Is a first professional degree "higher" than a master's?

It seems that the Census Bureau and BLS suggest that they are. On the educational attainment question in the Census/ACS, Professional Degrees (JD, MD, DDS etc.) appear after Master's Degree but before doctorates. Similarly, the BLS puts Doctoral and Professional degrees together:

https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_111.htm

Thus, I presume if you have a JD and master's, for instance, you're supposed to tick Professional.

The argument "for" first professional degrees is that they are longer and they carry the title "doctor" (though not equivalent to Ph.D.)

Master's degrees are generally shorter - usually 1 or 2 years in length - so the average person who only has a master's following a bachelor's would have spent less time in school than someone who only received a professional degree. I suppose this is an argument for master's degrees being "lower" than first professional degrees.

On the other hand, master's degrees are often advanced study in a subject, in contrast to first professional degrees which are first degrees.

Plus you can get master's degrees following professional degrees as well, such as an LL.M. in tax following the J.D. or an M.S. in periodontics following the DDS. In this case, the master's follows the "doctor's" degree. However, these represents a tiny proportion of all master's degrees granted and only a small minority of professional degree holders get them.

 

"Higher" isn't really an objective matter, it's more in the eye of the beholder.

I personally give MD and DDS degrees far more respect than I give a masters. I believe that they are much harder to earn and represent much greater mastery of their subject. Individuals with these degrees teach in professional schools and it isn't just clinical professors either. There are roughly 50 pure MDs (excluding MD/PhDs) teaching in UCSF's Biomedical Sciences PhD programs and advising doctoral students.

Faculty | Biomedical Sciences Graduate Program

Many of these are principal investigators running their own laboratories. Occasionally they even win awards, like these two mere MDs.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1989/

One of them was appointed UCSF's Chancellor, the other left to head up the National Institutes of Health.

(Think of what they could have accomplished if they had earned real doctorates.)

So sarcasm aside, I think that an MD is functionally a doctoral degree. It's just that the specialization is different, MDs are optimized as practitioners while PhDs are optimized as researchers.

Truth be told, I personally make a bigger distinction in my own mind between PhDs in different subjects than I do between MDs and PhDs. I have somewhat more respect for MDs and for PhDs in the natural sciences (physical and biological) than I do for PhDs or similar degrees in what I consider less credible and more lightweight subjects.

And they qualify one to teach at the university level, which after all is what the word 'doctor' has historically meant.

Those are another word for 'postdoctoral certificate' in my opinion. They represent specializations.

Masters degrees following PhDs aren't totally unknown. The Keck Graduate Institute offers a masters in business for PhDs in the biomedical sciences who are moving into management roles or entrepeneurship in biotech. (It happens a lot.)

http://www.kgi.edu/academic-programs/postdoc-professional-masters-program-(ppm)

But post-PhD sorta-students are more typically called "postdoctoral scholars" or "postdocs". It's common in the sciences. I don't see it as hugely different, even if it doesn't result in an additional degree.

https://grad.ucdavis.edu/postdoctoral/appointment-promotion/what-postdoc

 

It's been a very confusing issue for several years. It has become even more confusing recently.

 

While most first professional degrees carry the doctoral title, the first professional degree in theology is an M.Div.

 

And it's confusing for the legal profession because it is in this order:
1. Bachelors
2. Juris Doctorate (first professional degree)
3. Masters (you cannot enroll in the Masters unless you have a JD)
4. PhD

 

The variation in master's degrees is substantial. It could be say a master's degree in education from a school that expects little more than a bachelor's degree, a pulse and a checkbook, or it could be say, an MA in philosophy from Tufts University.

I get the sense the master's gets less "respect" in the US compared to say, the Commonwealth countries. It seems to be perceived in many cases as a "get the salary bump" degree or a failed Ph.D. (major research universities don't usually give out MA or MS degrees in the liberal arts and sciences except as a "consolation prize"). This perception isn't entirely fair, but I can see why it's perceived as less of an accomplishment than the first professional degree.

 

And an LL.M. holder is presumably supposed to mark Professional in the Census, even though the JD is their "lower" law degree.

