J.D. vs Ph.D.

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by David Boyd, Mar 13, 2003.

Loading...
  1. David Boyd

    David Boyd New Member

    I ran across the following undated resolution on the ABA’s website:

    "From the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
    SECTION OF LEGAL EDUCATION AND ADMISSIONS TO THE BAR

    2. J.D. Degree - Ph.D. Degree Equivalency.
    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."

    It was undated which likely means its quite old. A somewhat self-serving statement but interesting none the less.
     
  2. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    One of the reasons that I consider myself to be quite fortunate is that I have the pleasure of working with a group of people who are quite intelligent and talented. Among these people are a small group of attorneys, whom I respect and consult on a regular basis. I am not one of those people who tells "lawyer jokes." That being said, I would suggest that the two degrees (JD v. PhD) are not equivalent. Despite the assertion by the ABA (obvious bias noted) the difference is that PhD degree holders are required to produce an original piece of research that adds to the knowledge base of their discipline. Regardless of the number of credits that lawyers earn in their studies, they do not produce this research. My own belief is, that once you reach that level of study, taking a few more courses is primarily a function of time, not of scholarship. The difference is the dissertation. It's a big, big, project and there is a large percentage of students who are perpetually "ABD," and never finish their research because it's not easy, not for everyone. I may be wrong here, but I do not believe that you can earn any sort of legitimate PhD without completing a significant piece of research, this is the difference.
    Jack
     
  3. Nosborne

    Nosborne New Member

    I believe that the thrust and purpose of this declaration is NOT to actually suggest that the degrees are in any way the SAME. I think that the point of the ABA's statement is that, where a University hosts a law school, the professors of that law school, who are generally J.D. holders, should not suffer discrimination in pay, tenure, or perquisites in comparison with Ph.D. holders.

    This isn't QUITE as bad as it sounds. There is, for all practical purposes, NO dissertation degree in American law. There are law related Ph.D. programs out there, of course, but the J.D. IS the terminal law degree.

    Also, research IS a significant part of the J.D.'s training but it is LEGAL research. Well organized sources and a tradition of common law principles. make it easier than most academic research.

    Nosborne, JD
     
  4. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    If the J.D. is terminal then is the L.M. reincarnate?

    Seriously, I thought the LM to be a post-JD degree.
     
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Something struck me as strange in this statement and I could not quite put my finger on it. Then it hit me..........the calculation of required semester hours is distorted. In general they left off the MA in the calculation of the required post BA requirements.

    So
    law = 84-90 (assuming this is accurate) graduate credits
    PhD = 96 + graduate credits

    Incidentally
    DMin = 120 graduate credits (mine will equal 108)

    The degrees are really not the same. You generally have the PhD building on the Masters with original research and contribution to the field. The JD is a first professional degree that in much of the English speaking world (if not all) is a professional undergraduate degree. The ABA statement smacks of an inferiority complex.

    **Note: I in no way seek to downplay the intellect or work required of lawyers. It is without a doubt that those entering and succeeding in law school are above average in their intellectual abilities.

    North
     
  6. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    The credit-hour comparison alone should tell one their argument is inept.

    The two degrees (J.D. and Ph.D.) are very much different.

    History tells us the J.D. supplanted the LL.B. without any change in curricula. While it is reasonable to conclude that the LL.B. was more than a second bachelor's, it certainly didn't constitute a doctorate. Of course, I've argued for years that this is true for other first professional doctorates as well. Academically, most are similar to long master's programs. (Not even that, maybe, considering some master's programs have a thesis requirement.)

    In most (all?) of the rest of the world, law is studied at the undergraduate level, resulting in the LL.B. The J.D. and the LL.B. are the same, another reason for not considering the J.D. as equivalent to an academic doctorate.

    On the other hand, universities make professors and administrators out of holders of the J.D. What did they do when the law degree was the LL.B.? Probably the same.

    If the M.D., O.D., D.O, D.C., and other such degrees are "doctorates," I guess the J.D. is one, too. But I'd just as soon have them all deemed less than the Ph.D. (whatever that means, if anything).
     
  7. Nosborne

    Nosborne New Member

    The LL.M. and SJD are post JD degrees. However, the VAST majority of LL.M. degrees are not research degrees. They represent a "fourth year" of law school in some specialty or other such as taxation. The JSD is a dissertation degree but vanishingly rare in American academia. Most law school professors have the JD as their highest degree.

    Nosborne, JD
     
  8. Mike Albrecht

    Mike Albrecht New Member

    Interesting, in California it is NOT a requirment that one have a bachelors degree for entry into law school. From the JFK School of Law:"To be considered for admission, an applicant must submit a completed application form, the required fee, an LSAT score with writing sample, official transcripts from all college and university study, and a personal statement of interests and goals in studying law. There are additional requirements for applicants with less than two years of college or university credit or who have prior law school experience."
     
  9. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Nosborne,

    Thanks for the explanation. I see that I was short an "L" in the LL.M.

    The J.D. and LL.M. seem to be for practitioners of law. I'd think there would somewhere be academic studies of law not geared to practice.
     
  10. Nosborne

    Nosborne New Member

    I have often wondered why law is not an academic subject for the most part in the U.S. even though it is in most of the rest of the world. However, there are few B.S. degree programs in law and even if one completed such a program, it would carry no credit toward the JD.

