Apparently Berkeley considers the Ph.D. degree to be marginally higher than the J.S.D. At commencement ceremonies, Boalt Hall confers Ph.D.s on its Jurisprudence and Social Policy students then moves to the J.S.D. grads, and thence through the LL.M.s to the humble J.D.s. They don't say anything about the JSP M.A.s. Certain Australian Universities offer both the J.S.D. and the Ph.D. in Law but the J.S.D. is a dissertation level specialist's degree from the law department while the Ph.D. is somehow awarded from the University as a whole and is apparently the higher degree. This actually makes practical sense; I seem to recall reading somewhere that some American schools will accept a series of three related Journal articles in place of a J.S.D. dissertation. Help me before I post again!!
When I received my B.A. diploma, the school had the Continuing Education students go first (which was fair, considering what a cash cow they were/are). I got my diploma, smiled nice for my picture with the college president, walked off-stage, and didn't stop until I got to my car. I was home and probably into my 2nd beer by the time the traditional students were even starting their introductions. I heard that they were pretty pissed-off about it.
The Australian J.S.D. requirements are also significantly different than their Ph.D. requirments; a 50,000 word thesis and the coursework for the LL.M. instead of 100,000 wordsand no coursework; a "contribution" to knowledge instead of a "significant, original" contribution. I don't know if these differences also appear in the U.S. It actually reminds me of the original Ed.D.
Yep, the Ed.D. was originally intended to be something like that, but the discipline of education was not confident enough to really create a professional practice degree and settled instead for the confusing dual research degree Ph.D./Ed.D. situation. It's disappointing to see the Ph.D. creeping into the J.S.D./S.J.D. domain. The law degrees will be stronger if they don't muddy the waters with law Ph.D. degrees. Otherwise, why keep the J.S.D./S.J.D. at all? Tony Pina Administrator, Northeastern Illinois University
Why indeed? But here in the U.S., no dissertation law degree could be considered "common". Osgoode Hall also changed its dissertation degree from the D. Jur. to the Ph.D. in law.
Another difference between the Aussie Ph.D. and J.S.D. is that there is no requirement for an oral defense of the J.S.D. thesis as there certainly is for the Ph.D. in Law. I find this especially interesting because the California BPPVE approved but unaccredited NWCU law school S.J.D. program ALSO dispenses with the oral defense. Until now, I thought that was a sign of questionable standards but apparently not. The NWCU program looks on the surface very much like the Australian model, only given via D/L which no Aussie program is.
That's very annoying. Since Australian unis have gone ahead with JD degrees at all, I really wish at least one of them would offer it by distance. -=Steve=-
Were you referring to the JD or the JSD in your statement? There are several LLBs offered by distance learning. Would they suffice? Some are graduate entry degrees. Or is it the actual title "Juris Doctor" that matters, rather than the content? The JD is on very shaky ground within Australia as although it is accredited by the granting institution, it isn't covered by the Australian Qualifications Framework. One place I know (doesn't award them) will only refer to them as "Master of Juris Doctor" degrees. In Australia, law and medicine are considered undergraduate subjects, so it becomes a transfer master (and those are questionable enough).
Were you referring to the JD or the JSD in your statement? There are several LLBs offered by distance learning. Would they suffice? Some are graduate entry degrees. Or is it the actual title "Juris Doctor" that matters, rather than the content? I'm aware of the LLB; my fiancee is considering London, UNISA, and Orange Free State. For this inquiry, though, I was referring to "Juris Doctor" possibilities. The JD is on very shaky ground within Australia as although it is accredited by the granting institution, it isn't covered by the Australian Qualifications Framework. One place I know (doesn't award them) will only refer to them as "Master of Juris Doctor" degrees. In Australia, law and medicine are considered undergraduate subjects, so it becomes a transfer master (and those are questionable enough). Ah, I see. -=Steve=-
The J.D. is a "first professional degree" or "professional doctorate" in the United States. The J.S.D. is a dissertation doctorate in law both in the U.S. and "Down Under". The requirements for the J.S.D. in the U.S. vary widely from a dissertation through a series of law journal articles, through an LL.M., extensive coursework AND a Ph.D. style dissertation. The Australian J.S.D. is a pretty uniform degree; it requires the coursework for an English style LL.M. (successful examinations in four subjects) and a thesis of about half the length of a Ph.D. thesis. Oral defense is not generally required. for the Aussie J.S.D. Until VERY recently, there was no American Ph.D. in law. What's confusing is that the Australian system states unequivocally that the J.D. is offered as a post graduate degree for persons whose first degrees are in subjects other than law to qualify them for professional law practice. It is NOT considered a doctorate, professional or otherwise. However, the Aussie University system offers BOTH the Ph.D. in law and the J.S.D., terming the Ph.D. as the "research doctorate" and the J.S.D. as the "professional doctorate". So it's confusing, especially when one finds out that the Aussie J.D. is a TWO year degree, not at all equivalent to the THREE year American J.D. The Aussie J.D. seems to be the exact equivalent to the U.K. "Senior Status" LL.B.
