Talk:Juris Doctor

It seems to me that the question itself, "is the J.D. a doctoral degree," stems ultimately from the fact that position of the American Bar Association for many years was that attorneys would not use the title "doctor." This was the culmination of a long-standing custom in the profession prohibiting self-laudation.

In other words, it began, I think, not as a question of whether degree was a doctoral degree, but of whether attorneys holding the (doctoral) degree would be permitted to use the title "doctor" despite the centuries-long prohibition of self-laudation in the profession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantomlaw (talk • contribs) 01:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

US Government Source is Overstated

I looked at the US government source regarding the Juris Doctor, and (a) it is not a general categorization for government purposes, but rather the rules particular to a 2005 summer student job program (b) doesn't actually purport to draw a line between doctoral degrees and law degrees but rather between two more complexly-defined categories, both of which include some juris doctor degrees.IntLiGrll (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, why is this being described as a debate when (at least) the vast majority of the sources don't actually describe a debate. Most just describe features which aren't exactly parallel to a "doctorate vs. non-doctorate" distinction, and most, rather than describing any particular event of disagreement, just describe a single person or group in one particular context for one particular purpose (except Bar Assoc) referring to the degree either as a doctorate or in other terms. It seems to me like syntheses to simply arrange these incongruities together, and present them as a "debate". This is kind of like splicing together clips of Britons describing an Oreo as a "biscuit" and Americans describing an Oreo as a "cookie" and entitling the film "Debate Between British and Americans Over Whether an Oreo is a Cookie or a Biscuit" ). It's not a debate unless each speaks with an awareness of the opposing argument.IntLiGrll (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before. It may be that "Disagreement" is better than "Debate" as there is clearly documented disagreement on the matter, including some of the newspaper sources showing a Board of Trustees trying to appoint a J.D. to an academic administrative position and faculty disagreeing as to whether the person has a doctoral degree, and the U. of Michigan spokesperson describing the degree as not a doctorate while other schools appear to think of it as such. No one has come up with a better way to put it yet. JJL (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that originally the section was neither titled "debate" nor "disagreement" but something like "Academic Status of the JD". Wikiant (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the general gist of "academic status of the JD". The problem with either "Debate" or "Disagreement", is that both these words can refer (perhaps more commonly) to an particular incident of conflict (e.g., the 1860 Wilberforce-Huxley debate. My wife and I had a disagreement last night) in addition to functioning description of an abstract inconsistency or even a mere difference. IntLiGrll (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My remaining concern is that many of the subheadings don't refer to academics, per se. Further, with respect to the second-tier subheadings, some of the sources listed under "Discussion of the Juris Doctor as not a doctoral level degree" merely state that it is not a "research doctorate" or a "Ph.D" equivalent", which is not the same thing as saying it isn't a doctorate. Others under that heading refer only to first professional degrees generally.

