Is a J.D. a doctorate?

UDC head defends provost's credentials

 

More interesting than the rather beaten up argument over the JD is the link to "Abraham Lincoln Law School" at the bottom of the page. It claims to be accredited.

By whom?

When I took my JD from U of New Mexico, the president of the school was an LLB. (The Dean of the law school had an LLM, as I recall)

Lawrence Tribe, one of the greatest scholars in American legal history rejoices in an LLB from Harvard.

A JD is the standard credential to be a tenured or tenure track professor of law.

I have never known any lawyer or law professor that used "doctor". I certainly never would. It isn't unlawful; merely silly.

But that does not affect the academic and professional utility of the degree. As a practical matter, it is adequate to the point that JSD degrees are almost unknown in American law faculties.

 

I'll give my vote to cronyism.

 

The ads must rotate -- when I looked, the link at bottom of page was for Novus University.

 

There were two links when I looked; one for Novus and one for an "accredited on line law school"-Abraham Lincoln.

AL doesn't look like a mill, BTW. It is a correspondence, bar registered law school whose graduates may sit for the California bar. It lists a small law faculty made up of JD holders, half of whose JD degrees are from ABA schools. But I don't think it's accredited.

 

I'm no law guy, but I like to keep things simple...

Juris Doctor is latin for Doctor of Jurisprudence right?

although not typical in use, that should give you the right to use the term in practice (academic, not in court)

It probably should be called a Masters level degree (like MBA), but tradition has screwed up natural proggression as we know it today

1. Associate
2. Bachelor
3. Masters
4. Doctorate

If the J.D was called a J.M., then a lawyer go go on and earn a J.D. (professional focus) or PhD (teaching and research forcus) in Law.

But I say it is not wrong to use a term printed on a legit diploma

(in latin or english)

 

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck, you can call it an eagle, but it's a duck.

If it doesn't have a dissertation (or equivalent), if it is coursework-only, if it is normally awarded as a bachelor's throughout the world, it's not a doctorate, no matter what you call it.

 

Is the J.D. a doctorate?

Well, yes and no. Up until a few decades ago when one finished a law degree it was technically considered a second bachelor's (LL.B.). However, as I understand, many attorneys looked over to their physician brethren who earned a bachelor's and then a professional degree with the title "Doctor" and they decided that the title "Doctor" would look awfully spiffy on their diplomas as well. So it was that law schools began to switch over to the J.D.

This is, of course, an over-simplification of what happened but covers it in a nutshell. It's all a matter of credentialing.

Cy

 

I would give Masters status to a JD, with the added benefit of a license. Esq seems to be far more popular as a title. Never ran into a JD yet who didn't call him/herself an "attorney". Dr is a pretty good stretch to fit the job description.

 

Rich Douglas: "If it doesn't have a dissertation (or equivalent), if it is coursework-only, if it is normally awarded as a bachelor's throughout the world, it's not a doctorate, no matter what you call it."


Cehi: You are totally correct, and I agree. A law degree starts as a bachelor degree in most parts of the world except in the USA. The process in other parts of the world is such that you will have an LLB, LLM , and LLD for the law educational hierarchy. Here in the USA, even though you have a JD, the degree holder is still subservient to an LLM or JSD degree holder as well. But, most people do not go further than JD (so, go figure who should be called a "doctor"...a JD or a JSD)

I have witnessed an incident where a Ph.D holder was addressed as an MD in a correspondence. The Ph.D holder was so upset that he made a conference call to the writer of the correspondence demanding an apology from the writer for addressing him as an MD. The Ph.D person indicated that an MD holder is beneath him academically (I agree). The Ph.D, and not an MD, JD, etc. is the highest academic degree someone can obtain.

As a matter of fact, MBBS (bachelor of medicine; bachelor of surgery) is the degree title awarded in most parts of the world for medicine. It is true that an MD is called a doctor, however, an MD or a JD holder do not write a dissertation. Hence, an MD, JD or the likes are not doctorates in as much as the programs are coursework only. I guess this is what could be called "war of the degree titles." Thank you.

 

check this example out (not fully comprehensive, though).
http://www.ui.edu.ng/deptofpublicandinternationallaw.htm

 

From the newspaper story:

The ad listed the minimum education required as a doctoral degree or its equivalent and the minimum work experience as an established record as a senior academic administrator.

____Mrs. Reuben-Cooke holds a juris doctor degree, or law degree, from the University of Michigan Law School and worked for 18 months as an associate dean for academic affairs at the Syracuse University College of Law. The bulk of her professional experience is as a law professor at Syracuse University.

