![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Please see this proposed content for this J.D. article. The present article contains much irrelevant content, very little historical information, little detail on the J.D. in other countries, a horrible entry paragraph, and very little citations. The proposed article is a result of a month or two of finding verifiable sources and careful drafting. I look forward to your comments. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 07:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
^ Your proposed page had all the information I was looking for. The information in the current article is absolute rubbish. Cheers for the page (please keep it online even if, for whatever stupid wiki reason it cannot be implemented as the official page). Cheers. StefanG Alum ( talk) 15:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
In particular, this proposal is intended to provide a venue for opinions about the validity of the degree, and is a kind of proposal to resolve disputes about the content. Therefore, please provide your opinions there on that proposed content. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 07:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Please post summary of what you think is most important from previous discussions here.
There has been much discussion about this page, the most recent of which can be found in Archive 3. Please read that content in the archives before editing or posting comments. Opinion has been posted about this article and the J.D. for the past few years. Addressing specific content, citations and use of citations is more useful than expounding opinion. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 07:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to use the word "Juris Doctorate" several times. The degree is not called a Juris Doctorate; it is called "Juris Doctor." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 ( talk) 18:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The previous comment is idiotic. The degree is named in Latin. "Juris doctor" means "teacher of law," juris being the Latin genitive singular, doctor being the nominative singular. "Doctorate" is an English, not a Latin, term -- "juris" is not English, there is no discipline "juris" in academics in English. To claim that "juris doctorate" is correct would be like saying, "He has a baccalaureate degree in Artibus" is OK, or "He has a doctorate in Sacrae Theologiae." 24.164.152.155 ( talk) 03:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I am placing a dispute tag to direct users to read this debate.
A Juris Doctor degree is merely a rebranding of the old bachelor of laws (LL.B.) degree. It is nothing more, nothing less. It merely means "Law Degree." This article is factually inaccurate. The references used to make the case that it is a doctorate are simply erroneous and non authoritative.
First reference: This reference refers to answers.com as a reference, which republishes what is written in Wikipedia. Circular reasoning at best.
Second reference: I have contacted the webmaster to point out the factual inaccuracy.
Third reference: This is merely a non binding OPINION written by a representative of one state's bar association.
Fourth reference: A mere categorical listing is a WEAK reference. I have notified the webmaster of their factual error.
Fifth reference: First, this is a bogus reference. This is the ENGLISH version of Wikipedia, not German. Germany is hardly an authority on an American academic degree. This is most likely something missed in translation. Obviously, many English speaking people see Juris Doctor and don't get that it isn't a doctorate.
Sixth reference: This is merely a career guide. Career centers aren't very factually oriented and they are definitely not authoritative. They have two factual errors under "Doctoral Programs," one being the listing of the JD degree, the other stating that the MD is "required" to practice medicine. I have notified them of their factual errors.
The JD is merely a bachelor's degree and is merely the BASIC degree necessary to practice law. The progression of law education is ANY bachelor's degree -> JD -> LLM -> LLD or PhD or SJD. What other doctorate offers a master's degree and doctorate beyond the earning of the doctorate?
Dentistry "offers a master's degree... beyond the earning of the doctorate."
What other doctorate requires NO SPECIFIC UNDERGRADUATE STUDY in order to matriculate?
Dentistry and medicine require the completion of some science courses, but require no particular undergraduate degree or major.
What other doctorate can one complete in just three years beyond ANY bachelor's degree?
Dentistry, like law, can be completed in seven years of higher education. Veterinary medicine can be completed in six years of higher education.
Don't confuse "graduate entry" with "graduate program."
References:
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academic.html
http://www.kinsellalaw.com/archive/2002_04_01_archive.php
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207005109/http://law.slu.edu/prospective_student.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=juris%20doctor
http://www.legaltutors.com/frequently_asked_questions.htm#What%20is%20an%20LL.B
http://law.wfu.edu/llm/about/what/
http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse/Our%20Organisation%2FBusiness%2FSchools%20and%20Groups%2FSchool%20of%20Accounting%20and%20Law%2FAcademic%20Programs%2FJuris%20Doctor/
http://www.law.indiana.edu/curriculum/programs/degree_explained.shtml
http://law.missouri.edu/jd/
http://www.law.wayne.edu/current/academic_programs.html
http://www.bond.edu.au/study-areas/law/degrees/pg/jd.html
http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/handbooks/courses/3387.html
Jkhamlin ( talk) 20:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If you read Pearls & Pinstripes by Judith Richards Hope, you will notice that the Harvard class of 1963 graduated with a L.L.B degree, not a J.D. Maybe a more specific date should be used instead of "By the 1960s every law school except Yale offered a J.D. as its sole professional law degree" as this is not true.
On another note, a J.D. is not a rebranding of the L.L.B. degree. At the time of the introduction of the J.D. you would receive higher pay having a J.D. versus an L.L.B. degree as it was considered a Masters degree, and an L.L.B. considered a Bachelors degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Algorath ( talk • contribs) 01:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This article states "It is immaterial to the pursuit of a Master of Laws, whether or not the aspirant holds a J.D., as a prerequisite." This is incorrect. Although I have heard of a few CPA's being able to earn LL.M.'s, the vast majority of programs require an earned law degree before matriculating in an LL.M. program. Thus, to say that a prior law degree is immaterial - based on a handful of exceptions - is inaccurate, or in the least, misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 ( talk) 18:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments should be listed in temporal order. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 01:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There are so many grammatical and factual errors in the new content, I don't even know where to start. I'm not sure why someone would make so many edits without signing in. I'm not sure why they would avoid discussion as well. I created a new article (the text of which is linked below), because in trying to edit the article that has existed here, there was just too much that needed fixing. Some users have been engaging in editing wars, not using valid account names, not signing in, etc. I'm not sure why such an innocuous issue should attract so much bad faith editing. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 01:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
--This article really is pretty much crap right now. I think someone with a high school diploma wrote it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.70.45.95 (
talk)
00:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I wonder whether the change from Bachelor of Laws to Doctor of Law as the initial qualification for legal practice is a form of " grade inflation," as seen in other professions in the USA? Pharmacists, physiotherapists, optometrists, etc, all qualify as doctors nowadays. Most fields where a master's degree used to be customary now seem to require a doctorate. Does everybody get an alpha grade or first class degree now?
There is a curious inversion of the European cursus honorum, where a JD may now be followed by an LLM, or an MD by an MS or MPH.
It could, of course, mean that higher standards of academic preparation are required now than in the past, but if that is the case it is strange that the American JD, as compared with the non-American LLB, eschews "academic" and "scholarly" content and does not require any sort of thesis or dissertation.
Similarly, most tertiary level academics seem to be Professors of one sort or another in the US, unlike the UK where most teaching is done by lecturers and senior lecturers (and a few readers). Private institutions in India tend now to appoint Assistant Professors rather than Lecturers and Associate Professors rather than Senior Lecturers.
Could these be examples of Gresham's Law in action? NRPanikker ( talk) 15:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The list of programs has been moved under the Canadian list. However, there is not only a US/Canadian venture. There is also at least one program I am aware of that is between Columbia and the University of London. Why was this one deleted? Can we please also list this one and any others like it. Thank you. Jwri7474 ( talk) 03:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
An unidentified user incorrectly edited sections on Hong Kong, possibly to push the POV of raising the status of the Hong Kong J.D. No citations were provided. The following citations will be added, since this user has created contention on these points: The Hong Kong J.D. only takes two years for a normal course of study (CUHK: http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/law/prospectiveStudents/jd03.html ; CityU http://www.cityu.edu.hk/slw/english/programmes/courses/jd.htm ). In addition, no citations have been provided for the claim that the J.D. in Hong Kong is officially considered at the LL.M. level (or at one time was), or that the J.D. is any different than the LL.B. in content or level of instruction. If citations for any of the content proposed by the user is available, please add them to the article. If the user who made the edits reads this: please read the wiki article on verifiability. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 04:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to have changed so many edits, as I don't want to discourage contributions. Therefore, here is my explanation to my changes:
The table:
The Hong Kong section:
Zoticogrillo ( talk) 04:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor stated that it's "incorrect and non-factual" to use the term "scholarly" in this article. It actually was correct useage, which can be verified by cites. Please read John H. Langbein, “Scholarly and Professional Objectives in Legal Education: American Trends and English Comparisons,” Pressing Problems in the Law, Volume 2: What are Law Schools For?, Oxford University Press, 1996. which is cited in the article. As used in this article, the two terms are synonymous, so it's not a content issue. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 23:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw this article at WP:GAN. Just a comment based on WP:FN, but using "idem" as a citation is a problem if anyone ever adds a reference between the original and the "idem". Even now, citation 21 probably does not refer to citation 20. Someone should replace all the "idem" with the author name (and year if necessary); I would do it but I can't tell for sure what they refer to. Also consider replacing the bare URLs with author/title/publisher/date. Gimmetrow 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The proposed content for the Executive Juris Doctor contains opinion, non-verified content, misleading information and grammatical errors. Therefore, the section has been edited. Here are comments about the changes:
I welcome your comments. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 01:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Juris Doctor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
At this time, I feel this article is not an appropriate candidate for GA nomination due to an extensive history of edit-warring. When viewed in the context of the recent significant changes to the article by multiple editors after both occasions that it was nominated and later declared "ready" on the GA nomination page, further instability in the content is likely. The recent non-vandalism instability disqualifies the article according to quick-fail criteria. Please renominate once a better consensus has been reached on the article content.-- Finalnight ( talk) 22:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
There were numerous edits by 206.205.104.66 to various sections, with comments to the edits.
The user asks what the M.D. has to do with the J.D. There is a connection because it was in the minds of the creators of the J.D. to produce a law equivalent to the M.D. (which is mention specifically in the citations), and because the M.D. was the first American professional doctorate following a new didactic paradigm originating in 19th century U.S., and the J.D. was the second.
It was said in removing content re Roosevelt receiving the J.D. that an honorary doctor is not the same as a J.D., which is true, however that degree was in fact awarded as a J.D., and it is relevant content.
It was said in removing content re history that this article is not about the general history of legal studies. This is also true. However, the content (which could be abbreviated) is important because most of it cannot be found in any other article, and because a misunderstanding of this important information has led to many to misunderstand the J.D. (i.e. thinking that the J.D. is a novel creation by modern U.S. institutions trying to inflate or aggrandize the profession).
Finally, it was said concerning the first degree at universities being a doctorate of law that the statement is an assumption of law not based on fact. However, there are citations for that statement in the following section. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 03:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The Titles section needs a little attention (actually, this whole article is rather poorly written). An attorney is a title given to a person who has been authorized to act in another's stead. Attorney-at-law is the title which indicates licensure to practice law. It is a lot like the certified public accountant (CPA), or professional engineer (PE) designation. 75.68.192.62 ( talk) 12:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Transcluded from Talk:Juris_Doctor/GA2:
Reasonably well written: I have tried to implement the changes suggested.
Broad in its coverage: The J.D. program of study differs between school to school in the U.S., and differs significantly outside of the U.S. The Law school in the United States goes into the details as much as possible, which article is now referenced under "See also".
