Is JD a doctorate level?

Should we simplify the example to the point where it is easy to dismiss it? Perhaps not. These JDs were legally conferred, so obviously they are not deceiving anyone by using the degree designation as conferred. However, the actual utility of these JDs seems to be far less than their holders have been told or they realize. They have almost no doctoral training beyond the masters degree level that could be useful to a starting assistant professor of the social sciences, yet some JD holders (on this board in particular) seem surprised to learn this.

What can be done to help these individuals to either focus on what they have been trained to do or to seek the Ph.D. training to which they aspire?

Dave

 

In the British system, law degrees are still LLBs, and are typically earned on their own, without having first completed a different baccalaureate level program.

It's my understanding that in the British system, the degree for physicians is also a baccalaureate, and that physicians with that degree use the title "Doctor". Those (male) surgeons that have completed an advanced degree then use the title "Mister".

 

I would hope that someone who holds a Master of Business Administration degree could understand a business journal.

When I saw some subjects in graduate school, I thought "piece of cake" because I studied them as an undergrad. What a rude awakening I was in for. The depth of subject matter between undergrad and graduate is like night & day.

Of course, there are many academic law journals. That's not the point.

Some people (including, it seems, most J.D. holders) seem to think a law degree qualifies someone to teach in almost any subject area. If that's true, why don't we dismantle all these unwieldy doctoral programs, and just send all prospective professors to law school?

 

The MBA is a professional degree, oriented toward practice and has more in common with the J.D. than with the research-oriented PhD. The typical MBA and lawyer would have great difficulty understanding much of what is published in an academic business journal.

I picked a couple of academic working papers at random off the web to illustrate this point:

The first link is a relatively simple paper but uses two-stage least squares regression, a techniques that goes just a little beyond the statistics one takes as an undergrad or in grad school.

http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/acct/outreach/papers/agg_reporting.pdf

I don't know too many lawyers or MBAs that could make it through the following paper.

http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/acct/outreach/papers/cognition.pdf.

 

Or this conclusion can be right on point, and somebody (YOU) are trying to make something out of nothing.

Oh, one more thing. In your post that I responded to, you stated that there IS financial fraud. In this reply you state that It is possible. Interesting how you go from YES, to MAYBE.

 

I apologize if I didn't make myself clear. You seem to agree that there is some sort of problem though, with the manner in which JD holders are representing their suitability for employment in higher education. These are the two quotes to which you are referring, I believe, in the order that I wrote them:

"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."

"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."

If you do recognize the problem I'm describing, which wording do you prefer? It would be interesting to know your thoughts on why you prefer one particular way of stating the problem.

Dave

 

But as foobar alluded to, some MBA programs are more pracitioner- oriented than others. My program focused on both, I wrote articles and participated in a couple of business plan competitions (my emphasis is in Entrepreneurship). Some of the other concentrations at my school were not as balanced. Some entire programs are not as balanced.

Who the hell believes that!!! A JD doesn't qualify one to teach all areas of Psychology, Sociology or Criminal Justice. It qualifies one to practice and/or teach law. The ability to teach law is based on the minimum standards developed by the university or university system in question.

In addition, a PhD does not allow someone to teach any subject area he/she chooses because it does not qualify one to do so. There are still minimum requirements that must be met.

 

JD vs Phd's

Okay one more question occured in my mind when I was reviewing these threads. Are there ramifications that one needs to keep in mind before a Juris Doctor calls himself a doctor without having done a Phd? Why are Medical doctors permitted to be called a doctor while a Juris Doctor cant?

 

In the first quote, you stated it in an absolute manner. I believed that you had specific evidence to support this stance. Not that this is required of you; I just want to make sure that you were stating an opinion as opposed to fact.

 

Good point. The issue though is that para-professionals in higher education, such as JD holders, are misrepresenting their skill level and getting paid as doctorate holders to do so.

A Ph.D. in the social sciences is capable of developing curriculum for and teaching in a wide range of courses, because they understand how to vet the research stream and any existing curriculum.

On the other hand, para-professionals, such as JD holders and some masters degree holders, would be forced to use the textbook written by a doctorally-qualified person without being able to question or comment on the historical significance or empirical development of the underlying theories.

As I have stated before, the doctoral process is exothermic in that it releases heat and light (i.e., scholarship), but the JD and masters processes, are endothermic in that they absorb heat and light produced by scholars; the former produces, but the latter consumes.

Dave

 

Re: JD vs Phd's

Possibly. He would appear to be in violation of historical American Bar Association guidelines, and could be subject to disciplinary action from his bar association.

 

This is just rubbish, not Law journals? Who are you kidding?

 

Stats is taught at undergraduate level, that's why JD is better than LLB, with JD you have Stats because of previous degree, if you do not then you should not enter JD.

 

Well, a good understanding of stats might help JD students figure out how their law school is misrepresenting post-graduation employment numbers, but beyond that I'm not sure I follow you. Perhaps you can provide some stats on the value of stats for law school?

 

Rubbish? The thread is nearly 8 years old. That's not rubbish, it's an archaeological dig.

"Good afternoon, Doctor Jones."