There are some points that don't refer to academics per se. For example, one could argue that, as the government is not an academic institution, how the government regards the JD relative to the PhD is irrelevant to the question of the academic status of the JD. Two problems here: (1) some of these points, prior to a careful reading of the sources, have been used here and on other pages to argue *for* the equivalence of the JD and PhD; (2) the opinion of the ABA, the ABA not being an academic institution, would have to be removed also. Perhaps an easier approach is to alter the section title so as not to exclude opinions of non-academic institutions. Wikiant (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of removing the reference to "academic" status specifically. However, the other part of my point was that some of the opinions don't even purport to take a position on any "doctorate" or "not a doctorate" dichotomy. They purport only to establish discrete "treatments" of the Juris Doctor, which, depending on one's opinion or purposes, may or may not be relevant to an abstracted question of whether the Juris Doctor is a "doctoral" degree. Some of the "treatments" are with respect to the title a Juris Doctor may use in the context of her everyday employment. Some describe how holders of professional doctorates generally are "treated" as compared with holders of research doctorates when they apply for scientific research funding. Some describe how Juris Doctors are treated in situations where honors are due to persons with doctoral degrees. Some of the treatments are with respect to how the Juris Doctor is treated by the administrative branches of academic bodies. Some describe how a particular student summer job program treated Juris Doctor candidates with less than three years of studies completed as compared with PhD candidates and JDs etc. with three or more years of successively-higher studies. Perhaps the heading should be "Treatment of the Juris Doctor", and the subcategories should be "Use of the Title "Doctor"", "Scientific Research Funding", "Student Summer Jobs Prior to Graduation", "Eligibility for Management Positions within Universities", an "Entitlement to Doctoral Honors Within Academic Contexts", etc.IntLiGrll (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wikiant, I've adjusted subheaders to reflect fact (which I think we agree on now) that most of the sources under the second subheading aren't intended to oppose the position of the ABA, convocations etc. on issue. They do not purport to speak directly about whether JD "is a doctoral-level degree" per se (though some do), but rather about various features which the person who added those sources felt were inconsistent with the JD beign a doctorate. I've left the first heading intact because the enclosed sources do seem to me to address whether a doctorate (rather than a research doctorate or a PhD-equivalent etc.). I would prefer the approach of not arranging these as an opposition at all ,and I think Zotigrillo, Urbanistio, Deep Purple, Norwood etc., and several of the unnamed editors would agree (at least as a compromise vs. deleting section altogether). However my understanding is that you and JJL wanted to maintain some form of opposition. I think, given the concerns of the above editors, and the actual substance of the sources described as indicating "not a doctorate" that this is a reasonable compromise, if not overly generous to the anti-doctorate advocates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IntLiGrll (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a reorganization of the material, it's an attempt to undercut the message with which you disagree by diluting it. It's a POV-based approach rather than a neutral one. JJL (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that .126 wanted to remove the not-directly-on-point sentences from the section altogether, and JJL simply reverted the delete without addressing the valid underlying concern (which was that the sources removed were not statements that JD "not a doctorate" per se). I edited the title as a compromise (JJL and .126 are equals, after all) to address .126' concern without actually eliminated the content that JJL wanted to keep in. (Yes, I'll admit actually agree with it in substance.) We can't have this continuing pattern of various individuals, in succession, taking issue with the debate section, and then having their changes reverted outright (as though it were vandalism), with the editors treated as though they are the sole, belligerent dissenters. We have had Zoticogrillo, urbanisTo, DeepPurple, .59, .176, .253 Rick Norwood, a few other numbered editors, and arguably to some extent X-factor taking (at mildest) the position that it is inaccurate and arbitrary to label or to structure this section as a disagreement over whether the Juris doctor really is a doctoral-level degree (rather than a list of treatments), and (at strongest) the position that the section AND the sources should be removed entirely. On the other side, as far as I can tell, has been JJL (and to some extent, I have to say, yourself, though I appreciate your engaging in discussion now), who has succeeded in maintaining the dichotomy through sheer persistence and aggression in undoing the edits by Zoticogrillo, urbanisTo, .59, .176, .253, and yours truly et. al. We don't think the section should be here at all, we certainly don't think it should be organized under two oppositional subheadings. SURELY it is not too much to ask to at least adjust the subheadings to reduce the implication of symmetrical, dichotomous positions.IntLiGrll (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the title changes gave the appearance of POV. I'm not sure I completely understand IntLiGrll's distinction regarding "treatment." I've put in some new titles that, hopefully, capture the spirit of IntLiGrll's argument while maintaining a neutral balance. Wikiant (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The point I'm making (above)is that most of the citations don't directly take a position on whether the Juris doctor is or isn't a doctoral degree (The exceptions are the formal position taken by the ABA,and the statements by the Washington Times Newspaper and the student club at Windsor U). Most of the sources just describe disparate treatments of the J.D., which are being assigned to one side or another of the same argument only in the context of this page. Zoticogrillo, urbanisTo, DeepPurple, .59, .176, .253 Rick Norwood and myself think there's so little overlap in what the sources actually say that it is unnecessary and misleading to place all of these points under a single heading. (There's all kinds of information about that JD that doesn't merit its own section - e.g., list of actors who had JDs, the fact that juris doctor backwards is "rotcod siruj"). We (or at least I) am willing to compromise by having a section on the "Treatment of the Juris Doctor", which lists the various sources, but does not compose or arrange or label them as opposing arguments on a SINGLE question (whether JD is "real" doctorate or not). Citations which do not in themselves purport to be evidence for or against the juris doctor being a JD should not be labeled as though they do. The content of the sources should be left to speak for itself, without any higher-level editorial comment. This is not my singular, belligerent position, but rather a position (at minimum) shared by Zoticogrillo, urbanisTo, DeepPurple, .59, .176, .253 Rick Norwood and others IntLiGrll (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

