Another reason to dismiss the JD as a doctorate, and acknowledge it is a master's degree in disguise: Article on Yahoo
One can certainly insist that the Ph.D. should become the required model for all contemporary "doctorates", but that assertion probably requires some argument.
As you know, I have never said that the J.D. was a doctorate, but I deny that it is a masters in disguise. It is its own animal, not directly comparable with any academic graduate degree, I believe. The 24 month round-the-clock J.D. is actually nothing new, but it has been fairly rare up until now. Personally, I think that it is a mistake to do it this way but the option is certainly legitimate. You see, in most common law countries, the training of new lawyers is a joint enterprise between the Universities and the profession itself. In England, for example, the usual fledgling barrister completes his LL.B as an undergraduate, then completes the two semester Bar Vocational Course, run by the Inns of Court, then completes a year to eighteen months' pupillage in a barrister's chambers. In Canada, he completes an LL.B. similar to our J.D. but then completes a Law Society training program simultaneously with nine months' service as a "student at law" or articled clerk. And so on. There is no legal requirement in the U.S. for a period of bar supervised training (except in New Hampshire and Delaware, I think they are, states that have an articles requirement). Nevertheless, the young lawyer usually spends his first year or two as a junior associate in a law firm or as a junior attorney in one or another public agency. Now as a practical matter, this additional training (and believe me, it IS training!) generally commences during the summer between the first and second years as a clerk or legal intern, whether public or private. The second summer ditto, usually with a different firm or agency. It is common for one summer to be public and the other private, for example. In short, we, too, have a almost universal period of profession-supervised training, but it is informal. This experience is of great value in helping the law student understand what his professors are talking about. It also contributes to the educational experience of other students (and the professor, but he'll never admit it). I understand the financial considerations of the round-the-clock J.D. though personally I think part time four year programs are a better option, and I agree that these will make law school possible for some students for whom it wouldn't otherwise be possible, but the result, I fear, will be new lawyers even more poorly prepared for actual practice on admission than current graduates are. As to the third year being relaxed, well, no, that sure wasn't MY experience. Yes, it's easier because you've learned how to learn the law but the stuff you work on, or maybe SHOULD be working on, tends to be much more complex and intellectually demanding. The first year terror abates but the sheer workload does not. Also, many schools, including my own UNM, have a 6 hour clinical requirement that is usually fulfilled in the third year. On a related note, the ABA is rewriting and stiffening its accreditation standards regarding provisional schools that don't meet all requirements within five years. I wonder if there's a connection with the Western State affair?
The J.D.'s not comparable to most PhDs, but it is comparable to some that don't involve a healthy dollop of quantitative research as a requirement. For example, I'm not at all convinced that a PhD in Spanish is some monumental mountain to climb versus the J.D. (though the former may ultimately involve more work). But that said, there's no doubt that it would be more accurate to call the J.D. a "super masters" or a "masters plus" than a "doctorate". The doctorate distinction was the result of clever maneuvering by law schools and the ABA decades ago. They wanted to give their degree--formerly a "bachelors"--that extra little umph of distinction.
I have a question: If a four-year, part-time program is, except for duration and content-per-year, the same as a three year program, then how does it divide up by comparison? I mean, is it as simple as that the first 1.3 years of the four-year program is equivalent to the first year of the three-year program; and that when one talks about one's "third year" of a three-year program, then someone who completed a four year program must think of it in terms of the last 1.3 years of same in order to be talking about the same thing? Or does a four-year, part-time program cover something -- anything -- that the typical three-year program does not?
DesElms: No, no, it isn't possible to know precisely WHERE one is in the program and WHAT DIRECTION one is going in the program at the same time... No, wait. That's the wrong thread. Now, what is it you want to know, again?
So, then, it's just as I suspected: The four year program student or graduate should calculate 1.3 of his/her years as being equivalent to one year of a three-year program's years... an assumption which normally might not be completely accurate except that I notice that pretty much the same things are covered in the first 1.3 years of a typical four-year program as are covered in the first year of a typical three-year program... and usually in pretty much the same order, I might add. Same (but less so) for the second and third 1.3 years of the typical four year program versus the second and third years of a typical three year program. As an aside: In the case of the four year programs in California whose students are required to take the "Baby Bar" after the first year, the first year studies for all four-year programs seem pretty much identical... for obvious reasons.
Well, there ARE students at CalBar accredited three year programs who must take the FYLEX, usually because they are "special" students (admitted without an A.A. or B.A., I think it is) or who failed out of another law school. Calculating when one is eligible to take the FYLEX is covered in the Rules. It is a non trivial concern because once the student is eligible to take the FYLEX, he can't claim any more law study credit until he passes it.
Yes, but I thought I remembered reading somewhere that he could still continue with his second year studies up to a point while he re-takes it; and that once re-taken and passed the second time, whatever second year studies he had taken up to that point would count with no problem... or something like that. Didn't I read something like that somwhere? Ohgod... who knows. Maybe never. Life -- more specifically, work -- won't stop getting in the way. In order to do it, I think I'd have to sell my consulting firm to a competitor (or at least its clients, and then just suspend the operations of the firm for a while) and become a janitor or a groundskeeper or pretty much any kind of (almost certainly somewhat lower paying) job that will only take-up 35 to 40 hours of my life per week and is predictable in that regard; that involves no travel; and that doesn't leave me pretty much brain dead each evening like my current 60+ hours-per-week, intermittently-high-travel, lots-of-heavy-brain-work job does. If I'm to give 2 to 5 hours per day to law study, I'd need to make absolutely huge changes in my life in order to ensure success. At my age, I would absolutely have to know that I'd succeed or I'll not even start it. No way. Also, the accreditation thing gives me pause; and I'm wondering if Taft is the better move almost solely because of it. DETC is better than nothing; and it eliminates wondering if the bar card itself will effectively trump an Oregon-like statute either in California (if it should ever adopt an Oregon-like law) or in whatever other state in which, given life's weird twists and turns, I couldn't possibly predict I might somehow end-up. Of course all that assumes that I'll even do it at all... which seems, at this moment, unlikely... but then, again, I'm in a lousy, almost-depressed mood lately. Who knows how I'll feel about it next week or in a month or a year. I know the clock's ticking. We'll see. Lots to ponder.
A mixed bag. I took some joke classes, such as Law and Literature (fun, but not exactly demanding), I took some real classes, such as Criminal Law II, I took a couple clinical practice classes, I did a moot court, did a volunteer clerkship with a superior court judge, and took a neat class where I got credit for hanging around the with head of the AG's criminal division for a semester, sitting in on case prep, sitting second chair, etc. How about you?
I remember the Yoopers! My third year? I took a LOT of very technical stuff like conflict of laws, taxation of corporations and estate taxation, advanced criminal procedure...I also did my six hours of clinic. Now when did I do CP2? Gosh, I'd have to look at my transcripts to remember exactly. I don't recall any sort of "short timer" attitude, though. My strategy through law school was exactly what they tell you NOT to do. I took a list of Bar Exam subjects and a red pen. Tick? Tick. Tick? Tick. The only bar subject that I didn't tick off was Admin Law, which has taken up a good deal of my professional life since...
