it suggests that somehow in Italy undergraduate law degrees are special degrees awarding the dottore title, while the reality is ALL undergraduate degrees award this title! The Italian undergraduate degree in law is equivalent of the LLB/JD. 86.163.24.60 ( talk) 02:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
"The approach of the English degree can be seen in the required curriculum, in which there is no study of civil procedure, and relatively few courses in advanced law such as business entities, bankruptcy, evidence, family law, etc." ... What??? This statement is clearly wrong and you can figure this out by quickly examining any LLB in England and its curriculum! Plus, you completely exclude the LPC in England which is a required element of the English legal education that is specifically designed to cover off practical elements of the education. Even so, LLBs in England do cover these topics, for example Oxford University ( http://www.law.ox.ac.uk/themes/all_courses.php) or the University of London ( http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/prospective_students/undergraduate/panel/law/scheme_a.shtml). LLBs in Scotland have mandatory subjects ( http://www.lawscot.org.uk/becomingasolicitor/students/studying-the-llb/professional-subjects) which are: public law and the legal system, conveyancing, Scots private law, evidence, Scots criminal law, taxation, European community law, Scots commercial law (that includes practical elements of bankruptcy and business entities specifically!!!). As a Scottish lawyer working in the UK, I find this article wholly an inaccurate reflection and demeaning of th UK's education system. 86.163.24.60 ( talk) 02:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
In The Netherlands, a meester (master) university degree is required to become a judge, attorney or notary. 95% of lawyers only gets this agree. Historically, it is supposed to be some kind of professional doctorate, which is the reason why lawyers that write a PhD disseration (the other 5%) are not supposed to call themselves "Dr." but only "Mr.", as a tradition (they are allowed by law to use the "Dr." title though - which is a crime otherwise). I leave it to others to integrate this information into the lemma itself. Rbakels ( talk) 12:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for inviting me to comment on the changes I made to the Juris Doctor article, which you un-did because the changes "didn't appear constructive." My changes were made because the content was inaccurate.
The ABA writing requirement states: Law schools "shall require that each student receive substantial instruction in …legal analysis and reasoning, legal research, problem solving, and oral communication … [and] writing in a legal context, including at least … at least one additional rigorous writing experience after the first year.” ([ quoted by one of the references in the J.D. article]
The chart in the JD article contains numerous citations which all say the same thing: the writing requirement is for the students to demonstrate professional legal skills in writing. Legal memoranda and briefs are typical of a paper fulfilling this requirement. Papers which fulfill the writing requirement may be scholarly, such as containing original research or academic analysis, but this is not a requirement. Law journal articles are typical of these kind of scholarly papers. Sometimes "research is required," by schools implementing the ABA writing requirement, but this means legal research, and is not the same as the primary source research required of scholarly papers. Indeed, legal research is a key professional skill. Even if the paper is scholarly, it must still show competence with the professional skills of legal analysis.
The Juris Doctor article clearly explains in many places that when the J.D. was created, it was the only professional degree in law and that other law degrees were academic degrees. The category of "scholarly content required" on the chart shows, as stated elsewhere in the article, that the original U.S. J.D. degree is still one of the only strictly professional degrees in law, and that the degree in other places, even though they are called a J.D., still include academic content traditionally required by the scholarly law degrees (LL.B., etc.)
It is not necessary for there to be so many citations. The citations all say the same thing. This stacking of citations is suspicious, as it is typical of POV-pushing. Indeed, as I have discussed, the inclusion of the citations was even a mistake, because they all state that the writing requirement is intended to fulfill the ABA requirement that students demonstrate professional legal skills in writing.
Therefore, the edits I proposed to the article are not only acceptable, but also demonstrate good housekeeping. That is, my edits were extremely constructive ;) 173.51.131.223 ( talk) 21:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :) 173.51.131.223 ( talk) 06:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The professional application of law is a topic of a professional degree, not a research degree. A thesis or dissertation requiring original research is not required for the traditional JD degree because it is a professional degree. The ABA writing requirement is not a thesis, but merely a paper which demonstrates professional legal skills in writing. 204.126.64.99 ( talk) 22:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
An unregistered editor has persistently deleted the section of the article addressing the equivalence of the JD to the PhD. Please note that this issue has been extensively discussed here (check the archives linked at the top of this Talk page). I'm sure that we're willing to reopen the discussion, especially if there is something new to add. But ignoring the discussion and other editors by simply deleting the section - over and over again - isn't acceptable. ElKevbo ( talk) 03:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The reference to the European Research Council is completely irrelevant. The ERC document specifically discusses their criteria for assigning grants; the ERC performs scientific research and has no connection whatsoever to law. Therefore, it is irrelevant to the JD article. Deep Purple Dreams ( talk) 04:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The following is copied from a section at Wikipedia:Help desk. I make no claims regarding its accuracy or value.
Looie496 ( talk) 16:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
ALSO
Somebody please correct this sentence: "Professionals who pass the required bar examination are known as lawyers or attorneys, and they are designated by the suffix esquire (Esq.) or J.D.". The bit about 'Esq' is wrong and only remotely close in the USA - see the linked page about Esq for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.234.45 ( talk) 14:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Under "Modern variants and curriculum", the table erroneously states that J.D. is sufficient education for license in Singapore. This is incorrect. The J.D. from the Singapore Management University (SMU) merely makes the graduate a "qualified person" under s.5A(2) of the Legal Profession (Qualified Persons) Rules. A "qualified person" is entitled to attend the preparatory course leading to Part B of the Singapore Bar Examinations, the satisfactory completion of which is necessary for admission as an Advocate and Solicitor (i.e. license to practice). Being a "qualified person" alone does not mean one is licensed to practice.