IntLiGrll, I disagree with your edits. Your opening sentence is telling: "The J.D. is a professional doctorate. Its treatment is sometimes similar to that of research doctorates such as the Ph. D. However, it is sometimes treated differently." No, it is sometimes treated as a masters degree. You are pushing POV by hiding the reason for the two lists. I'll delay reverting pending comments from others. Wikiant (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. This is POV-pushing by shifting the weight given to various positions. Many of the items discussing the view that it is not a doctoral degree are undercut by weasel-words spliced throughout them already. There are clear statements that have been sourced saying the degree is not a graduate degree and not a doctoral degree. The approach on WP is to present both sides. This muddles the two sides. I favor a revert. JJL (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying about "The J.D. is a professional doctorate", and I've removed that (Please recall the reference to professional doctorate was already at the beginning BEFORE my edit). However removing the two lists does not amount to POV, it simply removes any high-level editorial comment, and lets readers form their own opinion based on the sources. The "reason for the two lists" is not a referenced piece of information itself. The "reason" is that "Wikiant and JJL take the editorial position that the sources suggest there is ambiguity about whether the JD is doctoral". Aside from that, the "reasons" are left intact in the substance of the list. Most of the sources themselves relate to the same kind of difference. With respect to the J.D. being treated like a masters degree, I assume you are referring to that summer job posting from D.C. in 2005, which is only one of the multiple sources, and which refers to it only as an incident rather than a primary point (in the context of a more context set of rules.IntLiGrll (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

The change doesn't improve. The issue is not that the JD is treated "differently" -- the issue is that the JD is regarded as equivalent to other doctorates by some and is treated as equivalent to a masters degree by others. I suppose I can live with a single list (though I don't see how leaving it to the reader to figure out the categorization of "doctor" and "master" contributes clarity), but the introductory sentence needs to clearly state why the list exists. I'll make a change to that sentence and leave the "single list" issue for further discussion. Wikiant (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Also...I didn't realize how much weaseling had been introduced to the points (though, only to the points addressing one side of the discussion). I have endeavored to remove the weaseling. Wikiant (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to characterize the information you removed as weaseling! Everything you removed was entirely accurate! It is not weaseling to include information relevant to the reader's evaluation of whether the source cited actually has authority to pronounce on the standing of the J.D. in any global sense. It is not weaseling to group sources of the same nature (i.e., statements that attest only to the understanding of the author, rather than that of an organization as a whole) under the same heading. Also, it is patently inaccurate to claim that any of the websites you link to (except, in a sideways sort of way, that one summer job ad) assert that the Juris doctor is equivalent to a Masters. They say what they say and nothing more. UrbanisTO (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the sources themselves that are there to allow the reader to make an informed judgment. We don't need to explain the sources to them, just report them. They had been heavily diluted by editorial comments meant to under-cut them on one side. JJL (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made a compromise solution. Wikiant wants to draw attention to his view that a JD is in some respects like a Masters. Urbanisto