Neutral Point of View: The sentence mentioned in the Executive Juris Doctor section has been clarified. EJD holders are not able to sit for the bar anywhere in the U.S. The last two sentences are merely to provide contrast between the typical J.D. program, and isn't meant to disparage.
Further suggestions for implementing your ideas are of course welcome. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 14:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
JD users sometimes use the title of Dr in academic circles. The content is supported by citations. This topic was also discussed in archived talk pages. This does not contradict the fact that the JD is a professional degree, because the JD is still awarded by a university. Other professional doctorate holders also use the Dr title in academic circles. Please correct me (with citations) if I'm mistaken. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 18:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This issue has been submitted to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for comment. here Zoticogrillo ( talk) 18:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I've studied the issue anew, and I've changed my mind. I was distracted by the argumentation of this discussion, and had perhaps forgotten about the content of the source. I recommend that the content be altered, as recommended here. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 06:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Zoticogrillo, I don't understand. I thought that this issue was resolved. Specifically, the statement "The North Carolina Bar Association explicitly permits the use of the title in academic contexts as well" should be removed because the NC bar is not a relevant source. You agreed. I removed the passage. Now you've put it back. What's up? Wikiant ( talk) 17:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
There in fact isn't any real controversy at all. Innumerable exceptionally credible sources, from both in and outside the U.S., have clearly stated that the J.D. is a doctorate, and not a single source with any degree of relevance or credibility has ever stated that "the J.D. is not a doctorate." Therefore, the position that the J.D. is not a doctorate is a fringe theory with no verifiability or basis in fact. The claim that this so called controversial idea is uninformed or ignorant is odd and incongruous, as this article is replete with numerous quality citations for nearly every sentence it contains. Therefore, any complaint as to the content of this article does not take issue with so called hijacking editors (a conspiracy theory), but takes issue with the sources the article cites (such as Encyclopedia Brittanica, books published by Oxford University Press, the University of Melbourne, etc.). Zoticogrillo ( talk) 07:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
FranklinFields added a bunch of content to this article without providing any citations, and the added content directly contradicted verifiable content in this article and in other articles. Some editors have argued that this was a valid questioning of the content. However, it was clearly in error, and based on wiki policy it warranted immediate removal. One of the statements, that the J.D. is the only 3 year program, cannot be directly cited because it would require the citation of information on every single doctorate degree, therefore a demand for a citation in that case is unreasonable. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The recent edit eliminating content stating that the J.D. is the only 3 year doctorate was in error, and was "undone." The edit summary stated that a simple web search would reveal that many DDS degrees are also three years. The advertisements of those dental schools (such as the University of Pacific in San Francisco) are misleading. It's 3 years because there is no summer break. J.D. programs, like other programs, have a summer break. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 21:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
User:75.117.50.65 claims that there is an inconsistency in the following statement: "It is the only professional doctorate in law, and is unique among doctorate programs in being a three year program in most jurisdictions (many doctorates are four years or longer)." It is claimed that there is a logical inconsistency between "unique" and "most." There are no doctorates that are 3 years long in any jurisdiction, therefore the degree is indeed unique. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 04:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There is one US school (UOP) that grants the DDS degree in 3 years. Also, there are a few medical schools in Canada (also LCME accredited) that grant MD degrees in only 3 years. (Calgary, McMaster, etc.) The MD and DDS degrees are considered "undergraduate degrees" in Canada as well. Jwri7474 ( talk) 07:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The M.D. is Canada is 4 years long. Two universities offer a program that has no breaks, and is therefore 3 years long, but has the same number of semesters as the 4 year programs. wiki article. The UOP DDS program is the same. UOP DDS program. Therefore are no doctorates, other than the J.D., that can be completed within 6 semesters. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 01:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The D.P.T. degree is three academic years long. This is comparable to a M.F.A., M.Arch., M.S.W., etc. But the M.D./D.O., D.D.S./D.M.D., D.C., O.D., PharmD., N.D., etc., are all four academic years in length, even though many schools will try to put them into fewer calendar years. The situation is more complicated in some cases, where a previous master's degree can be counted against the time for a doctoral degree (e.g. the transition D.P.T., or a DNP [6], and possibly the Doctor of Architecture). The 22 June 2007 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education has an article that criticizes the D.P.T. and its ilk for, among other things, watering down the meaning of 'doctorate'. JJL ( talk) 17:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The citations provided sufficiently meet the wiki standards of verifiability in supporting the content. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 19:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC) edited Zoticogrillo ( talk) 19:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok...I wish that I could devote a ton of my free time to really break this terrible article down piece by piece, but I can't. I'll start small. Comparing the length of time (as phrased) to completion among doctoral degrees of different disciplines is ridiculous. A professional degree is structured so that a time to completion is inherent. A "learned" or "academic" doctorate (e.g., Ph.D) is not so structured, and therefore generally has only an "outside" and "inside" boundary for time to completion (e.g. "candidates for the Ph.D must spend a minimum of two years in residency" (inside); "all Ph.D programs must be completed no later than seven years after they begin" (outside)). Debating this (and a host of other issues) further with Zoticogrillo is pointless, for me anyway, for several reasons. First, Zoticogrillo it seems will rarely concede, even after totally irrefutable evidence contradicting his/her point is presented, that the position taken is wrong. Second, I have noticed a correlation between articles where Zoticogrillo has a large presence, and the quality, stability and ranking of those articles. Third, and forgive me for overlapping here, my first contention's manifestation makes the entire process of reading, editing, or revising any issue, in any process which Zoticogrillo participates, a pain in the butt. Maybe Zoticogrillo thinks adherence to his/her principles is beneficial, but I contend otherwise. Zoticogrillo, for the sake of all projects within Wikipedia--get real, get better at defending your assertions and actions, or GET OUT OF THE WAY! I have no problem with critical editing but it seems like every time I start reading a ridiculously verbose, redundant, illogically constructed article on the legal profession, Zoticogrillo is there. Just wondering, what makes Zoticogrillo an authority on everything legal? I think a coup is in order! 69.254.182.195 ( talk) 07:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed! Here, here... I told him/her this about a year ago! The assumption of self- assertion, arrogance, and absolute self- righteousness on Zoticogrillo part's is truly incredible. It lacks true academic discipline... I finally gave-up! Within days all my comments were erased from this site. Interesting. <TempleBarrister> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.102.19 ( talk) 17:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I like how Zoticogrillo has largely cleaned up this article and added lots of citations. However, the problem is that by focusing too much on the history of the degree itself (in terms of the actual certificate awarded), the article now has even less coverage of the program that goes into the degree. But that is okay since we have too many articles already repeating the same information: Law school, Law school in the United States, and Education of lawyers in the United States. The next problem is figuring out how to merge all these articles. Which I am too busy to deal with personally. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 03:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Recent vitriolic edits from a person on a mission have stated that the J.D. is rapidly replacing the LL.B., and hasn't provided any citations. This is contrary to the available evidence. It was stated that the J.D. is replacing the LL.B. in Canada, even though there are 19 law schools in Canada, only 2 have the J.D. and only 3 others "have voted to do the same." 5 out of 19 is a small percentage. It was stated that the J.D. is replacing the LL.B. in Hong Kong, but it hasn't replaced the degree at all. It has been introduced in two of the law schools very recently, but the only school with a well established law program, HKU, has not been considering the J.D. at all. Finally it was claimed that the J.D. is replacing the LL.B. in Australia. However, out of the 30 Aussie law schools, only 10 have the J.D., and in only 1 of those has the J.D. replaced the LL.B. And those, my friend, are the facts. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 04:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
What is with the picture of the graduation robe on the article page? It is an awful picture, and besides that, what exactly does it add to the article with respect to the degree? I suggest that it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulsa si elagnewg ( talk • contribs) 06:53, September 15, 2008 (UTC)
The notice at the top of the page states that "J.D." redirects to this article. While true at the time, it is no longer the case now; "J.D." now redirects to "JD", which is a disambiguation page. However, I don't know how to correct the notice.
-- James-Chin ( talk) 15:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
On top of the controversy surrounding whether the J.D. is a doctoral-level degree or not, another serious problem with the Wiki article is that a few sections therein appear to have an implicit biased point of view, which claims legal education in the US is somehow "superior" to that available in other countries.
Specifically, sections such as "Revolutionary Approach: The Scientific Study of Law (sic)" seem to suggest that American Law degrees were introduced as a way to fix what was perceived at the time as the shortcomings of the apprenticeship-based system, by combining legal theory and practice (clinical training) into one single graduate-level academic degree. The US approach is then heralded by the article's editor as "superior" and "scientific", implying by extension that, in countries like Britain or Germany, where a different model is used (a legal theory bachelor's degree followed by a vocational/apprenticeship stage), legal education would be somehow "inferior" or "unscientific", producing "less qualified lawyers".
I am not a lawyer myself, nor am I British or German, but I strongly believe that Wikipedia articles should be NPOV and should refrain from subjective qualitative comparisons. The J.D. article also has many factual inaccuracies such as referring to the Oxbridge BA degree in jurisprudence//law as a "liberal arts degree". Personally, considering all the controversy seen on this page, I am inclined to think the J.D. article needs serious review. 201.68.232.189 ( talk) 16:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The first part of the title section states that lawyers are allowed to use a title of doctor.
This seems like it is poorly sourced and probably wrong.
1. The source links to the ABA code of professional responsibility. This is not binding on lawyers- it is advisory everywhere in the US as far as I know- in any case certainly not universaly applicable.
2. The ABA code cited is defunct it appears. It has been superceded. So the citation appears to be to a discontinued advisory opinion. Hard to get much worse than that.
3. The code cited doesn't say lawyers can use doctor as a title, it says they can use any title they have earned. So this doesn't answer the question.
Seems to me the source is poor for showing that a J.D. is considered a doctorate or that lawyers can use that title.
The source isn't authoritative or apparently even valid so the sentence should prolly be changed to say that blah blah.. according to... and list the code.
Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.234.88 ( talk) 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no support in the citation for the claim that Michigan was among the first schools to implement the J.D. degree. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 18:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
As yet another evidence that the DOE does not endorse the concept of "professional doctorate", I would like to draw your attention to the following link from the Education USA website.
It is worth noting that Education USA refers to the J.D. as a "first professional degree" (not a "professional doctorate"), and has a separate entry for "Graduate Legal Education", including the LLM. The section on "Graduate Legal Education" also mentions that "doctoral programs in Law also exist", referring implicitly to SJD degrees, which "admit only a small number of promising applicants, usually from among those who have completed a master's program at a U.S. law school and who plan to enter a career as a law school faculty member".
It is totally unacceptable that the English Wikipedia continues to spread misinformation in several of its articles by referring to U.S. first professional degrees as "professional doctorates", a title that is neither used nor endorsed by the U.S. government and is not recognized by any university outside the U.S. as a doctoral qualification. 161.24.19.112 ( talk) 19:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
PS: See also Education USA's glossary of terms, where "doctorate" and "professional degree" are two separate entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.24.19.112 ( talk) 20:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This article implies that training courses whose graduates are not immediately eligible for licensure are more academic and less professional than the American JD programme. The idea seems to be that the requirements to practice throughout the world are identical, and only the level of preparation offered by the various training courses differs.