This misreading of the Rules is similarly reflected in (4.2 Descriptions of the J.D. outside the U.S.) --> (4.2.6 Singapore). Please allow for edits to correct inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.168.101 ( talk) 17:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The above has been noted and corrections have been made. AurekBesh ( talk) 09:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
IMHO this is nonsense. In particular as attorneys, JDs primarily defend their clients, using the legal system, even if they are crminals or accused of other improper behavior. Law enforcement is the task of the judiciary, not of individuals who happen to have an education in law. Rbakels ( talk) 09:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that the confusing chart comparing J.D. degrees among several countries be eliminated or reworked. First, it lacks useful support. The footnote supporting it simply refers vaguely to subsequent paragraphs which do not support the chart. Second, it seems odd to say that the U.S. J.D. does not contain "scholarly" material. This is odd because the major criticism of U.S. J.D.'s is that they are too academic and insufficiently practical. Many J.D. students are members of academic journals that have an explicit scholarly component and require students to produce original scholarly work. So, the factual accuracy of this chart is suspect. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2602:252:D5D:E7D0:C1B:C686:7A3E:785A (
talk)
02:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Juris Doctor. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I haven't looked at this article in ages.
The article incorrectly stated that to be admitted to the bar of a U.S. Federal district court, a person had to be admitted to the bar of the state in which the Federal district court is located. That is blatantly false. For example, for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas:
---from [12]. Famspear ( talk) 05:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
PS: Here is the erroneous language as it was found in the article before I corrected it:
Some Federal district courts apparently do have that rule. Obviously that's not the rule in the Southern District of Texas. Famspear ( talk) 05:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Another Federal district court that does not require that attorneys be members of the bar in which the court is located is the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado:
---from [13]. Famspear ( talk) 05:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's another example: the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois:
--from Rule 83.1, General Admission of Attorneys, Local Rules, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, at [14]. Famspear ( talk) 05:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The nonsense was added by an anonymous editor on February 23, 2016, here: [15]. Famspear ( talk) 05:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Juris Doctor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Juris Doctor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Juris Doctor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on Juris Doctor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
User Law School Prof has added Juris Doctorem as an alternative name for the J.D., with the claim in the edit summary that this is used at Georgetown University. A Google site search on georgetown.edu for the text "juris doctorem" returns no results, while there is plenty of material there using "Juris Doctor". It should also be noted that Juris Doctorem is the Latin accusative of Juris Doctor, which is therefore used on some degree parchments - this is not a separate title from Juris Doctor, merely the form Juris Doctor takes when it is the subject of a sentence in Latin. I suspect this is the cause of Law School Prof's confusion. My revert on this edit was re-reverted without explanation; to avoid edit-warring I have therefore tagged it as needing a citation and opened this discussion. Robminchin ( talk) 04:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I added Juris Doctorem as that is what is actually listed on the diploma. I contacted the Georgetown University Law School Registrar, the office responsible for diplomas, and they confirmed by email that both Juris Doctor and Juris Doctorem are appropriate designations for the Georgetown degree--one in Latin and the other it's English translation. I'm not sure how to cite to an email, but I am willing to scan into a PDF file. Any suggestions? Thank you. Law School Prof ( talk) 21:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
In the United States, the professional doctorate in law may be conferred in Latin or English as Juris Doctor (sometimes shown on Latin diplomas in the accusative form Juris Doctorem) and at some law schools Doctor of Law (J.D. or JD), Doctor of Jurisprudence, (also abbreviated JD or J.D.).
That makes perfect sense, especially given the confusion amongst law school graduates. A google search for Juris Doctorem finds many graduates who list their degree with that designation, so this explanation will help clear up the issue. Law School Prof ( talk) 14:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Juris Doctor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.aragon.unam.mx/oferta_educativa/posgrados/derecho/doc_derecho.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
So Buzzfeed (which despite the stupid name is now a legit and reasonably reliable news organ) has this article about something called the Executive Juris Doctor degree
I don't know if it's important enough to include in this already dense and long article, so I didn't, but on the other hand probably some none-zero number of people are going to search on "Executive Juris Doctor" which is a redirect to "Juris Doctor#Executive Juris Doctor", which section doesn't exist, so they are just dumped at the top of this article, which contains no info at on Executive Juris Doctor.
So maybe we ought to ad a section something like this, probably in the "Types and characteristics" subsection:
Some for-profit schools in the United States offer a legal education program resulting in an Executive Juris Doctor (EJD) degree. Despite the similarity in name to Juris Doctor (which is sometimes the source of confusion), this degree is not generally recognized in the legal profession and is not sufficient in any state to take a bar exam or practice law.
with Buzzfeed as the source. I don't know, what do you all think? Herostratus ( talk) 18:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Apparently there was some minor content in the article here about the EJD in the 2009-2010 time frame, but it was deleted in January 2011. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 03:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)