Is JD a doctorate level?

No, a masters degree indicates mastery or subject matter expertise. A JD is an extended masters degree, because it includes no doctoral process and no dissertation of original research arising from a doctoral process.

When one considers the amount of money that is being paid to underqualified JD holders to teach at universities at doctoral pay levels, the academic fraud in which they are engaged takes on an alarming new dimension: financial fraud.

In an era when state governments are looking to lower the cost and increase the quality of education, in makes sense to pay underqualified JD holders at their actual, masters-degree level.

Dave

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is JD a doctorate level?

The requirement you describe falls with the definition of a masters thesis. A doctoral dissertation is not glorified book report or even a book per se, but a carefully-crafted addition to the research stream. The quality of a dissertation is not measured just by what sources were quoted but by what sources and theoretical models were excluded from the narrative.

Dave

 

You've put your finger on the problem. With respect to the "man on the street", the JD is a expert or master in the law, but in the academic world, the JD is not the highest degree in legal education. In fact, JD holders are at a lowest rung on the academic ladder above the bachelors degree. It is this lack of scholarly training (i.e., doctoral process) and proof of that scholarly training (i.e., dissertation) that renders the JD holder a legally-conferred but not legitimate academic doctor.

Dave

 

Re: Re: J.D./M.D. vs Ph.D.

What courses in law school prepared you to teach criminology at the college level?

I've reviewed the curriculum at several law schools, and absent any other qualifications, someone with a J.D. is utterly unqualified to teach criminology.

 

Look up "Doctor" in your dictionary. The relevant definitions in mine (the American Heritage College Dictionary) are as follows:

I don't see how the JD qualifies under either definition. As I indicated before, perhaps a JD plus a higher law degree (LLM or SJD) would.

 

I am sorry for the ambiguous question

My question has prompted so many responses and it might as well end up in the third world war! Bernard Shaw had once told "if a bunch of lawyers were to sit end to end in a conference room, they would never come to a conclusion". So JD's Vs. P.hd's would end nowhere. But it is clear that both require as much hard work and rhetorical skills and their pay scale matches each other.

Both have glory of its own. Over some tobacco and a stroll in the cool evening breeze, I realize that there are elements that can't be compared to each other probably due to the complicated nature of its existance. While it may be easy to arbitrate a temporary bout between scholars of great capabilities insofar each area of expertise prevails over the other in its own realm. What I noticed in JD's that Phd's dont usually have to is the ability to challenge extensive arguements and counter-statements.

 

Re: I am sorry for the ambiguous question

This JD-borne "attribute" could be termed Pattern Legal Flatulence (PLF) syndrome, which usually includes changing the definitions of words and never coming to a point. Ph.D.s are trained to eschew such obfuscation.

Dave

 

The compensation paid to a JD is the equivalent of a PhD because the JD is just as qualified to teach at the college level any subject upon which he has been trained as the PhD. I've already established this point in a prior post. Teaching and research are to different things. If the university seeks a researcher, then the PhD may be the route to go. However, if teaching is what is required the JD carries just as much weight as the PhD. Moreover, if "academic fraud' is what is occurring, then it is at the hands of your PhD's who are cutting the hire check for the JD. It seems that the university PhD's don't agree with your final assessment that the PhD is valued more in an academic setting than the JD when it comes to teaching.

 

More confusion and dissonance reduction on your part.

No, you didn't establish that a JD is just a qualified to teach anything.

No, teaching as a professor requires that you be able to conduct research and contribute to the academic community of the university. Teaching and research go hand in hand.

No, the PhDs of which you speak are aware of the underqualification of the JD and so are not hiring them full time under normal circumstances.

Yes, most universities do agree with what has been painstakingly explained to you here, as evidenced by the JD being rejected as a full-time teaching credential.

Friend, you have much to learn.

Dave

 

If your analysis were accurate then the JD would not be paid at the same pay scale as the PhD, which YOU have already pointed out in your prior post. So either university PhD's failed basic economics or you're just wrong. Riddle me this, why would the more superior university PhD hire the unqualified JD to teach his further PhD students? Hay I know, because the superior university PhD has figured out that teaching has nothing to do with research. This is evidenced by the fact that PhD's generally have graduate students teaching their classes while they do research.

