Ed.D. vs Ph.D.

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by todssmith1981, Jul 22, 2001.

Loading...
  1. Steve Nair

    Steve Nair New Member

    Is a J.D. equal to a LL. B.? I do not think so. In many countries a LL. B. is the first law degree a person obtains either after an undergraduate degree (such as B.A. in Political Science) or a two year degree (A.A. in some countries). A LL. B. program does not include the practical aspects of law. This includes the theory of evidence, presentation of evidence, remedies, analytical and persuasive writing, etc., That is why a LL. B. program could be completed in less than 2 years. Thus, in many countries, a LL. B. graduate can sit and pass the bar examination after gaining few years of experience.

    On the other hand, a J.D. diploma holder can take the bar examination immediately after graduation. Once the gradute has passed the bar examination, the graduate is eligible to start the professional practice of law immediately.

    This is the reason why foreign LL. B. holders must meet other requirements before being accepted to take the bar examination in any state. Some states require that the LL. B. holder must be a member of the bar in the country where the holder received the LL. B. degree before they can sit for the bar examination.


    I agree that most lawyers do not call themself as "Drs!" However, an attorney who also has another doctorate degree such as a Ph. D. is usually addressed as a "Dr." by clients, and usually by judges. This is extremely common in the matters where the attorney is an expert witness in a court or if the attorney is an educator or panel or board member. If the judge knows that the attorney is called a "Dr." usually the judge addresses the attorney a "Dr."

    Personally, I know several attorneys who have other doctorates in medicine, psychology, humanities and international law. All of them like to be addressed a "Dr." instead of a "Mr."
     
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I tried to get my wife to call me Master after getting my M.A. but to no avail. First she laughed and then she put her Schnauzers in attack mode.

    North

     
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I did the same thing, North. The first thing my wife asked was "is the MA accredited?" After she learned that it was both RA and ATS accredited, I heard her say Master. But to my surprise she was asking me to vacuum the MASTER bedroom. Alas, such is life--no respect.

    BTW, have you had the Schnauzers ordained yet? The ULC option remains open. Even though I had my Beagle ordained several months after his passing, I still felt really good about it. He always had an effective ministry in counseling--I could tell the dog anything and he always manifested excellent listening skills. I think he deserved to be ordained based on his life experience. [​IMG]

    Russell
     
  4. At my Alma Mater Lehigh University, they offer both Ph.D and Ed.D. However on the university's department of education, they only refer to the Ed.D as for those more interested in school administration vs higher education or research. The "Research Project" does not have the same characteristics of a dissertation.

    The folowing is an excerpt from Lehigh University's on-line catalog:

    "Doctor of Arts (D.A.)
    The doctor of arts degree (D.A.) is offered to students preparing for careers in college teaching in the field of chemistry. The program requirements are similar to those for the Ph.D. with the following exceptions: (1) a broader distribution of graduate courses in the field, (2) a minor area of study for students interested in bidisciplinary preparation for two-year college teaching, (3) coursework and training in interpersonal awareness, (4) a supervised internship in college teaching, and (5) a research project appropriate to college teaching in the student’s field of specialization."
    End of quote

    Maybe this sheds some light or maybe muddies the waters ...

    Regards,

    Dick
     
  5. Timmy Ade

    Timmy Ade New Member

    Esq.,
    I think you can easily refer to yourself as the Rev., Dr. as in the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And to my Pal Wes, I think Rich Douglas is right on the money here. i.e. (but for a few professional Doctoral Degrees) you 'll certainly need a Doctoral level thesis / Dissertation for a Doctoral Degree anywhere around the Globe. That is whether your Degree is a PhD,E.dd,D.phil, DBA,D.Eng,D.sc,D.arts,D.humn,DSS,D.litt, psch.D,DPH,DPA,D.Theo,D.Min,LL.D, D.admin, ………please add more. :.))

    Timmy.
     
  6. Gerstl

    Gerstl New Member

    All this really illustrates is that the American Bar entry standards are generally much lower than that of say, Great Britain. Take my local law school [the only one whose curriculum I know intimately]: Top 20, Nationally known. The only required "practical" courses are legal ethics (not really a practical course) and a practice course that has the students write 2 memos and be part of a team presenting a case in a courtroom with some attorney as judge. While students can elect to take moot court and practical courses, many or most do not. They simply graduate, spend a month or two at BarBri, and can practice [the school has a very high bar pass rate BTW]

    Many or most graduates of this school are closer to the LLB side than to a bar entrant in GB who has taken an additional 1 to 2 years of practical training [the practice course] after completing a law degree taking, in general, three years.

    Considering that only about a year of the three year degree is required courses (the foundation courses) it is perhaps time state bars consider allowing someone to take a year or two of law school followed by an internship. Perhaps they should even require a year or two of supervised work/training before bar admission much as is done in accounting in many states and in medicine.
     
  7. Steve Nair

    Steve Nair New Member

    Gerstl,

    All this really illustrates is that the American Bar entry standards are generally much lower than that of say, Great Britain.

    I beg to differ. There is no doubt in my mind that U.S. standards of legal education is simply superior to the U.K. standards. That is because of the broad spectrum of the courses a student is required to complete for a U.S. J.D. program. All most all required courses for a LL. B. are covered by the second year of a J.D. program. An LL. B. program differs to a J.D. program in that it requires only the foundational law courses such as contracts, torts, property, trusts, etc. That is it. Additionally, an LL. B. graduate is not trained in legal research as much as J.D. graduate(It is not how much you know it, but knowing where to find it is more important.).

    Take my local law school [the only one whose curriculum I know intimately]: Top 20, Nationally known. The only required "practical" courses are legal ethics (not really a practical course) and a practice course that has the students write 2 memos and be part of a team presenting a case in a courtroom with some attorney as judge. While students can elect to take moot court and practical courses, many or most do not.