 

A PhD program that is different from the rest is the PhD in clinical or counseling psychology. While there are PsyD programs, most people wanting to practice psychology obtain a PhD and may never teach or engage in serious research after graduating. It's the only licensed profession I can think of where a PhD is required (in addition to the PsyD).

 

Number 4 should actually be the S.J.D. or J.S.D. which is the true doctorate of law.

 

I remember Michele Bachmann being mocked for claiming she had a "post-doctoral" degree in law.

 

She has an LL.M. in Tax Law from William & Mary Law School, so technically she's correct. It also shows the foolishness of naming the first professional law degree as a doctorate.

 

It may be a bit off-topic, but what about immigrants with "undergraduate first professional degrees", like for instance someone from the UK who has an LLB and works as an American lawyer. Is such a person also" supposed to tick Professional"?

 

Here's a gentleman with an MBBS degree (a bachelors in medicine, in this case from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences) who is chairman of pathology at UCSF, a principal investigator who heads his own laboratory and a member of the faculty in the Biomedical Sciences Ph.D. programs.

https://www.pathology.ucsf.edu/about/faculty/pathology-aabbas.html

I don't know what box he would check if asked to state his educational level, but he's a licensed physician in the US and his education is apparently accepted as doctoral equivalent for teaching purposes by the University of California.

I'm increasingly inclined to think that concern with which degree is "higher" than another is misplaced. What's seemingly more important is how various degrees function in particular situations, like various kinds of professional hiring or licensing.

 

The MBBS in the UK is 6 years in length I believe, and Level 7 in the qualifications framework, same as master's degrees.

Indeed. The statistical agencies have little interest really in the finer points, having to "rank" master's degrees and first professional degrees is a way to avoid double-counting.

Obviously one may have one several post-graduate degrees that represent specialized areas of study. Some with both a JD and MBA would likely put both on their business cards, even if the Census Bureau says the JD is the "higher" degree (the BA is of course redundant).

 

The ABA strongly agrees!

http://apps.americanbar.org/legaled/accreditation/Council%20Statements.pdf

(Of course this self-serving statement was met with much ridicule).

Kidding aside, it's interesting that a JD is enough to teach in law schools (though I believe this less true than in the past), an MSW is insufficient to teach in schools of social work. Both the JD and MSW are "terminal" in terms of professional practice. But the MSW isn't considered a first professional degree because the BSW is also available.

 

The amount of J.D. holders applying for professorships in Criminal Justice programs has gotten so common that most schools now include a disclaimer when advertising for full-time teaching jobs that the J.D. alone is insufficient for the position.

Additionally, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences recommends that CJ professors who have a J.D. as their highest degree should also have at least a completed Master's degree in CJ to qualify for a teaching position.

 

The J.D. should never have come to be. The original title, LL.B., was internationally understood as the first professional degree in the common law. Nor is it necessary to earn a bachelor's degree before entering law school. Regionally accredited California approved law schools require no more than two years of college credit and even the ABA standards require only three years. Most ABA law schools do seem to require a B.A. but that's their choice (or rarely a Bar Examiner requirement). I put more research and writing into a single LL.M. course than into an entire semester of my J.D., too (which might be partly because any D/L degree will be generally harder to earn than the equivalent degree in residence). I still don't understand the law schools' reasoning but the American nomenclature has spread to other common law jurisdictions.

 

Franciscan University of Steubenville offers a blended program where the senior year in a bachelors program is simultaniously blended with the first year of law school, thus eliminating a full year of tuition and study:

Source:
https://www.franciscan.edu/News/Franciscan-University-Enters-Into-Law-School-Agreements/

It's being done with three different law schools (click and scroll down to bottom):
https://www.franciscan.edu/law/

 

The switch to the J.D. in the US took place in the 1960s, on the justification that law was a second-entry degree. English Canada - where law is also second-entry degree - followed suit in the 2000s.

In the U.K., the LL.B. is a first degree (though one has to take the Legal Practice Course after that), though about half of British lawyers go through the GDL (Graduate Diploma in Law) route following another degree.

 

Yes, but the Dean Langdell model of three years of graduate level education for lawyers dates from the early 1900s. After six decades of the LL.B., why did the schools feel the need to rename the degree? Lawyers don't call themselves "Doctor". It's silly.