I don't see any problem with the doctorate. People with J.D.s teach and hold administrative positions nationwide. 18 months as an associate dean may or may not be the "established record as a senior academic administrator" that UDC was looking for, but it certainly isn't ridiculous.

 

My goodness, what heat is generated when we begin to compare degrees and "rank".

The MD, DDS, DO, OD, DC, DPM, none of them requires a dissertation. Yet, as a social convention, ALL of these degree holders are called "Doctor".

Nonsense.

Law degrees are not comparable to degrees in other subjects because, to paraphrase Dr. Bear, the law is an academic anomoly. Thoughout the history of the common law, the law developed, or, depending on your particular theory, was discovered, in the Courts, not the Universities. Law schools do not further our knowlege of common law the way a chemist furthers our knowlege of chemistry. Law scholars can only follow the developments OUTSIDE the University. They have very little influence on the development of the law itself.

I will defend the JD as a research degree in a way. Every subject has its own research techniques and resources, its own methods of analysis, and its own standards of proof. In the common law, these things are highly organized and accessible but I assure you that the JD candidate must demonstrate complete mastery of them in order to receive his degree.

The very public and practical nature of law requires this accessibility and organization.

Now, in Civil Law countries, the law IS significantly developed in the Universities and there you find law and its degrees treated in a less unique fashion.

Finally, as to looking and walking like a duck, please see my earlier post regarding the utility of the JD in the academic world.

 

I believe that from medieval times when universities arose, doctorates were awarded in what were essentially professional subjects: medicine, law and (especially) theology. The rest of the curriculum was considered preparatory (originally the subjects contained in the trivium and quadrivium, the seven "liberal arts") and were taught by what were termed arts masters.

The "research model" for doctoral degrees is relatively recent. I believe that it arose in Germany in the 18'th and 19'th centuries.

 

Lincoln is not accredited and this ad is a violation of the California Education Code. I suspect this is merely an honest mistake since the link goes to a lead service - not Lincoln directly.

 

Hi Nosborne: Thanks for the observation about the Civil Law countries. There is a wonderful little book by John Merryman called, I think, The Civil Law Tradition or something like that, which has a chapter or two on exactly this academic development.

 

I do think that the tradition of law credentials is strange because the LL.M. is a higher degree than the J.D. and then there are earned higher doctorates in law such as the SJD (Doctor of Judicial Science). As such, the J.D. is considered a first professional degree but it is also a doctorate.

Speaking of which, I am embarking on a new degree, the first professional astronomy doctorate program in the field and it is being offered by James Cook University. This is considred a doctorate but a professional one, the next level up is the research doctorate or Ph.D. (Australia also has higher doctorates such as the Doctor of Science). The first semester is expected to begin in September and I submitted my application for admission just a couple of weeks ago. The only thing I don't like about the degree is that the approved acronym is DoA.

John

 

DoA

DoA doesn't sound so bad since you already have a Ph.D.

 

Nosborne48: "The MD, DDS, DO, OD, DC, DPM, none of them requires a dissertation. Yet, as a social convention, ALL of these degree holders are called "Doctor".

Nonsense.

Law degrees are not comparable to degrees in other subjects because, to paraphrase Dr. Bear, the law is an academic anomoly. Thoughout the history of the common law, the law developed, or, depending on your particular theory, was discovered, in the Courts, not the Universities. Law schools do not further our knowlege of common law the way a chemist furthers our knowlege of chemistry. Law scholars can only follow the developments OUTSIDE the University. They have very little influence on the development of the law itself.

I will defend the JD as a research degree in a way. Every subject has its own research techniques and resources, its own methods of analysis, and its own standards of proof. In the common law, these things are highly organized and accessible but I assure you that the JD candidate must demonstrate complete mastery of them in order to receive his degree.

Cehi: No one has asserted that a JD holder cannot or should not call himself/herself a "doctor." Afterall, a JD is called Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence. I am not a lawyer. But, I do know that a JD is not the highest degree in law. SJD is the highest degree in law. So, they are both doctors. Personally, it is not my business who must or should be called a doctor or not. I will leave that to the defenders of the various professions. Thank you.

 

The US Dept. of Ed has an interesting series of websites that list equivalent degrees.

First professional degrees (including the J.D.)
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/international/USNEI/us/professional-studies.html

Research doctorates (including the Ph.D.)
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/international/USNEI/us/research-doctorate.html

Incidentally, I have worked as faculty for a a few different colleges and universities. In my expereince it was not uncommon at all for my colleagues whose highest degree was the J.D. to be referred to as "doctor". I rarely heared law professors refer to themselves as "doctor", but those in business, social science and education departments did so regularly.

Tony Piña
Faculty, Cal State U. San Bernardino