    What about courses such as evidence, remedies, community property, constituitonal law and remedies, etc., These courses are intended to train a lawyer the practical aspects of the profession. These are highly relevant to a practicing lawyer. Yet, such courses are not a part of a LL. B.

    Many or most graduates of this school are closer to the LLB side than to a bar entrant in GB who has taken an additional 1 to 2 years of practical training [the practice course] after completing a law degree taking, in general, three years.

    Then let me ask then why a LL. B. holder even after getting practical experience in England (or U.S.) and completing addtional courses in U.S., find it difficult to pass a U.S. bar examination? (I belive the answer would be "because of the lack of superior training obtained in U.S.")

    Considering that only about a year of the three year degree is required courses (the foundation courses) it is perhaps time state bars consider allowing someone to take a year or two of law school followed by an internship. Perhaps they should even require a year or two of supervised work/training before bar admission much as is done in accounting in many states and in medicine.

    I disagree with a two year degree. However, a required internship is a wonderful idea. It will substantially help attorneys in getting their hands wet.

    As far equating a J.D. to a Ph. D., both degrees require approximately 85-90 semester hours of training after a 4 year bachelors degree.
     
  8. Alex

    Alex New Member

    The J.D. and Ph.D. are both respected degrees, but they do not require the same amount of time to earn.

    After three years of full-time, post bac study for a J.D.:
    Walk up the aisle and receive your degree. No dissertation or original research report is required.

    After three years of full-time, post bac study for a Ph.D.:
    You probably just defended your dissertation proposal. Expect two to four more years of full-time study (or the equivalent part-time) before you defend the dissertation and earn the degree.

    Alex
     
  9. PCap

    PCap New Member

    There is a law office a few towns west of mine with a large shingle out front which reads "Joe Blow,Esq.,Jane Blow,Esq.,Doctors Of Law".I have never seen anything else like it.
     
  10. Gerstl

    Gerstl New Member

    Lets, look at the curriculum of the law school you attended--how many REQUIRED (as in you must take to graduate) legal research classes did you have? Here legal research is confined to the 2 memos already mentioned. You could spend the next 2 years taking nothing requiring any legal research.

    And they are not required for the JD. They are elective courses, and many graduates do not take them, just take BarBri and go to practice.

    BTW where do you get the idea that an LLB does not contain con law? The London LLB certainly does require it (although it is, suprise suprise, their constitution, not the US one)--or did you mean a course "constitutional law and remedies"-- if so, they don't have that one here as far as I know. Additionally looking through the London list of electives are Evidence. As for Community property: you might be suprised to discover that many law schools do not have such a course (it would likely be confined to law schools in the eight states that have community property laws).
    Now this one is really outragious. Can you pass the British bar easily? If not it must mean that the UK degrees are superior! The reason some UK grads have trouble passing the US bar is that the system is substantially different [and also that the US bar exam essay questions are closer tot he form of the US law school exams than the form used in the UK]. It has little or nothing to do with the quality of the degree.

    BTW- I would be willing to bet that if you took a representative sampling of practicing attorneys and gave them the bar, not all would pass it (even though they had as fresh graduates). The fact that they had been practicing for a number of years might actually be to their detriment since they might not have seen an exam paper (and some of the bar subjects) in years.

    Looking at the courses at London ( http://www.londonexternal.ac.uk/qualifications/undergraduate/law/structure.shtml ) I see many courses with substantially the same "practical component" as in a typical US law school.
     
  11. Nosborne

    Nosborne New Member

    Actually, when I said that there is no difference between a JD and an LLB, what I SHOULD have said is that the American Bar Association section on legal education has adopted a formal statement saying that there is no difference between a JD earned in an American Bar Association accredited law school and an LLB earned in an American Bar Association accredited law school.
    There is a world of difference between an UNDERGRADUATE LLB from, say, England, and an American ABA accredited JD/LLB.
    I just think that "LLB" sounds classier. More arcane and traditional.
    BTW, I believe that an American lawyer with an ABA degree can become a solicitor in England by passing a series of examinations set by the Law Society.
    Also BTW, the California correspondence JD programs require only 60 semester hours or the equivilent by examination to enroll.
    FINALLY BTW, degree titles are wonderfully confusing. The Oxford University masters degree in civil law for common law trained lawyers is the "Bachelor of Civil Law" (BCL). Even OU admits that this is potentially confusing...
    Nosborne (formerly Joybaum)
     
  12. David Yamada

    David Yamada New Member

    In order to fairly compare the U.S. and U.K. systems of legal education, you have to include the U.K.'s post-degree training and apprenticeship programs toward becoming a solicitor or barrister.

    I think it's instructive that critics of U.S. legal education often point to the U.K. as a better way to do it, and critics of U.K. legal education often point to the U.S. as a better way to do it. The debate usually centers around doctrinal vs. clinical learning.

    I'm an agnostic on the U.S. vs. U.K. question. Both systems offer considerably more reliable training and education than those in many other nations, but both could stand to learn from one another.

    As to the J.D. vs. Ph.D. question, it's comparing apples and oranges. A J.D. program *can* be a very academic one if the student so chooses. Courses and seminars emphasizing theory and policy, plus work on scholarly law journals, can make for a very intellectual program at a student's election. But most J.D. programs have never sought to be confused with the purely intellectual focus of Ph.D. programs, and in that sense law degree programs are closer to MBAs programs. I will reiterate, however, that in terms of the analytical skills required to navigate a J.D. program, the standards can be as tough as, or tougher than, many Ph.D. programs, though usually not in terms of amount of work and time necessary to earn the degree.
     

Share This Page