My impression is that there is at least as great a difference in licensure requirements as there is in training courses.
In Canada, where our three-year course is almost identical to the three-year US course, the requirement that our graduates article for a year, working under the supervision of an established lawyer reflects a difference in licensure requirements and not a difference in the amount of vocational training required by Canadian and American degrees.
This article also mentions that the ABA does not recognize Canadian JDs (or LLBs). The converse is true in Canada. American JDs are obliged to take further coursework, to article, and to pass the Canadian bar exam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.101.201 ( talk) 06:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
This section has been tweaked so much that it appears to be almost entirely original research. I suggest that the section be removed entirely. Wikiant ( talk) 16:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Footnote 102 (ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 2-102(E)) is an ABA document cited as support for the statement that the JD is a doctorate and that lawyers can use the title "doctor". I downloaded the document and it contains no reference (that I could find) to support either of these claims. Wikiant ( talk) 15:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the two pictures at the top of the article (the diploma and the graduation gown) serve no purpose other than to promote the POV that the JD is a doctorate. There is *ample* debate on this topic and enough reasonable citations on both sides for me to conclude that this is clearly a question on which there is no consensus. In light of the lack of consensus, I am removing (again) these pictures. I ask that Zoticogrillo not (again) replace them until such time as other editors have weighed in on the question. Wikiant ( talk) 15:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The captions are merely descriptive and one even has a citation, which citation supports the statement and provides interesting information to hard-to-find sources useful to a reader who wishes to learn more about academic regalia. Please propose non-POV language. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 04:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikiant, as has been stated by Nicholas Jackson, nowhere in this article is the claim made that the J.D. is the same as the Ph.D. The claim that the pictures or captions are misleading is hypothetical and a reader misunderstanding the caption and picture would have to ignore the whole article. We cannot defensively create articles fearing that our readers are stupid, especially when doing so would exclude informative content which content would improve the product. The dominant paradigm in wikipedia is that the product is an encyclopedia, and therefore if something is informative, it should be included. Just because you disagree with the inclusion, does not mean that it must be excluded, as consensus does not require unanimity. As stated in the consensus policy description, "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." Based on our previous discussions, I know you to be an intelligent editor. Therefore, it is most likely that your efforts here are not arising out of illogical fear or misunderstanding, but are purposeful and an example of creating the appearance of changing consensus (you are persisting with issues that have not been raised in nearly a year). Including content which is highly relevant and informative improves the article, and these pictures and captions you are protesting are the only visual representations of the subject matter of the article, therefore they cannot be excluded. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 00:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Re Caption Edit The following caption was added to the picture of the gown: "Although there is debate surrounding the academic status of the J.D. degree, in the United States J.D. holders wear academic robes reserved for doctoral degree holders." Captions are primarily to describe the picture only, and should not contain substantive arguments. Nonetheless, the proposed caption attempts to raise the visibility of an alleged debate, and is illogical. It is abundantly clear that the J.D. is a doctorate (see above and citations in article). Pointing out a practice of holders in the United States has no meaning, as the J.D. is a U.S. degree. And universities carefully regulate academic regalia, therefore the gowns are not worn by choice of the holders, but by regulation of the academic institutions, which institutions have a monopoly on creating and regulating academic tradition. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like this debate will ever end. Why don't we just create two articles, one for the JD and one for the Law degree. Noted the JD is a law degree, it is also a Doctors of Laws. But in order to stop the debate we should just keep the title of Dr. out of the soon to be newly revised Law degree article. Dumaka ( talk) 20:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Can we make footnote 102 more specific. It isn't a reference so much as a list of organizations claimed to support the statement. Wikiant ( talk) 21:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The citations show that some J.D. holders do use the title of Dr. in professional and academic settings. The citation for the academic setting is clear, as it is an example. The citation for the professional setting is an illustration, as issues are not brought to bar associations for an opinion until the issues is raised in the professional setting, which in this case would have been an attorney using the Dr. title. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 04:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's the text from AAUDE:
“Professional” Doctorate First-professional doctoral degrees are first degrees in a given field and include: Chiropractic, Dentistry, Law, Medicine, Optometry, Osteopathy, Pharmacy, Podiatry, Psychology and Veterinary medicine. First-professional doctoral degrees such as the M.D. and J.D. do not require completion of a thesis/dissertation or publication of a coherent body of literature. http://www.answers.com/topic/doctorate
Notice the link at the end -- that's answers.com.
I'll leave the NSF citation to others to consider. IMHO, this reference is inferior as its purpose is not to claim that the JD is a doctorate, but rather it mentions the JD only to say that the paper is *not* about the JD. (Additionally, it mentions the JD as a "professional doctorate"; I note that you've dropped the adjective.)
Finally, I am *not* arguing that the JD is not a doctorate. I *am* arguing that you are using citations disengenuously in a manic effort to support your POV that the JD *is* a doctorate. That's a claim that *you* are making and which *you* are required to support. All I am saying is that these citations do not support that claim. Wikiant ( talk) 17:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The wordiness in the academic status/titles parts is really getting to be an issue. It'd be helpful to have a disinterested party edit it down to the essentials. The purpose isn't to frame the debate but to briefly present the facts and major opinions. JJL ( talk) 15:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Footnote 106 cites ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 2-102(E) as support for the statement:
Disciplinary Rule 2-102(E) states (in total):
The only way this citation can support the text is if one assumes that, by "title derived therefrom", the passage means "doctor." As it is specifically the use of the title "doctor" that the passage is meant to support, we have here a circular argument.
Footnote 107 cites a person's own website. That's self-publication being used as an authority.
Wikiant ( talk) 22:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's another one...
The text in the article says:
If you look at the citation, you'll see that the article says nothing about "countries where holders..." It says (and it is quite specific) that the opinion *narrowly* applies to the Spanish-speaking community in Florida.
FWIW, note further in the same document, the passage:
So, Zoticogrillo not only misrepresented this citation, but ignored a separate passage in the same document that contradicts the very point he is attempting to make.
Wikiant ( talk) 22:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The thing about the LLM being a masters and higher than a JD, and so the JD is therefore not a real doctorate argument is this: anyone who has ever attended law school (that has an LLM program) knows that there are two types of LLM. The vast majority are geared to non U.S. educated lawyers, and aims to introduce them to the American legal system. It is basically the first year (the only year with standardized course requirements) of a JD program (exact same course work - except they are not even required to compete with JD students nor are they subject to the JD grade curve; if they were, they would largely be destroyed). While it is technically a "higher degree" than a JD, I mean, c'mon, do the mental math here. The other possibility is that it is focused course work, most (if not all) courses are available to JD students. Many JD students just don't know what kind of lawyer they want to be, and may go back to take the specialized courses that were open to them in law school, but they just didn't know to take. At the most, it's a fourth year add-on to a JD. It is NOT more advanced. For those few LLM courses not offered to JDs, it's a marketing thing; you can get admitted by petition - I know, I did.
Bottom line, the argument that since an LLM is a masters, and since it is higher than a JD, the JD is therefore not a real (or terminal, or therefore an undergraduate, and so on) doctorate degree is bogus.
Has anyone here attended law school? Or taken a class with LLMs? Or taken both a JD and another professional degree? This argument is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.67.251 ( talk) 01:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Zotocogrillo - I've largely agreed with your arguments, up to your last statement. Do you really believe that? Experiences are absolutely relevant to perception and reality. They cannot, however, be cited on Wikipedia. Huge difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.63.224 ( talk) 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikiant, I believe we can discuss these citations without personal attacks. If you want to address my behavior, you may do so directly and specifically. But lacing all your discussions with the above adjectives provides no productive purpose.
Disciplinary Rule 2-102(E) ABA opinions and rules are issued in response to the behavior of the lawyers, and this citation is support by example for the text. You are correct that the citation is not very helpful for those not familiar with the ABA rules and opinions, as the ABA has clarified the rule in other opinions and comments. Therefore, the citation can be improved with more detailed explanation. But the citation of the rule only was not false or misleading. For example, this rule was clarified by Informal Opinion 1152, which states in part, that DR 2-102(E) "permits the use by a lawyer of 'an earned degree or title derived therefrom indicating his training in the law.' This clearly permits the use of the term 'Doctor' by the holder of a J.D. degree..." The text of that opinion can be found in the library, or as quoted here. Council Statement 2, entitled "J.D. Degree - Ph.D. Degree Equivalency," also clarifies by stating: "WHEREAS, the acquisition of a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree requires from 84 to 90 semester hours of post baccalaureate study and the Doctor of Philosophy degree usually requires 60 semester hours of post baccalaureate study along with the writing of a dissertation, the two degrees shall be considered as equivalent degrees for educational employment purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that all appropriate persons be requested to eliminate any policy, or practice, existing within their jurisdiction which disparages legal education or promotes discriminatory employment practices against J.D. degree-holders who hold academic appointment in education institutions." Therefore, in understanding the context of the rule as described above, the meaning is clear.
UMT Faculty Profile This is a website maintained by a university, and is not a personal website. But even if it were a personal website, such are acceptable if they meet certain criteria, and are not automatically invalid. This citation clearly and ideally supports the text. Also, as it clearly represents practice in a large state university, it is an important cite and is not included for any disingenuous purpose or intent to mislead.
In countries where holders This sentence was introduced by another editor long ago. The citation provides illustrations of this practice, as it discusses the practice of attorneys in Spanish-speaking communities. It does not provide proof of the text, but it provides support. The text does say that the rule will apply only to Florida, but in the text there are quotes from individuals discussing Spanish communities. They do not state that the practices they commented on exists only in Spanish communities in Florida, which would be odd since the Spanish community in Florida is comprised mostly of immigrants from Spanish communities outside the U.S. The quote about the LLM is discussion of some of the members of the committee, not a statement of fact and not very important, and is not relevant to the practice of lawyers in Spanish speaking communities. The LLM statement does not contradict a point being made in the text about practice of lawyers in Spanish speaking communities. Therefore there was no misrepresentation or misleading exclusion as the citation does provide some support by example of the text.
Therefore, the citations will be improved as discussed above by including the other sources if possible, and if the text must be changed to stick to the strict meaning of the citations, it will be. Furthermore, most of these citations have already been examined and discussed by the editors, and they are not being misused with any malevolent intent or dishonesty. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 04:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Wikiant has been a useful contributor to this article. However, recently the edits by this user have been extreme, and comments have contained personal attacks. Please see the comments above. Also see the recent edit by this user, in which an entire passage was removed because of a dispute over just one word. This activity has started to establish a pattern of behavior, which has been on going for more than a year, and is an example of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Administrator action might be necessary to preserve the quality of the article, but I hope not, since User:Wikiant is normally a productive editor. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 10:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The point I have been trying to make is that the JD's status is unclear. There are reliable citations on both sides of the argument (that the JD is a doctorate and that it is not). A year ago, Zoticogrillo made some valuable changes that, drawing on reliable citations, made two clear points: (1) that the JD is a first professional degree, and (2) that there is disagreement as to what the JD's status is beyond item (1). Since that time, Zoticogrillo has introduced numerous tweaks that, as a whole, change item (1) to read more like "the JD is a doctorate", and mitigate item (2). I didn't comment much on the changes until I noticed that many of the citations Zoticogrillo was using to support these tweaks did not in fact support the changes. Thus, more and more, the article began to look like a mixture of Zoticogrillo's POV and OR. Wikiant ( talk) 19:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The subject in the previous section has changed since it was initiated, therefore this section has been started.
