New wrinkle in the "Is the JD a doctorate?" debate

Yes, you're right, it IS wierd. But the first professional doctorate is in a wierd place among academic degrees.

The reason for many chiropractors to list the bachelors degrees is that admission into many D.C. (doctor of chiropractic) programs does not require a bachelors degree, but instead requires 90 completed units (equivalent of 3/4 of a typical B.A. or B.S.). D.C. programs are unique in this aspect, which has been one of the reasons for other professions to look down upon chiropracters.

Tony Pina
Northeastern Illinois University

 

Oh, one other detail. I imagine that at some schools, a J.S.D. graduate would NOT wear the same regalia as a Ph.D. from the same school. As I understand the convention, all Ph.D.s wear the same regalia REGARDLESS of their subject because the degree is considered to be in "Philosophy". Their hoods are always blue, their tassels are always gold (except at Harvard), etc. Furthermore, their doctoral gowns and headgear are usually in the the school's academic colors rather than simple black.

Dissertation degrees other than the Ph.D. such as the D.A., D.B.A., Ed.D., J.S.D., D. Mus., and the like apparently wear hoods whose colors reflect their subject and single color gowns.

So a J.S.D. would wear the same hood, and possibly exactly the same regalia altogether, as a J.D. from the same school. The only difference USED to be that the J.S.D. would receive a gold tassel whereas the J.D. received one of purple and black (like I did). Nowadays, of course, J.D.s receive some sort of gold tassel, yet another sign of our national slide toward unbridled self-indulgence!

The place where this would be most obvious would be in a School of Education

 

Wasn't the Doctor of Arts (D.A.) supposed to be the next attempt to create a practitioner based teaching degree, a recommendation of the Carnegie foundation in the 60's?

 

Yes, I believe that is correct. Although a few programs adopted the Doctor of Arts degree, it never caught on.

Tony

 

Re: Ed.D. as practicum degree

Hi Steve,

I responded to your PM request for this info.

Cheers,

Tony

(The "readers digest condensed version" is that all of the PhD. vs. Ed.D. comparison studies have concluded that the Ed.D. never became "more like a first professional degree than a thesis degree". It ended up being just like the Ph.D. in education with a different name).

 

My nephew only has one degree, a MB (Bachelor of Medicine), but he had to pass exams set by the Royal Coilege of Radiolographers to practice his specialty. Although he is a medical doctor he uses the term Mr because he is a consultant (meaning specialist).

 

Historically, up to the 1960s, the first professional degree in law was referred to as the LlB. However, in the 1960s young lawyers revolted against the idea that after spending three years of full-time study after the BA only to come up with a second bachelor's and so the title of the first professional degree in law was converted to JD. I'm guessing that it is out of respect for the old guys that graduated with the old LlB that the JDs choose not to style themselves "Dr."

 

As reasonable as you guess is, it isn't right. There was actually an ethical prohibition against J.D.s using the title "Doctor".

Law students didn't really care either way, as I understand it from contemporaneous articles. Law PROFESSORS pushed for the so-called increased prestige relative to their Ph.D. colleagues.

 

This is a great and quite informative thread. Mucho obligado to everyone ...... for all of these fact-laden (especially historical) contributions.

quote:
posted by Anthony Pina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason for many chiropractors to list the bachelors degrees is that admission into many D.C. (doctor of chiropractic) programs does not require a bachelors degree, but instead requires 90 completed units (equivalent of 3/4 of a typical B.A. or B.S.). D.C. programs are unique in this aspect, which has been one of the reasons for other professions to look down upon chiropracters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Pina:

This is interesting and enlightening. Might this explain the anomaly and oddity when one sees or reads in a chiropractor's yellow-pages or other advertissement listing as "Dr. Jack Doe, B.S., D.C."?

Come to think of it, one sees, sometimes though rarely, a few PhD' or EdDs (or other doctorates) citing themselves as "Dr. Jane Doe, PhD." etc.

The juxtaposition of the "Dr." prefix together with the "PhD" (or other doctorate) suffix, is of course, unnecessary, but that never stopped anyone, did it?

Great thread! Carry on .....

Thanks.

 

You're right. Others here on degreeinfo have make the observation that citations, such as "Dr. Jane Doe, Ph.D." are redundant in nature. I see this mistake most frequently when "doctors" are being used to endorse products. Apparently, there are not a lot of Ph.D.s at ad agencies

The argument is often made that Jane Doe, Ph.D. is preferred, so that people won't be confused between Ph.D.s and M.D.s.

Tony Piña
Administrator, Northeastern Illinois University

 

How do you get the tilde? Mis spelling your name has irritated me for months.

 

When I am on my desktop computer, I hold down the ALT key and type 0241 on the ten-key pad. ALT-164 also works sometimes. The ñ appears when you lift up the ALT key. When I am on my laptop, it doesn't always work the same, so sometimes I cut and paste from MS Word (which I have set up to display the ñ when I type ALT-n.

Tony Piññña

 

Just a brief reply on the chiropractor issue. There are actually certain states that now require the chiropractor to have an earned bachelor's degree in order to practice in their state. This is regardless of school admission standards. Most schools have become increasingly competitive and fewer people are being admitted without bachelor's degrees.

 

I can understand why a JD should be treated differently from a PhD for regalia purposes, et. al., but why in thunder should an S.J.D.? It's typically an iron-clad requirement that one already hold a J.D. (or L.L.B.) and L.L.M. before even applying to an S.J.D. program. That's 4 or 5 years of study after the bachelor's before you can even apply, then you typically have, what is it? A 50,000 page research project to receive the S.J.D. plus whatever coursework or various and sundry other studies that might be required? That sounds one whale of a lot like a PhD+.