doesn't want to have sources cited as support for a position they don't expressly support, or to have them represented as saying something more broad or definitive than they actually say. Rather than having sources in, and labelling them in a misleading way, and rather than denying Wikiant the opportunity to argue that some treatments are like a masters, let's just keep Wikiant's section on point. (this is same person who was making numbered comments elsewhere)ManishKottayam (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not the numbered person who deleted all of the material other than the ABA determination. However, I do agree that with the substance of what that person did. It is only the ABA statement which actually purports to make a GENERAL pronounce directly on the question of whether the Juris Doctor is a doctoral degree. I've in fact reintroduced the Washington times source, despite the fact it talks only about the Michigan JD, because I didn't want to wipe out JJL / Wikiant position (they might feel that was uneven). I've also reintroduced that Masters JD comparison to try and satisfy them. In the same way, however, I don't think it would be fair for Wikiant / JJL to simply revert to the overgeneralized descriptions and outright mislabelling that was in the article a while ago. ManishKottayam (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you should at least put in the part about doctoral robes. I don't think this debate section even belongs here, because there is not for practical purposes any single question of whether a JD is a doctorate or not (as with other degrees). It depends why you want to know. The focus of this debate seems to be whether J.D. holders should be given the same honor as holders of the Ph. D. in society generally. (Personally I suspect the average American would deride a Ph. D. or a "doctor" of any kind, other than an M.D. as a useless egghead rather than honor him, so perhaps the utility of this website is to inform the general public as to who they should spit on in the street). Given this overall focus, the fact J.D. holders in the originating jurisdiction have the express honour doctoral robes in ceremonial contexts is directly on point. This said, I'll leave it out, at the risk of upsetting your compromise. Wik and JJ seem really leery of any meaningful change, so I'd rather just sit pat and support you than confuse things further.IntLiGrll (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that when you say "I think you should at least put in the part about..." that you're getting on the slippery slope that always leads back to a.) needing a section like this, and b.) keeps it growing. The drastically chopped section, with its lengthy and awkward title and lack of a lede, will just bring us back there. JJL (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That is why I'm NOT insisting on adding it. I am NOT happy about having this section in here at all, because I think that itself creates the false impression that there is something of relevance here. However, at least I have the ovaries to accept this as a compromise. The lack of a lede is helpful, because then neither you and Wikiant, nor Zoticogrillo and my self and the 10 or so other people who contributors who feel there is no actual debate over whether the J.D. is a doctoral degree, can use the lede to spin the sources one way or the other. This version is also helpful in defusing the conflict because it doesn't attempt to "spin" the individual sources by imposing its own interpretation of what the sources mean, or generalizing beyond the precise bounds of what the source says. The title seems akward only because it doesn't presume that there is or that there isn't a conflict among the underlisted sources; a title without a thesis is less catchy. (Compare "Conflicting Testimony on Substantial Interference" with "Comparison of the Testimony of Symes with the Testimony of Richarton On the Regarding the Emotional Impact of the Landlord's Correspondence") IntLiGrll (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