A read of the archives is boring. Mainly because it is full of primarily Wikiant hammering on the same tired old rhetoric and criticism without any factual support.
The fact that the JD is a doctorate has been soundly established with a number of citations from the most credible sources. These sources have been from academic institutions and scholars.
There are no reliable citations which state that the Juris Doctor is not a doctorate. Innumerable requests for them have been made, and if they existed, they would appear in the article.
The history and previous versions can be viewed, which demonstrate that I have not, "introduced numerous tweaks that, as a whole, change item (1) to read more like "the JD is a doctorate", and mitigate item (2)," but that since the major revision last year the article has always stated that the Juris Doctor is a doctorate, and has always relied on the same citations for that fact.
Wikiant continues to claim that the citations did not support the statements in the article, however a study of the three previous sections above (footnote 102, use of Dr title in professional and academic settings, and More "Disingenuous" Citations) shows that Wikiants claims were unfounded.
JDs in the United States use the title of Dr, academic practice clearly establishes that the degree is a Dr. degree, ABA policies specifically state that a JD may use the title of Dr., and many JD holders in well established professional and academic settings formally use the title.
The JD is a terminal degree. There is no higher professional degree in law than the JD.
Wiki policies state that silence is consensus. There have been no editors other than Wikiant who have recently claimed that the JD is not a doctorate. In fact, the disputes that Wikiant currently raises were clearly resolved nearly a year ago among the editors, and Wikiant now raises those same disputes once again without any variation, which tries to create the appearance of a break with consensus when there is none. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 06:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
And the consensus policy page specifically states that "consensus" is not the same as unanimous consent. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 06:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact that I found the following (I'm not kidding) via a 30 second Google search suggests that, "The fact that the JD is a doctorate has been soundly established" is questionable:
"The (JD) is not a doctoral level award and graduates are not entitled to use the honorific title “Doctor”. (RMIT University, Postgraduate Program in Juris Doctor) [10]
"The JD is not a doctorate degree. In fact, the next degree after the JD in the US is the LLM and then the doctorate degree (SJD), which is offered by some law schools." (Comparing American and British Legal Education Systems: Lessons for Commonwealth African Law Schools, Kenneth K. Mwenda, Cambria Press) [11]
"Please note that the despite the name, the JD is not a doctoral-level award and graduates are not entitled to use the honorific title "Doctor". (Bond University, Faculty of Law Degree Programs) [12]
"J.D. is not a doctorate degree - - not considered a terminal degree." (Austin Peay State University, Minutes of Deans Council Meeting, July 28, 2004) [13]
"However, unlike a Doctorate, a J.D. is not a terminal degree." (Online Education Database) [14]
Wikiant ( talk) 18:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
These are all great sources which could be included in the article. A thorough search of the internet for many such cites was done last year, and intermittently since then. Some of the websites or versions are new, which could explain why they weren't found before. I know that many editors have searched for them to no avail. Some comments on some of the citations: RMIT, Bond U., U. of Queensland, and U of New England are all Australian universities. These pages all state the policy of the Australian education system that the J.D. is not a doctorate in Australia. I believe that the website already mentions this, but if it doesn't, I thought that it did, and it was an oversight. This position re JD is understandable, since the system is a transplant from the Oxbridge system in England, which system does not contemplate the kind of professional degrees created in the U.S., but leaves professional training to the professions. The City U of HK cite exists in the website. The ABA ethics opinion is from the 60's has been superseded by subsequent opinions, which are cited in the article. The NY opinion kind of goes back and forth, and since it is also from the late 60's, I believe it has been largely superseded as well. The interesting excerpt from Kenneth Mwenda, and African educator not educated in the United States, appears to be opinion and conjecture, and his description of the JD, such as the history, is wrong, as demonstrated by the numerous scholarly works on the topic cited to in the article. The APSU minutes notes is interesting, especially given the context. It appears that someone proposed additions to the faculty handbook, and it states that individual's opinion, but it does not state whether that element ever made it into the faculty handbook, and it is only a summary of what was said during the meeting. Note also that if it did make it into the policies of the school, it is only because the school does not have a law school, as the ABA pulls the accreditation of law schools that don't recognize the JD as a doctorate (as you can read in the citation found in the "title" section of the JD article. The Online Education Database is a commercial website that does not have credibility. My goal at the major revision of the article last year was to explain some of the source of the confusion of the JD, and either I did not succeed, or understanding this phenomenon requires reading the entire article, which is pretty long and complex. In short, this is basically what the article summarizes (as found in the scholarly works on the topic): The JD was created to be a doctor of law degree as found in the old schools of Europe. It was created in the unique educational system of the US to serve the unique professional needs of that jurisdiction. Because educational, legal and professional systems differ greatly from country to country (except in the Commonwealth) the JD has been implemented or perceived differently in those various systems. These same discussions about the status of the MD degree would also exists, were it not for the fact that medical doctors use the "doctor" title by virtue of their profession. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 11:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I just took a survey at FSSE [21] at the request of the university president. Near the end they asked me to identify my highest degree. The top two options were:
I've seen this many times in my career, though often the J.D. is listed alongside professional master's degrees like the M.S.W., M.F.A., M.Arch., etc. JJL ( talk) 00:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Following the discussion above, I propose to undertake an overhaul of the article. I propose doing the following: (1) Adjust references to the JD to uniformly describe it as a "first professional degree" (a status which appears to be non-controversial). These changes will neither claim nor deny that the JD is doctoral/terminal -- rather, the changes will avoid the doctoral/terminal discussion entirely. (2) Combine the "Titles" and "Debate About Academic Status" sections into a single section containing two sub-sections: (a) evidence suggesting that the JD is a doctoral and/or terminal degree, and (b) evidence suggesting that the JD is not a doctoral and/or terminal degree. For this overhaul to work, the article needs to remain neutral to the JD's status beyond that of first professional degree except in the single section that offers evidence. Wikiant ( talk) 22:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course I am eager for the new citations to be integrated into the article. However, the new citations are of limited value, and should compliment other authoritative/credible citations. A recent "overhaul" of the article was a broad sweep which knocked out a lot of really valuable source material, such as the Encycl. Britt.
The new citations basically show that:
The JD is not considered a doctorate by many institutions in Australia and one in HK (where in both countries the degree is a very recent phenomenon, and where the structure of the degree differs wildly from that in the US).
During the 1960's the use of the title of "doctor" by JD holders was limited by some professional bodies, something that was new in the 1960's and has been discontinued for almost 20 years.
The perception that the JD is not a terminal degree, and mis-information about the history of the degree, is common. However, we can thankfully consult historical source material and scholarly works for a more correct understanding (at least as regards to the history of the degree).
Thanks. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 11:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Zoticogrillo is all about consensus until he is the hold out. I'm going to file a request for mediation. Wikiant ( talk) 13:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
To make a note as an observer - Wikiant's edits were awful, and removed much in the way of relevant information. I would have to say that if anyone is pushing an agenda here, it is Wikiant. Does nobody else see this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.67.251 ( talk) 20:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm undecided as to whether Wikiant's sources demonstrate that the JD definitely isn't a proper doctorate, whatever that means. It is clear that criteria for doctoral degrees vary throughout the world, and Zoticogrillo is correct to say that the current situation in Australia (where there seem to be several universities who have recently introduced JD programmes but specifically stated they're not doctoral degrees) is not necessarily relevant to the situation in the US. However, I am now convinced that there is at least some ongoing debate over the exact academic status of the degree, so perhaps the article should acknowledge this in some way. -- Nicholas Jackson ( talk) 10:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Objections to the current revisions to the Juris Doctor article have been reversed a number of times with no discussion. The revisions being pushed at this time eliminates highly relevant pictures and a large amount of verifiable content. It is not clear what the justification for these edits is, as there has been little attempt to discuss them before implementation. However, it appears that the justification is that since the Juris Doctor is not considered a doctorate by some schools in Australia and by one African academic expressing opinion, any mention of the Juris Doctor as a doctorate should be limited to that in the "debate" section of the article. It appears that the editor believes those citations to overwhelm other citations from scholarly and institutional sources, including the Encyclopedia Britannica. Requests that editing be delayed until after mediation on the issue has been ignored. It is noted that the editor pushing these edits has made no attempt to move those citations to that section, but has merely eliminated them entirely. It is difficult to perceive good faith in this behavior, as the persistence of these edits seems to show bulling and edit warring. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 10:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if both of you would refrain from making substantive changes to the article until this matter is resolved. You both obviously care strongly that this article be as factually correct as possible, which is great, but this constant bickering and sniping isn't serving any useful purpose. So perhaps you could both take a deep breath, count to ten, and stick to a civil discussion of the details of the article itself. -- Nicholas Jackson ( talk) 10:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Instead of arguing back and forth...can someone simply write to the Department of Education and ask them if the Juris Doctor is a Doctorate Degree of not. From my investigation I know for a fact that the term professional doctorate is not a term accepted by the department of education. The accept term is first professional degree. -Edward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.228.210 ( talk) 22:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nicholas....you are very correct...the US Department of Education only has authority over education qualification in the United States. It is common knowledge that the US government does not consider the Juris Doctor a doctorate degree; the official US government pay scale (GS) clearly reflect this. I just want people to end this back and forth argument. The fact that we are arguing about this shows that there is something wrong with the Juris Doctor classification by some as a doctorate degree. The US department of education clear states that some first professional degrees have the name doctor in them but this not make equivalent to the PHD. In this country a university can call their degree what the want to...the issue hits the wall when they go to apply for a Job with the government or major corporation outside their fields. So can someone..anyone please write to the Depart of Edu and get their feed back ? - Edward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.139.110 ( talk) 17:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm stepping into a snake pit but I'll be bold. I was looking over this article to possibly review for GA since it has been sitting as a GAN for over five weeks. Upon seeing this discussion and looking at the edit history I fear the article would quick fail for lack of stability. Has there been any movement on the mediation? I checked the mediation page and it does not appear as though anything substantive has been done for a couple of weeks. I will pose this question to the GA reviewer community for their input. I'd hate to bring down a nominee that has been sitting for so long but I know that it probably should not be reviewed while it sits in mediation over a contentious issue. Any thoughts? H1nkles ( talk) 06:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
This article covers information on the EJD degree. My question is why does the Executive Juris Doctor (degree) main article still exist? Dumaka ( talk) 16:29, 1 April 2009 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Please see this proposed content for this J.D. article. The present article contains much irrelevant content, very little historical information, little detail on the J.D. in other countries, a horrible entry paragraph, and very little citations. The proposed article is a result of a month or two of finding verifiable sources and careful drafting. I look forward to your comments. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 07:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
^ Your proposed page had all the information I was looking for. The information in the current article is absolute rubbish. Cheers for the page (please keep it online even if, for whatever stupid wiki reason it cannot be implemented as the official page). Cheers. StefanG Alum ( talk) 15:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
In particular, this proposal is intended to provide a venue for opinions about the validity of the degree, and is a kind of proposal to resolve disputes about the content. Therefore, please provide your opinions there on that proposed content. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 07:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Please post summary of what you think is most important from previous discussions here.