 

Because they needed you to teach one class or perhaps two classes but they didn't need you full time nor would they hire you full time. As has been described before, you qualify for adjunct work but not as an assistant professor, because you are underqualified with the JD.

Dave

 

I'm don't see how a JD can claimed that he "has been trained as the PhD" but did not complete a PhD program.

The following links are to faculty qualification documents for schools undergoing reaccreditation by SACS. These documents are very informative as to how things work in the real world.

The common link between all of these documents is that the J.D. is well suited and accepted for teaching law. Teaching in other areas with a J.D. requires additional qualifications. Note that in disciplines outside of education, an Ed.D. faculty member similarly has to be justify their qulifications to teach on some basis other than their terminal degree in education.

http://www.irs.ttu.edu/SACS/Faculty/BA/Accounting.pdf

http://sacs.georgiasouthern.edu/compliance/supportfiles/comprehensive/3-7-1/SACS%203.7.1.%20TABLE%20XX%20FACULTY%20QUAL.pdf

http://academics.utep.edu/Default.aspx?tabid=23663

https://sacs.kennesaw.edu/portal/page/portal/PG_SACS_INFORMATION_CENTER/PAGE_DOCUMENT_DIRECTORY/C/C_LINKS/faculty_roster.pdf

Legal research is an entirely different animal than academic research. Note that most of the J.D.s with faculty positions are employed in a business school while some have positions in CJ.
Most of these individuals teach couses in law from the perspective of business, taxation or CJ.

Most j.d prepared faculty would have little chance of understanding the typical articles in the top journals in cj or business. Law school DOES NOT provide the statistical and quantitative background required to perform or in many cases, fully understand mainstream research in criminal justice or business. I've never heard of a law school teaching experimental design or analysis of variance.

Lawyers teaching in these areas normally publish in tax or law journals and not academic journals. They may sometimes co-author a mainstream academic journal article with a colleague, with their contribution often limited to providing a legal perspective to an academic problem.

Likewise, except for a small number of individuals in certain areas (e.g. CJ, History, Poli Sci and Tax), few Ph.D.-qualified faculty have been taught how to perform legal research. Some of us may take a legal research and writing and other law school courses while in our Ph.D. programs to support our research. But most PhDs lack this skill and know better than to claim that their PhD qualifies them to perform legal research.

Lawyers are notorius for asking "Where did you go to law school?" when a layperson dares to make a legal point in their presence. This goes both ways. You want to play Ph.D, get one.

 

Re: I am sorry for the ambiguous question

Yeah, that'll happen ... every once in awhile.

 

And where, praytell, did you acquire this supposed legal knowledge?

 

Dewey, Cheatem & Howe, LLP.

Dave

 

For those who don't get the joke...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey,_Cheatem_&_Howe

 

Were not talking about journals in physics or chemistry here. We are talking about journals that speak of human conditions; the social sciences. Even this mere MBA graduate can understand academic business journals.

One doesn't need to go to law school to learn these topics. For example, I learned these topics as an undergrad, and not just a brush over in a survey course either.

There are no academic journals in the area of law?? And, if there are, there are no persons with a JD who publish in these journals??? (And not just as a co-author.)

 

Let's not go Oliver Stone on us here. Fraud typically implies that there is a victim by one of the contractual parties (either explicitly or, less so, implicitly), and that the other party somehow utilized deception to gain position. Who do JD holders deceive the universities, they know as well as any other party in the world, the VALUE of a particular degree. Individual program is another matter, but we are not getting that specific. There is no deception, hence no fraud.

 

Let me add, that if a person were to claim "John Doe, Ph.D" based on him earning a JD; that would be an obvious fraud for the reason(s) Dave mentions. However, if that person states "JD" on their CV, and they get hired, why is that person a con man??

 

But was the public harmed by overpaying underqualified individuals? It is possible. Are individuals stating they possess doctoral qualifications to teach, when they don't? Yes, they seem to be overstating their qualifications and being allowed to by the administration of some universities. Now, is harm resulting from this deception? You seem to be saying no, but that conclusion could be an oversimplication.

Dave