To all the lawyers on this post trying to justify their degree (by the way, how many of you dare use the title Doctor in public lol), there is a major debate about the JD academic standing, and there was a major disagreement that blow up in DC a few years ago. Some woman tried to get a doctoral level job with her JD. That did not work out well for her :) The ABA even stepped in and said the JD was not a doctoral level degree. Here is a link : http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/11/20030711-102314-3668r/?page=2 . Even the ABA does not dare call if a professional doctorate, they always refer to the JD as a first professional degree. And when I am talking about the ABA, I mean the ABA as an organization and not the opinions of a writer or a non binding board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.228.210 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This entire debate is really sad

The really pathetic thing is that this entire debate about professional doctorate v. professional degree v. research doctorate distracts everyone from making contributions to the Juris Doctor article on areas that readers would actually care about. Such as comparing and contrasting the substantive components of Juris Doctor programs, as opposed to merely thrashing around with the terminology for the degree. For example, do Juris Doctor programs elsewhere have a mandatory pre-set curriculum and schedule the first year like U.S. programs, do they have mandatory clinical training in law school, do they use J.D. holders or Ph.Ds to teach courses, etc.

The vast majority of Wikipedia readers, particularly non-lawyers, don't give a *** about how the degree is characterized. Try talking to random laypersons in public about this issue. Watch their eyes glaze over with boredom. This is one of the great things about being a litigator in the United States---you have to stay in touch with how the general public thinks, because one day the general public might be seated as your jury! --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is pitiful that people would rather debate the article than improve it. I mean, at the very least try to add your Washington Post and Department of Labor sources, and don't just use them to beat other editors over the head in debates. I have always believed strongly that ALL credible and relevant sources should be included in the article, no matter what they say (i.e. whether I agree with them or not). But the article as it exists now has remained relatively unchanged since my major revision last year. A few pictures have been (wrongfully) removed, and I have added content re China, Italy, EJD, etc., but no one else has contributed jack crap! It is indeed frustrating. Considering all the research (some editors here need a reminder about these things called libraries and books) and drafting it required, a concern that any further substantial contributions on my part would create some "own" issues has caused me to disengaged from further development of the article. Your questions/suggestions are stimulating, and the content would be very valuable to the article. There is a perfect place for in in "Modern Variations." But it would also require much research and drafting, and apparently the editors here would prefer to sling mud. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to add the Washington Times and Loughlin material to the article. JJL (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I added the Washington Times material. JJL (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit though, having done all the research required for this article, it allows me to "shoot from the hip" during these debates, as I am familiar with almost all of the available sources on the topic(s). Identifying some quality sources for some of the more debated topics (e.g. JD=doctorate?) has strengthened the article considerably as well, which has justified a lot of trash talking on my part. So, even though there is no formal recognition of my contributions, they have given me a good foundation to talk a lot of trash on the discussion page, which has been satisfying. THEREFORE... do you like to talk trash in "discussion"? THEN DO YOUR RESEARCH!!!! It is quite empowering, and (here's a new concept for you) CONTRIBUTORY. (my comments are not directed to Coolcaesar, who is a researching/drafting animal). Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

All right, kids. I've lost my patience. It's a waste of my time to debate with anyone whose grasp of english is limited, at best. I'll monitor the page and provide input if someone initiates dispute resolution, but it's clear to me that there's a language barrier here. I don't have the temperament necessary to move forward with this discussion. Which, as an aside, is precisely why I never went into academia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.240.134 (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is silly; the entire section should be deleted. None of the references say that the American Juris Doctor degree is not a doctorate. All of the references say it is. The references say it is not a PhD. Nobody says it is a PhD. So what. Somebody is riding their hobby horse and should ride it somewhere else. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You really don't find any support at all for that position in the DoL reference [1] (from the article) or the "The Law School Bible" by Peter J. Loughlin reference (pp. 43,213) and Washington Times reference [2] (currently under discussion here)? JJL (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your task, JJL, is to provide citations which confront the extant citations clearly establishing that the degree is a doctorate. Your citations are no where near the level of authority and clarity of the extant citations, and thus are completely uninteresting. A statement from the Department of Labor about their internal employment policies is empty in content, irrelevant and non-authoritative. Peter J. Loughlin earned his degrees "using self-study and distance-learning programs" [3] and is therefore not authoritative about academia, he provides no sources for his statement, and it appears that he paid to have the book published (thus a form of self-publishing, discussed here. The Washington Times article does not quote the UofM as saying that the JD is not a doctorate, and it appears that they merely summarized in their own words what they thought they heard. Plus, the UofM alone does not trump academic practice and tradition in the U.S., and therefore does not negate the other sources which clearly state (and are not summarized in another article as stating) that the JD is a doctorate. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, the claim is not that there is only one view on the matter--the claim being made is that there are two views. You insist on posing this as a quest for the WP:TRUTH but that is not how Wikipedia handles well-sourced disagreements. A spokesman for the U. of Michigan speaking directly in response to the question, quoted in a major newspaper, is an and unambiguous excellent source. The newspaper article stated the claim plainly--that the law degree is not a doctorate. There is no call to "confront the extant citations clearly establishing that the degree is a doctorate" because I'm not arguing that that is wrong (though I believe that it is). I'm arguing that there are others who believe differently--e.g., the federal government, the University of Michigan, Peter J. Loughlin, various Canadian and Australian universities who are implementing the U.S. model and commenting on it, etc. You keep dismissing some sources as "non-authoritative" but that once again misunderstands the goal here--not to report what authorized (by whom?) groups say but the actual state of affairs. No one has the authority to say that some people can't view the LL.B.J.D. as a sub-doctoral degree. And many people do.