There has been much discussion about this page, the most recent of which can be found in Archive 3. Please read that content in the archives before editing or posting comments. Opinion has been posted about this article and the J.D. for the past few years. Addressing specific content, citations and use of citations is more useful than expounding opinion. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 07:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to use the word "Juris Doctorate" several times. The degree is not called a Juris Doctorate; it is called "Juris Doctor." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 ( talk) 18:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The previous comment is idiotic. The degree is named in Latin. "Juris doctor" means "teacher of law," juris being the Latin genitive singular, doctor being the nominative singular. "Doctorate" is an English, not a Latin, term -- "juris" is not English, there is no discipline "juris" in academics in English. To claim that "juris doctorate" is correct would be like saying, "He has a baccalaureate degree in Artibus" is OK, or "He has a doctorate in Sacrae Theologiae." 24.164.152.155 ( talk) 03:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I am placing a dispute tag to direct users to read this debate.
A Juris Doctor degree is merely a rebranding of the old bachelor of laws (LL.B.) degree. It is nothing more, nothing less. It merely means "Law Degree." This article is factually inaccurate. The references used to make the case that it is a doctorate are simply erroneous and non authoritative.
First reference: This reference refers to answers.com as a reference, which republishes what is written in Wikipedia. Circular reasoning at best.
Second reference: I have contacted the webmaster to point out the factual inaccuracy.
Third reference: This is merely a non binding OPINION written by a representative of one state's bar association.
Fourth reference: A mere categorical listing is a WEAK reference. I have notified the webmaster of their factual error.
Fifth reference: First, this is a bogus reference. This is the ENGLISH version of Wikipedia, not German. Germany is hardly an authority on an American academic degree. This is most likely something missed in translation. Obviously, many English speaking people see Juris Doctor and don't get that it isn't a doctorate.
Sixth reference: This is merely a career guide. Career centers aren't very factually oriented and they are definitely not authoritative. They have two factual errors under "Doctoral Programs," one being the listing of the JD degree, the other stating that the MD is "required" to practice medicine. I have notified them of their factual errors.
The JD is merely a bachelor's degree and is merely the BASIC degree necessary to practice law. The progression of law education is ANY bachelor's degree -> JD -> LLM -> LLD or PhD or SJD. What other doctorate offers a master's degree and doctorate beyond the earning of the doctorate?
Dentistry "offers a master's degree... beyond the earning of the doctorate."
What other doctorate requires NO SPECIFIC UNDERGRADUATE STUDY in order to matriculate?
Dentistry and medicine require the completion of some science courses, but require no particular undergraduate degree or major.
What other doctorate can one complete in just three years beyond ANY bachelor's degree?
Dentistry, like law, can be completed in seven years of higher education. Veterinary medicine can be completed in six years of higher education.
Don't confuse "graduate entry" with "graduate program."
References:
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academic.html
http://www.kinsellalaw.com/archive/2002_04_01_archive.php
http://web.archive.org/web/20050207005109/http://law.slu.edu/prospective_student.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=juris%20doctor
http://www.legaltutors.com/frequently_asked_questions.htm#What%20is%20an%20LL.B
http://law.wfu.edu/llm/about/what/
http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse/Our%20Organisation%2FBusiness%2FSchools%20and%20Groups%2FSchool%20of%20Accounting%20and%20Law%2FAcademic%20Programs%2FJuris%20Doctor/
http://www.law.indiana.edu/curriculum/programs/degree_explained.shtml
http://law.missouri.edu/jd/
http://www.law.wayne.edu/current/academic_programs.html
http://www.bond.edu.au/study-areas/law/degrees/pg/jd.html
http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/handbooks/courses/3387.html
Jkhamlin ( talk) 20:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If you read Pearls & Pinstripes by Judith Richards Hope, you will notice that the Harvard class of 1963 graduated with a L.L.B degree, not a J.D. Maybe a more specific date should be used instead of "By the 1960s every law school except Yale offered a J.D. as its sole professional law degree" as this is not true.
On another note, a J.D. is not a rebranding of the L.L.B. degree. At the time of the introduction of the J.D. you would receive higher pay having a J.D. versus an L.L.B. degree as it was considered a Masters degree, and an L.L.B. considered a Bachelors degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Algorath ( talk • contribs) 01:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This article states "It is immaterial to the pursuit of a Master of Laws, whether or not the aspirant holds a J.D., as a prerequisite." This is incorrect. Although I have heard of a few CPA's being able to earn LL.M.'s, the vast majority of programs require an earned law degree before matriculating in an LL.M. program. Thus, to say that a prior law degree is immaterial - based on a handful of exceptions - is inaccurate, or in the least, misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 ( talk) 18:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments should be listed in temporal order. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 01:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There are so many grammatical and factual errors in the new content, I don't even know where to start. I'm not sure why someone would make so many edits without signing in. I'm not sure why they would avoid discussion as well. I created a new article (the text of which is linked below), because in trying to edit the article that has existed here, there was just too much that needed fixing. Some users have been engaging in editing wars, not using valid account names, not signing in, etc. I'm not sure why such an innocuous issue should attract so much bad faith editing. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 01:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
--This article really is pretty much crap right now. I think someone with a high school diploma wrote it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.70.45.95 (
talk)
00:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I wonder whether the change from Bachelor of Laws to Doctor of Law as the initial qualification for legal practice is a form of " grade inflation," as seen in other professions in the USA? Pharmacists, physiotherapists, optometrists, etc, all qualify as doctors nowadays. Most fields where a master's degree used to be customary now seem to require a doctorate. Does everybody get an alpha grade or first class degree now?
There is a curious inversion of the European cursus honorum, where a JD may now be followed by an LLM, or an MD by an MS or MPH.
It could, of course, mean that higher standards of academic preparation are required now than in the past, but if that is the case it is strange that the American JD, as compared with the non-American LLB, eschews "academic" and "scholarly" content and does not require any sort of thesis or dissertation.
Similarly, most tertiary level academics seem to be Professors of one sort or another in the US, unlike the UK where most teaching is done by lecturers and senior lecturers (and a few readers). Private institutions in India tend now to appoint Assistant Professors rather than Lecturers and Associate Professors rather than Senior Lecturers.
Could these be examples of Gresham's Law in action? NRPanikker ( talk) 15:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The list of programs has been moved under the Canadian list. However, there is not only a US/Canadian venture. There is also at least one program I am aware of that is between Columbia and the University of London. Why was this one deleted? Can we please also list this one and any others like it. Thank you. Jwri7474 ( talk) 03:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
An unidentified user incorrectly edited sections on Hong Kong, possibly to push the POV of raising the status of the Hong Kong J.D. No citations were provided. The following citations will be added, since this user has created contention on these points: The Hong Kong J.D. only takes two years for a normal course of study (CUHK: http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/law/prospectiveStudents/jd03.html ; CityU http://www.cityu.edu.hk/slw/english/programmes/courses/jd.htm ). In addition, no citations have been provided for the claim that the J.D. in Hong Kong is officially considered at the LL.M. level (or at one time was), or that the J.D. is any different than the LL.B. in content or level of instruction. If citations for any of the content proposed by the user is available, please add them to the article. If the user who made the edits reads this: please read the wiki article on verifiability. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 04:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to have changed so many edits, as I don't want to discourage contributions. Therefore, here is my explanation to my changes:
The table:
The Hong Kong section:
Zoticogrillo ( talk) 04:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor stated that it's "incorrect and non-factual" to use the term "scholarly" in this article. It actually was correct useage, which can be verified by cites. Please read John H. Langbein, “Scholarly and Professional Objectives in Legal Education: American Trends and English Comparisons,” Pressing Problems in the Law, Volume 2: What are Law Schools For?, Oxford University Press, 1996. which is cited in the article. As used in this article, the two terms are synonymous, so it's not a content issue. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 23:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw this article at WP:GAN. Just a comment based on WP:FN, but using "idem" as a citation is a problem if anyone ever adds a reference between the original and the "idem". Even now, citation 21 probably does not refer to citation 20. Someone should replace all the "idem" with the author name (and year if necessary); I would do it but I can't tell for sure what they refer to. Also consider replacing the bare URLs with author/title/publisher/date. Gimmetrow 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The proposed content for the Executive Juris Doctor contains opinion, non-verified content, misleading information and grammatical errors. Therefore, the section has been edited. Here are comments about the changes:
I welcome your comments. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 01:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Juris Doctor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
At this time, I feel this article is not an appropriate candidate for GA nomination due to an extensive history of edit-warring. When viewed in the context of the recent significant changes to the article by multiple editors after both occasions that it was nominated and later declared "ready" on the GA nomination page, further instability in the content is likely. The recent non-vandalism instability disqualifies the article according to quick-fail criteria. Please renominate once a better consensus has been reached on the article content.-- Finalnight ( talk) 22:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
There were numerous edits by 206.205.104.66 to various sections, with comments to the edits.
The user asks what the M.D. has to do with the J.D. There is a connection because it was in the minds of the creators of the J.D. to produce a law equivalent to the M.D. (which is mention specifically in the citations), and because the M.D. was the first American professional doctorate following a new didactic paradigm originating in 19th century U.S., and the J.D. was the second.
It was said in removing content re Roosevelt receiving the J.D. that an honorary doctor is not the same as a J.D., which is true, however that degree was in fact awarded as a J.D., and it is relevant content.
It was said in removing content re history that this article is not about the general history of legal studies. This is also true. However, the content (which could be abbreviated) is important because most of it cannot be found in any other article, and because a misunderstanding of this important information has led to many to misunderstand the J.D. (i.e. thinking that the J.D. is a novel creation by modern U.S. institutions trying to inflate or aggrandize the profession).
Finally, it was said concerning the first degree at universities being a doctorate of law that the statement is an assumption of law not based on fact. However, there are citations for that statement in the following section. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 03:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The Titles section needs a little attention (actually, this whole article is rather poorly written). An attorney is a title given to a person who has been authorized to act in another's stead. Attorney-at-law is the title which indicates licensure to practice law. It is a lot like the certified public accountant (CPA), or professional engineer (PE) designation. 75.68.192.62 ( talk) 12:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Transcluded from Talk:Juris_Doctor/GA2:
Reasonably well written: I have tried to implement the changes suggested.