    There are some B.S, M.S, & Ph.D. in law related subjects such as sociology, criminal justice, taxation, international relations, government, environmental studies, etc.

    What there's NOT is the opportunity to study jurisprudental science. I guess there's no market. We have numerous LL.M. programs out there but they are mostly geared to teaching foreign lawyers a little about American law.

    Nosborne, JD
     
  11. Rick0768

    Rick0768 New Member

    The credit hour argument is ridiculous. The same contention could be made for many MDiv's awarded by traditional seminaries. Take the LCMS Concordia Seminary.... the MDiv is 137 semester hours post BA, well in excess of even the JD. But to say that the MDiv is the equivelant of a PhD in Theology is nuts. Using their own math, that same MDiv would supercede the PhD (oohh, maybe the equivalent of the Chancellorate??). Nope. No one's buying that.

    Why do they need to try and justify it? Why not just accept that different fields have different education requirements and systems? Certainly equity for professors could be handled without rationalizing like this.
     
  12. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    I suppose that the more academic studies of law would be epistomological or of general philosophy.

    Just for gits and shiggles, I did a search and find an apparently growing interest in global or international law at the advanced studies level.

    From Hahvahd:

    HLS has always been the leader in internationalizing American legal education. If you go back and look at the law school's course catalog of the 1830s, you will see that the law of nations, "lex mercatoria" [the law of merchants] and admiralty law were required courses from the school's early days. And if you look at the courses Harvard introduced into the American law school curriculum--such as international business transactions, international organizations and East Asian law--no other institution comes close.

    http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/today/2002/11/5alford.html
     
  13. Nosborne

    Nosborne New Member

    I don't know if jurisprudence really is a branch of philosophy. I practice common law, of course, and study Talmud, being Jewish law. These two systems are very different in origin and history but there appear to me to be certain bedrock commonalities between them. I suspect that there IS a science underlying law that is sui generis. It would draw from philosophy (logic, ethics, justice, human relationships) but it would be more, I dunno, maybe more applications oriented? Certainly, I suspect that legal systems all deal with similar problems and have similar bedrock notions.

    Nosborne, JD
     
  14. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Frankly, I think that a lot of this talk about who has the "higher" degree is little more than posturing.

    Is a Ph.D. in physics "higher" than a Ph.D. in postmodern literary studies. I'd say 'yes', definitely. But what I think doesn't really matter. What matters is that both degrees are the highest formal educational step within a particular field of study. That's basically true for the J.D. as well, in most cases.

    When we start comparing degrees across fields, we open the discussion up to our own diverse opinions of the difficulty and significance of the subjects themselves.

    It's interesting that when you look at studio art departments within universities, they are largely staffed by MFA's, which is generally speaking the terminal degree in studio art.

    If Ph.D.s get their backs up over lawyers intruding on their sacred turf, they probably have a seizure at the thought of the artists doing so.

    But both attorneys and artists have their own turf to defend (courtrooms and art galleries) where the Ph.D.s would be a significant disadvantage. It balances out, I guess.

    I have noticed that in the last few years a small handful of DFA programs have started to appear. Think about it: does earning a DFA really make one a better artist? Does it make one a better art teacher? The entire motivation for these things seems to be as a booster to move art teachers up university pay scales. It's ridiculous, but when money and ego are involved, it will probably catch on.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2003
  15. Ike

    Ike New Member

    USA ---- Other Countries (Especially in British Commonwealth countries)
    === --- ============
    J.D ---> LL.B
    LL.M ---> LL.M
    J.S.D ---> LL.D
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 14, 2003
  16. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Yep. Using the ABA logic the MDiv should have become a Doctor of Divinity degree (no longer honorary). Inflation.

    North
     
  17. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    So Kromphardt securing a Ph.D. from Glencullen to supplement his Concordia M.Div. was simply an exercise in unusual arithmetic?
     
  18. Rick0768

    Rick0768 New Member

    Apparently Kromphardt just agreed with the ABA :p
     
  19. Homer

    Homer New Member

    That is something to think about.

    I've also thought about the fact that, generally, M.D.s teach future M.D.s, J.D.s teach future J.D.s, etc. In fact, I was involved in two different LL.M. programs (taxation) where =most= profs didn't have an LL.M........just years of experience in the field of tax law. Similarly, I suspect that the profs in many SJD programs do not hold SJDs themselves.

    So, in my opinion, the fact that a teacher holds a degree more advanced than the students he/she teaches is pretty much irrelevant; it certainly does not make one a better teacher nor necessarily more knowledgeable about the subject matter (i.e. there are probably a plethora of MBAs who are infinitely more knowledgeable than some Ph.Ds).

    In my experience, students would have been better served, in some instances, had the profs obtained an advanced degree in =education= rather than in the subject they taught. The scenario does arise where the prof knows just about everything there is to know about the subject matter but can't seem to convey that knowledge (effectively) to students.
     
  20. telefax

    telefax Member

    Excellent points, Homer. I, too, have had Ph.D. instructors who had been so cloistered in the ivory tower, that they were well nigh unintelligible when trying to teach anything outside their narrow field of interest. Of course, my best three undergraduate instructors also had Ph.D.'s (Cornell, Syracuse, and UCLA). Some people are simply better teachers than others.
     

Share This Page