The whole debate is kind of skewed by the PhDs, though, because I don't think that the average lawyer who's gotten the J.D. and passed a state qualification exam that's anything but a lay-down should have any reason to aplogize for his or her degree vis-a-vis a PhD in Literature or Social Work or what-have-you.

This point is particularly acute when you consider the plight of Mr. DesElms. Should he finish that London LL.M, he'll have 5 yrs of legal education post-bachelors and will have passes his state bar. Should he acknowledge that yes, the guy with the PhD in Criminology has really done so much more than him, an intellectual accomplishment that far outstrips his? Nonsense.

 

American law degrees are in a world all their own anyway. The "undergraduate" (we actually CALL it that) legal education is the post graduate J.D. Until very recently, there WAS no Ph.D. in American law or in American law schools. (Still largely true; University of Washington offers a Ph.D. in Asian law and Tulane recently redesignated their J.S.D. as a Ph.D.)

However, even in places like Australia where the Ph.D. and J.S.D. co exist, the degrees are not considered the same. The former is the academic reseach credential whilst the latter is a "professional doctorate" like the Ed.D. is supposed to be in this country, I guess.

If it makes you feel any better, American J.S.D. programs often require no further coursework than comprises an LL.M. The J.S.D. can be thought of as an LL.M. plus a dissertation (or series of published articles in some cases).

At Wisconsin-Madison, LL.M. and J.S.D. students are DISCOURAGED from taking coursework beyond the J.D. And, of course, there is the really bizarre fact that half of all American J.S.D. programs WILL NOT ACCEPT holders of an American J.D.

If it makes no sense, just grin and bear it!

Ultimately, given the odd statuts accorded the J.D. in American academia, an American lawyer should pursue graduate law degrees as a CONSEQUENCE of studying something he finds interesting. It is very rare that the advanced degree itself is required or even very meaningful. (Exception: LL.M. in taxation)

 

Don't know what I was thinking, must have had my hero Gregg DesElms on the brain.

I meant you, Nosborne48, my other hero, of course!

And since you now know I was referring to you, Nosborne, what do you think: will the dude with the PhD in Criminology or Criminal Justice who's never set foot in law school, never took the Bar, have gotten a much more rigorous education than you after you've finished the LL.M.?

 

Well...I don't know that the two things can be compared.

One of the things I am being forced to consider in my studies is the reliability of statistical models and research techniques in the social sciences. I don't need to know enough to able to design or conduct that kind of research, only to understand some of its limitations.

It seems to me that a Social Science Ph.D. will have demonstrated genuine proficiency in the use of these research tools. That all by itself is a considerable achievement, I think. Pure research is hard to do in this area and it takes a good deal of training to see what is valid and what is not.

On the other hand, no Social Science Ph.D. will have gained the level of understanding I should attain of public policy as expressed in legislation. I should be able to predict the effects of a proposed change in the law as a practical matter. Indeed, this is a common assignment from my tutors.

I don't think that there is a way to quantify a certain amount of knowledge and say that I will have more or less of it than the Criminology Ph.D. It's just different, that's all.

As for rigor...well, law school is said to be the most stressful educational program in the American University system and I've seen graduate degree holders struggle along with the rest of us. And law as a subject allows for a fairly objective testing regime...it's really, really, hard to "fake" it, if you see what I mean. Social Science is probably easier to "fake" because it is harder to challenge. Nobody really KNOWS about these things, you see.

Over all, if I had it to do over again and finances permitted, I'd like to have done Boalt Hall's dual J.D./Ph.D. program in Justice and Social Policy.

I sense that the real question is whether I resent the second class citizenship allegedly suffered by J.D.s. The answer is "no."

Law professors generally have the same tenure and privileges as Ph.D. professors and they tend to be paid more. Sometimes a LOT more. I am willing to let the Ph.D.s enjoy their weird academic regalia and the first place in ceremonies. I'll even call them "Doctor" and correct anyone who tries to apply that title to me. They've earned it; I haven't. Frankly, I think the J.D. is generally better off in the long run.

 

Fair points both, and I agree with the analysis you provided in your post, seems spot-on. Just two different things entirely: the ability to analyze public policy, which you're doing, versus the ability to apply statistical methodology to research issues, which (presumably), the PhD in Criminology is doing. The latter perhaps deserving the title "Doctor", the former not.

But wait...

Don't be too quick to think all of those PhDs know much that you don't. My wife did a few years in a pure Math PhD program, just a class or two short of ABD, got her MS, passed her orals with flying colors, but got burnt out, didn't want to climb dissertation mountain. She did REAL math when working towards the PhD and MS, crazy stuff--didn't even hardly use numbers after she reached a certain level. She later studied a year in a PhD program in Educational Psychology at a big uni, took quant and stats classes there, studied statistical methods, et. al. She also taught algebra, stats and probability at the same major uni as an adjunct.

She told me you wouldn't believe the math ignorance of most of her colleagues in the Ed Psych PhD program--and this was a well-regarded, top-40ish uni--she said the majority of them didn't know beyond dummy math, and the imposing-sounding research methodologies courses required in the program were as applied as all thunder, very little high math, very little beyond what you probably can already intuit. She did a presentation to her class once on statistics and its application to research, the class was agog: "Wow, you're incredible!", the professor (with, of course, an earned PhD) was similarly dazzled. She confided to me later: "Mike, I just used some basic Algebra and Stats, the kind of stuff I teach to undergrads, it was laughable."

Remember also that there's a quantum leap between quantitative research methods and qualitative research methods--the latter can be as touchy-feely as hades. And it just happens that that's the route a ton of PhDs take in their research because they just can't grasp the higher quant stuff. You probably had to use the quant regions of your brain more in taking the LSAT than the average social science PhD had to do in getting their doctorate.