Broad in its coverage: The J.D. program of study differs between school to school in the U.S., and differs significantly outside of the U.S. The Law school in the United States goes into the details as much as possible, which article is now referenced under "See also".
Neutral Point of View: The sentence mentioned in the Executive Juris Doctor section has been clarified. EJD holders are not able to sit for the bar anywhere in the U.S. The last two sentences are merely to provide contrast between the typical J.D. program, and isn't meant to disparage.
Further suggestions for implementing your ideas are of course welcome. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 14:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
JD users sometimes use the title of Dr in academic circles. The content is supported by citations. This topic was also discussed in archived talk pages. This does not contradict the fact that the JD is a professional degree, because the JD is still awarded by a university. Other professional doctorate holders also use the Dr title in academic circles. Please correct me (with citations) if I'm mistaken. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 18:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This issue has been submitted to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for comment. here Zoticogrillo ( talk) 18:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I've studied the issue anew, and I've changed my mind. I was distracted by the argumentation of this discussion, and had perhaps forgotten about the content of the source. I recommend that the content be altered, as recommended here. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 06:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Zoticogrillo, I don't understand. I thought that this issue was resolved. Specifically, the statement "The North Carolina Bar Association explicitly permits the use of the title in academic contexts as well" should be removed because the NC bar is not a relevant source. You agreed. I removed the passage. Now you've put it back. What's up? Wikiant ( talk) 17:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
There in fact isn't any real controversy at all. Innumerable exceptionally credible sources, from both in and outside the U.S., have clearly stated that the J.D. is a doctorate, and not a single source with any degree of relevance or credibility has ever stated that "the J.D. is not a doctorate." Therefore, the position that the J.D. is not a doctorate is a fringe theory with no verifiability or basis in fact. The claim that this so called controversial idea is uninformed or ignorant is odd and incongruous, as this article is replete with numerous quality citations for nearly every sentence it contains. Therefore, any complaint as to the content of this article does not take issue with so called hijacking editors (a conspiracy theory), but takes issue with the sources the article cites (such as Encyclopedia Brittanica, books published by Oxford University Press, the University of Melbourne, etc.). Zoticogrillo ( talk) 07:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
FranklinFields added a bunch of content to this article without providing any citations, and the added content directly contradicted verifiable content in this article and in other articles. Some editors have argued that this was a valid questioning of the content. However, it was clearly in error, and based on wiki policy it warranted immediate removal. One of the statements, that the J.D. is the only 3 year program, cannot be directly cited because it would require the citation of information on every single doctorate degree, therefore a demand for a citation in that case is unreasonable. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The recent edit eliminating content stating that the J.D. is the only 3 year doctorate was in error, and was "undone." The edit summary stated that a simple web search would reveal that many DDS degrees are also three years. The advertisements of those dental schools (such as the University of Pacific in San Francisco) are misleading. It's 3 years because there is no summer break. J.D. programs, like other programs, have a summer break. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 21:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
User:75.117.50.65 claims that there is an inconsistency in the following statement: "It is the only professional doctorate in law, and is unique among doctorate programs in being a three year program in most jurisdictions (many doctorates are four years or longer)." It is claimed that there is a logical inconsistency between "unique" and "most." There are no doctorates that are 3 years long in any jurisdiction, therefore the degree is indeed unique. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 04:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There is one US school (UOP) that grants the DDS degree in 3 years. Also, there are a few medical schools in Canada (also LCME accredited) that grant MD degrees in only 3 years. (Calgary, McMaster, etc.) The MD and DDS degrees are considered "undergraduate degrees" in Canada as well. Jwri7474 ( talk) 07:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The M.D. is Canada is 4 years long. Two universities offer a program that has no breaks, and is therefore 3 years long, but has the same number of semesters as the 4 year programs. wiki article. The UOP DDS program is the same. UOP DDS program. Therefore are no doctorates, other than the J.D., that can be completed within 6 semesters. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 01:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The D.P.T. degree is three academic years long. This is comparable to a M.F.A., M.Arch., M.S.W., etc. But the M.D./D.O., D.D.S./D.M.D., D.C., O.D., PharmD., N.D., etc., are all four academic years in length, even though many schools will try to put them into fewer calendar years. The situation is more complicated in some cases, where a previous master's degree can be counted against the time for a doctoral degree (e.g. the transition D.P.T., or a DNP [6], and possibly the Doctor of Architecture). The 22 June 2007 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education has an article that criticizes the D.P.T. and its ilk for, among other things, watering down the meaning of 'doctorate'. JJL ( talk) 17:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The citations provided sufficiently meet the wiki standards of verifiability in supporting the content. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 19:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC) edited Zoticogrillo ( talk) 19:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok...I wish that I could devote a ton of my free time to really break this terrible article down piece by piece, but I can't. I'll start small. Comparing the length of time (as phrased) to completion among doctoral degrees of different disciplines is ridiculous. A professional degree is structured so that a time to completion is inherent. A "learned" or "academic" doctorate (e.g., Ph.D) is not so structured, and therefore generally has only an "outside" and "inside" boundary for time to completion (e.g. "candidates for the Ph.D must spend a minimum of two years in residency" (inside); "all Ph.D programs must be completed no later than seven years after they begin" (outside)). Debating this (and a host of other issues) further with Zoticogrillo is pointless, for me anyway, for several reasons. First, Zoticogrillo it seems will rarely concede, even after totally irrefutable evidence contradicting his/her point is presented, that the position taken is wrong. Second, I have noticed a correlation between articles where Zoticogrillo has a large presence, and the quality, stability and ranking of those articles. Third, and forgive me for overlapping here, my first contention's manifestation makes the entire process of reading, editing, or revising any issue, in any process which Zoticogrillo participates, a pain in the butt. Maybe Zoticogrillo thinks adherence to his/her principles is beneficial, but I contend otherwise. Zoticogrillo, for the sake of all projects within Wikipedia--get real, get better at defending your assertions and actions, or GET OUT OF THE WAY! I have no problem with critical editing but it seems like every time I start reading a ridiculously verbose, redundant, illogically constructed article on the legal profession, Zoticogrillo is there. Just wondering, what makes Zoticogrillo an authority on everything legal? I think a coup is in order! 69.254.182.195 ( talk) 07:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed! Here, here... I told him/her this about a year ago! The assumption of self- assertion, arrogance, and absolute self- righteousness on Zoticogrillo part's is truly incredible. It lacks true academic discipline... I finally gave-up! Within days all my comments were erased from this site. Interesting. <TempleBarrister> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.102.19 ( talk) 17:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I like how Zoticogrillo has largely cleaned up this article and added lots of citations. However, the problem is that by focusing too much on the history of the degree itself (in terms of the actual certificate awarded), the article now has even less coverage of the program that goes into the degree. But that is okay since we have too many articles already repeating the same information: Law school, Law school in the United States, and Education of lawyers in the United States. The next problem is figuring out how to merge all these articles. Which I am too busy to deal with personally. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 03:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Recent vitriolic edits from a person on a mission have stated that the J.D. is rapidly replacing the LL.B., and hasn't provided any citations. This is contrary to the available evidence. It was stated that the J.D. is replacing the LL.B. in Canada, even though there are 19 law schools in Canada, only 2 have the J.D. and only 3 others "have voted to do the same." 5 out of 19 is a small percentage. It was stated that the J.D. is replacing the LL.B. in Hong Kong, but it hasn't replaced the degree at all. It has been introduced in two of the law schools very recently, but the only school with a well established law program, HKU, has not been considering the J.D. at all. Finally it was claimed that the J.D. is replacing the LL.B. in Australia. However, out of the 30 Aussie law schools, only 10 have the J.D., and in only 1 of those has the J.D. replaced the LL.B. And those, my friend, are the facts. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 04:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
What is with the picture of the graduation robe on the article page? It is an awful picture, and besides that, what exactly does it add to the article with respect to the degree? I suggest that it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulsa si elagnewg ( talk • contribs) 06:53, September 15, 2008 (UTC)
The notice at the top of the page states that "J.D." redirects to this article. While true at the time, it is no longer the case now; "J.D." now redirects to "JD", which is a disambiguation page. However, I don't know how to correct the notice.
-- James-Chin ( talk) 15:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
On top of the controversy surrounding whether the J.D. is a doctoral-level degree or not, another serious problem with the Wiki article is that a few sections therein appear to have an implicit biased point of view, which claims legal education in the US is somehow "superior" to that available in other countries.
Specifically, sections such as "Revolutionary Approach: The Scientific Study of Law (sic)" seem to suggest that American Law degrees were introduced as a way to fix what was perceived at the time as the shortcomings of the apprenticeship-based system, by combining legal theory and practice (clinical training) into one single graduate-level academic degree. The US approach is then heralded by the article's editor as "superior" and "scientific", implying by extension that, in countries like Britain or Germany, where a different model is used (a legal theory bachelor's degree followed by a vocational/apprenticeship stage), legal education would be somehow "inferior" or "unscientific", producing "less qualified lawyers".
I am not a lawyer myself, nor am I British or German, but I strongly believe that Wikipedia articles should be NPOV and should refrain from subjective qualitative comparisons. The J.D. article also has many factual inaccuracies such as referring to the Oxbridge BA degree in jurisprudence//law as a "liberal arts degree". Personally, considering all the controversy seen on this page, I am inclined to think the J.D. article needs serious review. 201.68.232.189 ( talk) 16:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The first part of the title section states that lawyers are allowed to use a title of doctor.
This seems like it is poorly sourced and probably wrong.
1. The source links to the ABA code of professional responsibility. This is not binding on lawyers- it is advisory everywhere in the US as far as I know- in any case certainly not universaly applicable.
2. The ABA code cited is defunct it appears. It has been superceded. So the citation appears to be to a discontinued advisory opinion. Hard to get much worse than that.
3. The code cited doesn't say lawyers can use doctor as a title, it says they can use any title they have earned. So this doesn't answer the question.
Seems to me the source is poor for showing that a J.D. is considered a doctorate or that lawyers can use that title.
The source isn't authoritative or apparently even valid so the sentence should prolly be changed to say that blah blah.. according to... and list the code.
Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.234.88 ( talk) 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no support in the citation for the claim that Michigan was among the first schools to implement the J.D. degree. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 18:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
As yet another evidence that the DOE does not endorse the concept of "professional doctorate", I would like to draw your attention to the following link from the Education USA website.
It is worth noting that Education USA refers to the J.D. as a "first professional degree" (not a "professional doctorate"), and has a separate entry for "Graduate Legal Education", including the LLM. The section on "Graduate Legal Education" also mentions that "doctoral programs in Law also exist", referring implicitly to SJD degrees, which "admit only a small number of promising applicants, usually from among those who have completed a master's program at a U.S. law school and who plan to enter a career as a law school faculty member".
It is totally unacceptable that the English Wikipedia continues to spread misinformation in several of its articles by referring to U.S. first professional degrees as "professional doctorates", a title that is neither used nor endorsed by the U.S. government and is not recognized by any university outside the U.S. as a doctoral qualification. 161.24.19.112 ( talk) 19:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
PS: See also Education USA's glossary of terms, where "doctorate" and "professional degree" are two separate entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.24.19.112 ( talk) 20:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This article implies that training courses whose graduates are not immediately eligible for licensure are more academic and less professional than the American JD programme. The idea seems to be that the requirements to practice throughout the world are identical, and only the level of preparation offered by the various training courses differs.
