Dead EJD? Older article...

Unless the American Bar Association persuades all states to accept online Juris Doctorate education toward state bar admission. Otherwise, it does not matter whether the ABA-approved online J.D or not. Earning an online ABA-approved J.D does do any good for an individual except create more student loan debts.

 

WoW. It is a long post by Miss. Wong.
Frankly, I might consider this EJD someday in the future 'cause I am not interested in practicing law in any State, but would love to add this title after my name as I am heading the regulatory affairs department in a commercial company.


I am sorry, Cove, but you really didn't bother to do any homework before deciding to enter that program; why didn't you come to the DI forum and ask some pundits there?

 

Purdue University is a very reputable school with graduates like Niel Armstrong for heaven's sake! Why would Purdue want their name on a degree that appears to have so much controversy and little utility??? Frankly, I'm baffled and disturbed after reading this article. With that said, I know very little about legal studies.

I don't know if she graduated before Purdue University took over Concord/Kaplan but she should attempt to get a new diploma with the Purdue name on it and perhaps say she holds a doctorate from Purdue in legal studies???

 

Apparently, she was a Kaplan University alumni, and she built the trust in them for continuing her legal studies.

 

I don't see the point in spending three to four years on getting an EJD when you can spend one to two years on getting an MLS or MSLS.

 

For those who want the prestige of being able to say they have a JD or a "law degree" the EJD counts even if it's not bar-qualifying, while the MLS/MSLS is "only" a Master's degree. We've been discussing those for years too, with the general opinion that they are also not a great buy: https://www.degreeinfo.com/index.php?threads/many-law-school-degrees-worse-than-worthless.42584/

 

You also invite confusion by having a JD that's not bar-qualifying anywhere, and the JD is generally not considered to be a doctoral degree. One could spend three to four years earning a doctoral degree for the same price or less.

I think this is like spending three years earning an MSW or master's in counseling you can't use when you could have earned a master's in psychology in one to 1.5 years.

 

Indeed. Or like earning some ersatz kind of M.D. that won't ever qualify you to practice medicine. Unlike the EJD law thingy, I don't know offhand of any legit. schools that teach these, although such medical degrees do exist. There are certainly a few "other" schools, dubious or worse, here and there in the world, that do teach these useless "non-doctor" degrees - and for self-preservation reasons, warn people up-front about the limitations.

 

The interesting thing about it is that there are plenty of people with law degrees who either never seek bar admission or are content to let their admission lapse and never attempt to be readmitted because their role does not require them to practice as attorneys. If the EJD was one year long instead of 3 (equivalent credits) then you can kind of see where the niche for this would be. It could be a legal version of a miniMBA or a microMBA or whatever modifier we're using now.

But it doesn't really offer any savings of cost or time over a "regular" JD. All it offers is a marketing edge for schools whose JDs, regular or executive, are unlikely to help you actually become a lawyer. I appreciate the cleverness of it. A school admitted only in CA can market its virtually useless JD to a student in New York without promising anything at all. All that means is that the marketing person who came up with it deserves a bonus. It doesn't mean the degree itself is a good idea.

 

I disagree. When I took marketing courses, (1) At a professional Institute (2) At Uni. and (3) In College - NOBODY said it was a good or bonus-worthy idea to package and sell some false "bargain" that was, in fact, a horrible financial shellacking in very thin disguise. Although, as we all know, it happens all too frequently.

If I knew of a marketing course that does teach this view (and I'm sure there must be a few) - I'd avoid it. Even I have some scruples.

 

I disagree that it is a "false bargain."

If I'm being perfectly honest my opinion would be that one might be better served by an EJD than a no name MBA. If for nothing else the fact that it is DIFFERENT at a time when it feels like everyone has an MBA from schools that, frankly, have no business awarding MBAs.

I don't think an EJD is a good idea. But I don't think it is a worse idea than many other not-so-good ideas when it comes to degrees. And I do think if a person was sitting there thinking "Huh, an MBA from maybe a DEAC school is pretty tempting" then the EJD might offer a slight advantage (assuming they actually weighed their options and are realistic about how far that MBA would take them and that it would meet their needs).

 

Okay. We disagree.

And an MBA from some low cost school like UoP (candidate for RA- $3660) or Hellenic American (RA and $3,000) might get someone further at less cost than any DEAC school I'm aware of. DEAC schools - apples and orang-utans in this comparison, I think.

 

Cost is a factor, for sure. But it's not the only factor in professional development. Especially when you consider tuition assistance from employers. My Scranton MBA would have been a terribly irresponsible financial decision had I paid for it out of pocket. Arguably, it was a bad decision anyway. There are definitely better names available. If someone came to me today thinking about it I would question why they weren't just taking a quick jaunt (digitally) down the PA Turnpike and checking out the Villanova MBA. For roughly the same cost you get a lot more name (and far fewer Office jokes) at Villanova.

I compare DEAC simply because all of the DEAC law schools, current and former, offered the EJD. So I think it is reasonable to compare a DEAC MBA to a DEAC JD (of any variety). And I'm not convinced that RA adds even a modicum of value to a non-ABA JD. So I feel like there is no material difference between NA or RA in that specific area.

 

I understand now - thanks. But if I had to either one - I'd be on a boat to Valparaiso or somewhere pretty fast! Not my bag!

 

I ran into seeing this profile. Since this thread about the non-traditional route has been locked, I am posting it here.
It seems she put "Dr." before her name after earning an EJD degree at Concord Law School.
https://academics.otc.edu/healthsciences/our-team/michelle-crum/

 

Actually, it appears Ozark Technical Community College put "Dr." in this college website article...not her! I agree the EJD is a weird duck granted by Concord School of Law (RA accredited). However, it does not lead to the practice of law. Arguably, it isn't a first professional degree. She is using it in academics and the school recognizes it as a doctoral degree, so good for her!

 

I'm not quite on board with this.

My take: Whoever wrote this for a health sciences team should know better. I don't think she should be called "Dr. " in anything pertinent to the health setting - she's not a Doctor of anything health-related. There is of course the ongoing thing about the JD not being a doctorate and the EJD not being much of anything - but I'll let that slide. No indication she's able to practise law. An EJD. And nothing about Bar admission in the bio. To twist the wise words of Polonius, - very possibly - "Neither a Doctor nor a Lawyer, she."