My impression is that there is at least as great a difference in licensure requirements as there is in training courses.
In Canada, where our three-year course is almost identical to the three-year US course, the requirement that our graduates article for a year, working under the supervision of an established lawyer reflects a difference in licensure requirements and not a difference in the amount of vocational training required by Canadian and American degrees.
This article also mentions that the ABA does not recognize Canadian JDs (or LLBs). The converse is true in Canada. American JDs are obliged to take further coursework, to article, and to pass the Canadian bar exam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.101.201 ( talk) 06:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
This section has been tweaked so much that it appears to be almost entirely original research. I suggest that the section be removed entirely. Wikiant ( talk) 16:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Footnote 102 (ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 2-102(E)) is an ABA document cited as support for the statement that the JD is a doctorate and that lawyers can use the title "doctor". I downloaded the document and it contains no reference (that I could find) to support either of these claims. Wikiant ( talk) 15:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the two pictures at the top of the article (the diploma and the graduation gown) serve no purpose other than to promote the POV that the JD is a doctorate. There is *ample* debate on this topic and enough reasonable citations on both sides for me to conclude that this is clearly a question on which there is no consensus. In light of the lack of consensus, I am removing (again) these pictures. I ask that Zoticogrillo not (again) replace them until such time as other editors have weighed in on the question. Wikiant ( talk) 15:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The captions are merely descriptive and one even has a citation, which citation supports the statement and provides interesting information to hard-to-find sources useful to a reader who wishes to learn more about academic regalia. Please propose non-POV language. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 04:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikiant, as has been stated by Nicholas Jackson, nowhere in this article is the claim made that the J.D. is the same as the Ph.D. The claim that the pictures or captions are misleading is hypothetical and a reader misunderstanding the caption and picture would have to ignore the whole article. We cannot defensively create articles fearing that our readers are stupid, especially when doing so would exclude informative content which content would improve the product. The dominant paradigm in wikipedia is that the product is an encyclopedia, and therefore if something is informative, it should be included. Just because you disagree with the inclusion, does not mean that it must be excluded, as consensus does not require unanimity. As stated in the consensus policy description, "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." Based on our previous discussions, I know you to be an intelligent editor. Therefore, it is most likely that your efforts here are not arising out of illogical fear or misunderstanding, but are purposeful and an example of creating the appearance of changing consensus (you are persisting with issues that have not been raised in nearly a year). Including content which is highly relevant and informative improves the article, and these pictures and captions you are protesting are the only visual representations of the subject matter of the article, therefore they cannot be excluded. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 00:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Re Caption Edit The following caption was added to the picture of the gown: "Although there is debate surrounding the academic status of the J.D. degree, in the United States J.D. holders wear academic robes reserved for doctoral degree holders." Captions are primarily to describe the picture only, and should not contain substantive arguments. Nonetheless, the proposed caption attempts to raise the visibility of an alleged debate, and is illogical. It is abundantly clear that the J.D. is a doctorate (see above and citations in article). Pointing out a practice of holders in the United States has no meaning, as the J.D. is a U.S. degree. And universities carefully regulate academic regalia, therefore the gowns are not worn by choice of the holders, but by regulation of the academic institutions, which institutions have a monopoly on creating and regulating academic tradition. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like this debate will ever end. Why don't we just create two articles, one for the JD and one for the Law degree. Noted the JD is a law degree, it is also a Doctors of Laws. But in order to stop the debate we should just keep the title of Dr. out of the soon to be newly revised Law degree article. Dumaka ( talk) 20:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Can we make footnote 102 more specific. It isn't a reference so much as a list of organizations claimed to support the statement. Wikiant ( talk) 21:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The citations show that some J.D. holders do use the title of Dr. in professional and academic settings. The citation for the academic setting is clear, as it is an example. The citation for the professional setting is an illustration, as issues are not brought to bar associations for an opinion until the issues is raised in the professional setting, which in this case would have been an attorney using the Dr. title. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 04:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's the text from AAUDE:
“Professional” Doctorate First-professional doctoral degrees are first degrees in a given field and include: Chiropractic, Dentistry, Law, Medicine, Optometry, Osteopathy, Pharmacy, Podiatry, Psychology and Veterinary medicine. First-professional doctoral degrees such as the M.D. and J.D. do not require completion of a thesis/dissertation or publication of a coherent body of literature. http://www.answers.com/topic/doctorate
Notice the link at the end -- that's answers.com.
I'll leave the NSF citation to others to consider. IMHO, this reference is inferior as its purpose is not to claim that the JD is a doctorate, but rather it mentions the JD only to say that the paper is *not* about the JD. (Additionally, it mentions the JD as a "professional doctorate"; I note that you've dropped the adjective.)
Finally, I am *not* arguing that the JD is not a doctorate. I *am* arguing that you are using citations disengenuously in a manic effort to support your POV that the JD *is* a doctorate. That's a claim that *you* are making and which *you* are required to support. All I am saying is that these citations do not support that claim. Wikiant ( talk) 17:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The wordiness in the academic status/titles parts is really getting to be an issue. It'd be helpful to have a disinterested party edit it down to the essentials. The purpose isn't to frame the debate but to briefly present the facts and major opinions. JJL ( talk) 15:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Footnote 106 cites ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 2-102(E) as support for the statement:
Disciplinary Rule 2-102(E) states (in total):
The only way this citation can support the text is if one assumes that, by "title derived therefrom", the passage means "doctor." As it is specifically the use of the title "doctor" that the passage is meant to support, we have here a circular argument.
Footnote 107 cites a person's own website. That's self-publication being used as an authority.
Wikiant ( talk) 22:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's another one...
The text in the article says:
If you look at the citation, you'll see that the article says nothing about "countries where holders..." It says (and it is quite specific) that the opinion *narrowly* applies to the Spanish-speaking community in Florida.
FWIW, note further in the same document, the passage:
So, Zoticogrillo not only misrepresented this citation, but ignored a separate passage in the same document that contradicts the very point he is attempting to make.
Wikiant ( talk) 22:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The thing about the LLM being a masters and higher than a JD, and so the JD is therefore not a real doctorate argument is this: anyone who has ever attended law school (that has an LLM program) knows that there are two types of LLM. The vast majority are geared to non U.S. educated lawyers, and aims to introduce them to the American legal system. It is basically the first year (the only year with standardized course requirements) of a JD program (exact same course work - except they are not even required to compete with JD students nor are they subject to the JD grade curve; if they were, they would largely be destroyed). While it is technically a "higher degree" than a JD, I mean, c'mon, do the mental math here. The other possibility is that it is focused course work, most (if not all) courses are available to JD students. Many JD students just don't know what kind of lawyer they want to be, and may go back to take the specialized courses that were open to them in law school, but they just didn't know to take. At the most, it's a fourth year add-on to a JD. It is NOT more advanced. For those few LLM courses not offered to JDs, it's a marketing thing; you can get admitted by petition - I know, I did.
Bottom line, the argument that since an LLM is a masters, and since it is higher than a JD, the JD is therefore not a real (or terminal, or therefore an undergraduate, and so on) doctorate degree is bogus.
Has anyone here attended law school? Or taken a class with LLMs? Or taken both a JD and another professional degree? This argument is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.67.251 ( talk) 01:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Zotocogrillo - I've largely agreed with your arguments, up to your last statement. Do you really believe that? Experiences are absolutely relevant to perception and reality. They cannot, however, be cited on Wikipedia. Huge difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.63.224 ( talk) 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikiant, I believe we can discuss these citations without personal attacks. If you want to address my behavior, you may do so directly and specifically. But lacing all your discussions with the above adjectives provides no productive purpose.
Disciplinary Rule 2-102(E) ABA opinions and rules are issued in response to the behavior of the lawyers, and this citation is support by example for the text. You are correct that the citation is not very helpful for those not familiar with the ABA rules and opinions, as the ABA has clarified the rule in other opinions and comments. Therefore, the citation can be improved with more detailed explanation. But the citation of the rule only was not false or misleading. For example, this rule was clarified by Informal Opinion 1152, which states in part, that DR 2-102(E) "permits the use by a lawyer of 'an earned degree or title derived therefrom indicating his training in the law.' This clearly permits the use of the term 'Doctor' by the holder of a J.D. degree..." The text of that opinion can be found in the library, or as quoted here. Council Statement 2, entitled "J.D. Degree - Ph.D. Degree Equivalency," also clarifies by stating: "WHEREAS, the acquisition of a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree requires from 84 to 90 semester hours of post baccalaureate study and the Doctor of Philosophy degree usually requires 60 semester hours of post baccalaureate study along with the writing of a dissertation, the two degrees shall be considered as equivalent degrees for educational employment purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that all appropriate persons be requested to eliminate any policy, or practice, existing within their jurisdiction which disparages legal education or promotes discriminatory employment practices against J.D. degree-holders who hold academic appointment in education institutions." Therefore, in understanding the context of the rule as described above, the meaning is clear.
UMT Faculty Profile This is a website maintained by a university, and is not a personal website. But even if it were a personal website, such are acceptable if they meet certain criteria, and are not automatically invalid. This citation clearly and ideally supports the text. Also, as it clearly represents practice in a large state university, it is an important cite and is not included for any disingenuous purpose or intent to mislead.
In countries where holders This sentence was introduced by another editor long ago. The citation provides illustrations of this practice, as it discusses the practice of attorneys in Spanish-speaking communities. It does not provide proof of the text, but it provides support. The text does say that the rule will apply only to Florida, but in the text there are quotes from individuals discussing Spanish communities. They do not state that the practices they commented on exists only in Spanish communities in Florida, which would be odd since the Spanish community in Florida is comprised mostly of immigrants from Spanish communities outside the U.S. The quote about the LLM is discussion of some of the members of the committee, not a statement of fact and not very important, and is not relevant to the practice of lawyers in Spanish speaking communities. The LLM statement does not contradict a point being made in the text about practice of lawyers in Spanish speaking communities. Therefore there was no misrepresentation or misleading exclusion as the citation does provide some support by example of the text.
Therefore, the citations will be improved as discussed above by including the other sources if possible, and if the text must be changed to stick to the strict meaning of the citations, it will be. Furthermore, most of these citations have already been examined and discussed by the editors, and they are not being misused with any malevolent intent or dishonesty. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 04:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Wikiant has been a useful contributor to this article. However, recently the edits by this user have been extreme, and comments have contained personal attacks. Please see the comments above. Also see the recent edit by this user, in which an entire passage was removed because of a dispute over just one word. This activity has started to establish a pattern of behavior, which has been on going for more than a year, and is an example of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Administrator action might be necessary to preserve the quality of the article, but I hope not, since User:Wikiant is normally a productive editor. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 10:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The point I have been trying to make is that the JD's status is unclear. There are reliable citations on both sides of the argument (that the JD is a doctorate and that it is not). A year ago, Zoticogrillo made some valuable changes that, drawing on reliable citations, made two clear points: (1) that the JD is a first professional degree, and (2) that there is disagreement as to what the JD's status is beyond item (1). Since that time, Zoticogrillo has introduced numerous tweaks that, as a whole, change item (1) to read more like "the JD is a doctorate", and mitigate item (2). I didn't comment much on the changes until I noticed that many of the citations Zoticogrillo was using to support these tweaks did not in fact support the changes. Thus, more and more, the article began to look like a mixture of Zoticogrillo's POV and OR. Wikiant ( talk) 19:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The subject in the previous section has changed since it was initiated, therefore this section has been started.
A read of the archives is boring. Mainly because it is full of primarily Wikiant hammering on the same tired old rhetoric and criticism without any factual support.
The fact that the JD is a doctorate has been soundly established with a number of citations from the most credible sources. These sources have been from academic institutions and scholars.
There are no reliable citations which state that the Juris Doctor is not a doctorate. Innumerable requests for them have been made, and if they existed, they would appear in the article.
The history and previous versions can be viewed, which demonstrate that I have not, "introduced numerous tweaks that, as a whole, change item (1) to read more like "the JD is a doctorate", and mitigate item (2)," but that since the major revision last year the article has always stated that the Juris Doctor is a doctorate, and has always relied on the same citations for that fact.
Wikiant continues to claim that the citations did not support the statements in the article, however a study of the three previous sections above (footnote 102, use of Dr title in professional and academic settings, and More "Disingenuous" Citations) shows that Wikiants claims were unfounded.
JDs in the United States use the title of Dr, academic practice clearly establishes that the degree is a Dr. degree, ABA policies specifically state that a JD may use the title of Dr., and many JD holders in well established professional and academic settings formally use the title.
The JD is a terminal degree. There is no higher professional degree in law than the JD.
Wiki policies state that silence is consensus. There have been no editors other than Wikiant who have recently claimed that the JD is not a doctorate. In fact, the disputes that Wikiant currently raises were clearly resolved nearly a year ago among the editors, and Wikiant now raises those same disputes once again without any variation, which tries to create the appearance of a break with consensus when there is none. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 06:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
And the consensus policy page specifically states that "consensus" is not the same as unanimous consent. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 06:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact that I found the following (I'm not kidding) via a 30 second Google search suggests that, "The fact that the JD is a doctorate has been soundly established" is questionable:
"The (JD) is not a doctoral level award and graduates are not entitled to use the honorific title “Doctor”. (RMIT University, Postgraduate Program in Juris Doctor) [10]
"The JD is not a doctorate degree. In fact, the next degree after the JD in the US is the LLM and then the doctorate degree (SJD), which is offered by some law schools." (Comparing American and British Legal Education Systems: Lessons for Commonwealth African Law Schools, Kenneth K. Mwenda, Cambria Press) [11]
"Please note that the despite the name, the JD is not a doctoral-level award and graduates are not entitled to use the honorific title "Doctor". (Bond University, Faculty of Law Degree Programs) [12]
"J.D. is not a doctorate degree - - not considered a terminal degree." (Austin Peay State University, Minutes of Deans Council Meeting, July 28, 2004) [13]
"However, unlike a Doctorate, a J.D. is not a terminal degree." (Online Education Database) [14]
Wikiant ( talk) 18:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
These are all great sources which could be included in the article. A thorough search of the internet for many such cites was done last year, and intermittently since then. Some of the websites or versions are new, which could explain why they weren't found before. I know that many editors have searched for them to no avail. Some comments on some of the citations: RMIT, Bond U., U. of Queensland, and U of New England are all Australian universities. These pages all state the policy of the Australian education system that the J.D. is not a doctorate in Australia. I believe that the website already mentions this, but if it doesn't, I thought that it did, and it was an oversight. This position re JD is understandable, since the system is a transplant from the Oxbridge system in England, which system does not contemplate the kind of professional degrees created in the U.S., but leaves professional training to the professions. The City U of HK cite exists in the website. The ABA ethics opinion is from the 60's has been superseded by subsequent opinions, which are cited in the article. The NY opinion kind of goes back and forth, and since it is also from the late 60's, I believe it has been largely superseded as well. The interesting excerpt from Kenneth Mwenda, and African educator not educated in the United States, appears to be opinion and conjecture, and his description of the JD, such as the history, is wrong, as demonstrated by the numerous scholarly works on the topic cited to in the article. The APSU minutes notes is interesting, especially given the context. It appears that someone proposed additions to the faculty handbook, and it states that individual's opinion, but it does not state whether that element ever made it into the faculty handbook, and it is only a summary of what was said during the meeting. Note also that if it did make it into the policies of the school, it is only because the school does not have a law school, as the ABA pulls the accreditation of law schools that don't recognize the JD as a doctorate (as you can read in the citation found in the "title" section of the JD article. The Online Education Database is a commercial website that does not have credibility. My goal at the major revision of the article last year was to explain some of the source of the confusion of the JD, and either I did not succeed, or understanding this phenomenon requires reading the entire article, which is pretty long and complex. In short, this is basically what the article summarizes (as found in the scholarly works on the topic): The JD was created to be a doctor of law degree as found in the old schools of Europe. It was created in the unique educational system of the US to serve the unique professional needs of that jurisdiction. Because educational, legal and professional systems differ greatly from country to country (except in the Commonwealth) the JD has been implemented or perceived differently in those various systems. These same discussions about the status of the MD degree would also exists, were it not for the fact that medical doctors use the "doctor" title by virtue of their profession. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 11:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I just took a survey at FSSE [21] at the request of the university president. Near the end they asked me to identify my highest degree. The top two options were:
I've seen this many times in my career, though often the J.D. is listed alongside professional master's degrees like the M.S.W., M.F.A., M.Arch., etc. JJL ( talk) 00:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Following the discussion above, I propose to undertake an overhaul of the article. I propose doing the following: (1) Adjust references to the JD to uniformly describe it as a "first professional degree" (a status which appears to be non-controversial). These changes will neither claim nor deny that the JD is doctoral/terminal -- rather, the changes will avoid the doctoral/terminal discussion entirely. (2) Combine the "Titles" and "Debate About Academic Status" sections into a single section containing two sub-sections: (a) evidence suggesting that the JD is a doctoral and/or terminal degree, and (b) evidence suggesting that the JD is not a doctoral and/or terminal degree. For this overhaul to work, the article needs to remain neutral to the JD's status beyond that of first professional degree except in the single section that offers evidence. Wikiant ( talk) 22:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course I am eager for the new citations to be integrated into the article. However, the new citations are of limited value, and should compliment other authoritative/credible citations. A recent "overhaul" of the article was a broad sweep which knocked out a lot of really valuable source material, such as the Encycl. Britt.
The new citations basically show that:
The JD is not considered a doctorate by many institutions in Australia and one in HK (where in both countries the degree is a very recent phenomenon, and where the structure of the degree differs wildly from that in the US).
During the 1960's the use of the title of "doctor" by JD holders was limited by some professional bodies, something that was new in the 1960's and has been discontinued for almost 20 years.
The perception that the JD is not a terminal degree, and mis-information about the history of the degree, is common. However, we can thankfully consult historical source material and scholarly works for a more correct understanding (at least as regards to the history of the degree).
Thanks. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 11:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Zoticogrillo is all about consensus until he is the hold out. I'm going to file a request for mediation. Wikiant ( talk) 13:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
To make a note as an observer - Wikiant's edits were awful, and removed much in the way of relevant information. I would have to say that if anyone is pushing an agenda here, it is Wikiant. Does nobody else see this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.67.251 ( talk) 20:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm undecided as to whether Wikiant's sources demonstrate that the JD definitely isn't a proper doctorate, whatever that means. It is clear that criteria for doctoral degrees vary throughout the world, and Zoticogrillo is correct to say that the current situation in Australia (where there seem to be several universities who have recently introduced JD programmes but specifically stated they're not doctoral degrees) is not necessarily relevant to the situation in the US. However, I am now convinced that there is at least some ongoing debate over the exact academic status of the degree, so perhaps the article should acknowledge this in some way. -- Nicholas Jackson ( talk) 10:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Objections to the current revisions to the Juris Doctor article have been reversed a number of times with no discussion. The revisions being pushed at this time eliminates highly relevant pictures and a large amount of verifiable content. It is not clear what the justification for these edits is, as there has been little attempt to discuss them before implementation. However, it appears that the justification is that since the Juris Doctor is not considered a doctorate by some schools in Australia and by one African academic expressing opinion, any mention of the Juris Doctor as a doctorate should be limited to that in the "debate" section of the article. It appears that the editor believes those citations to overwhelm other citations from scholarly and institutional sources, including the Encyclopedia Britannica. Requests that editing be delayed until after mediation on the issue has been ignored. It is noted that the editor pushing these edits has made no attempt to move those citations to that section, but has merely eliminated them entirely. It is difficult to perceive good faith in this behavior, as the persistence of these edits seems to show bulling and edit warring. Zoticogrillo ( talk) 10:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if both of you would refrain from making substantive changes to the article until this matter is resolved. You both obviously care strongly that this article be as factually correct as possible, which is great, but this constant bickering and sniping isn't serving any useful purpose. So perhaps you could both take a deep breath, count to ten, and stick to a civil discussion of the details of the article itself. -- Nicholas Jackson ( talk) 10:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Instead of arguing back and forth...can someone simply write to the Department of Education and ask them if the Juris Doctor is a Doctorate Degree of not. From my investigation I know for a fact that the term professional doctorate is not a term accepted by the department of education. The accept term is first professional degree. -Edward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.228.210 ( talk) 22:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nicholas....you are very correct...the US Department of Education only has authority over education qualification in the United States. It is common knowledge that the US government does not consider the Juris Doctor a doctorate degree; the official US government pay scale (GS) clearly reflect this. I just want people to end this back and forth argument. The fact that we are arguing about this shows that there is something wrong with the Juris Doctor classification by some as a doctorate degree. The US department of education clear states that some first professional degrees have the name doctor in them but this not make equivalent to the PHD. In this country a university can call their degree what the want to...the issue hits the wall when they go to apply for a Job with the government or major corporation outside their fields. So can someone..anyone please write to the Depart of Edu and get their feed back ? - Edward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.139.110 ( talk) 17:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm stepping into a snake pit but I'll be bold. I was looking over this article to possibly review for GA since it has been sitting as a GAN for over five weeks. Upon seeing this discussion and looking at the edit history I fear the article would quick fail for lack of stability. Has there been any movement on the mediation? I checked the mediation page and it does not appear as though anything substantive has been done for a couple of weeks. I will pose this question to the GA reviewer community for their input. I'd hate to bring down a nominee that has been sitting for so long but I know that it probably should not be reviewed while it sits in mediation over a contentious issue. Any thoughts? H1nkles ( talk) 06:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
This article covers information on the EJD degree. My question is why does the Executive Juris Doctor (degree) main article still exist? Dumaka ( talk) 16:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)