I might add that many of the arguments on the other side have elements of WP:SYNTH, including the oft-repeated argument that Fool's gold is a type of gold because it has gold in the name. Where is the unambiguous statement that the J.D. is a doctoral degree as traditionally understood? We know very well that there are many bachelor's degrees that are, contrary to what one expects of the name, second-entry, master's-level degrees. We know that there are master's degrees that are first-entry, bachelor's-level degrees. We know that some bachelor's degrees, such as the MBBS, entitle the holder to use the courtesy title doctor (or at least to apply for such a privilege). We know that the old DPharm was a master's-level 'doctorate' and that the new PharmD is a higher-level degree that is being accorded greater respect (e.g., look at military commissioning policies). We know that some disciplines have master's-level terminal degrees (e.g. the MFA or MArch). To claim it's simple is simply disingenuous. JJL (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JJL's position on this. The first (albeit temporary) stability in the article that I've observed over the past three or four years arose with the latest iteration. Others have called for arbitration. Observing no consensus for changing what we currently have, I suggest that those who seek change institute arbitration. Further discussion isn't changing minds on either side -- getting some impartial eyes on the thing may be helpful all around. Wikiant (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

When there is an idea expressed from a non-authoritative source that clearly goes against clear statements by authoritative sources, it is not another valid view, but simply wrong. And when that idea is expressed without any support, explanation, or confrontation of the basis of the clear statement by an authoritative source, it's not just wrong, but irrational as well. If a mother bakes cookies, tells a child she can have one, and a sibling, who did not participate in the baking and knows that the mother said it was o.k., later says to the child that she can't have one, that sibling is wrong and irrational (and probably even deliberately deceptive). Such is the case here as well. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't resist commenting on JJL's fool's gold reference. I think the analogy might hold water if "fools gold" were in fact the formal scientific name for the element in question, or if Juris Doctor were just a colloquial name people used to refer to law degrees. However, according to the substancce of this article "Juris Doctor" is the formal academic designation chosen carefully by academic institutions to describe the nature of the degree, "fool's gold" is an intentionally ironic or "joke" name chemical which is actually called iron disulfide (FeS₂).76.65.30.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC).

I'm going to be busy for another week or so, but when my schedule clears up, I'll do what I can to initiate some kind of arbitration about this issue. 67.221.94.229 (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

67 here, got a user account. Looking into the issue. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No Universal Definition for Doctorate

The problem here is being created by individuals' assumptions that there is some single universal definition of a "doctoral-level" degree. Different academic and professional insitutions operate largely independtly, and classify degrees for different purposes. Thus differing descriptions of the Juris Doctor cannot be assumed to be in conflict. There is no proper citation for the adversarial subject headings being used, as the sources themselves do not refer to themselves in relation to any debate over the universal "doctoral" nature of the Juris Doctor. Each source should be cited for what it purports to say, and in the context of the particular purpose for which the statement was made. That is what I've tried to do UrbanisTO (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC).

You say that there is no definition for "doctoral-level" degree, but then you institute edits that not only employ the supposedly undefined term, but do so in a manner that suggests that there is, in fact, a single agreed definition. Also, see the last comment in the previous section in which an editor claims that there *is* a formal definition. Wikiant (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I also saw a contradiction in the claims. (I do accept the criticism of my "Fool's gold" example but don't see a clear statement that everyone agrees on what a doctorate is, or that a degree is unambiguously what it's called by a given group. I doubt many would consider the doctorates sold by online institutions that just barely escape being closed as diploma mills to be doctoral-level degrees regardless of what the company calls it. It's also not clear taht even if the academy were of one mind--and from the U. of Michigan we know that isn't so--that the public would be obligated to accept that, and WP would be obligated to report only the sanctioned viewpoint. The MBBS is effectively a doctoral degree in many ways--not all--and a BPhil is often effectively a master's degree; Scottish master's degrees are in many cases equivalent--officially, in the U.K.--to bachelor's degrees; Australian and Canadian schools explicitly dispute that the J.D. is a doctorate while using the J.D. themselves; and an Italian laurea entitles the bearer to be addressed as dottore ('doctor') but isn't a doctoral degree. It isn't as simple as it first appears.) The dispute is legitimate and well-sourced. There may be a better way to address it, but it's relevant...and experience shows that even if this section is removed, it will appear again quickly, with either one side arguing it's the same as a Ph.D. (it's happened--usually by a forgiving way of counting credit hours) or another saying it's still just a bachelor's degree. JJL (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. I didn't say (or didn't mean to say) that there is no definition of a "doctorate". My points are:

(a) the definition of a doctorate is contingent on the purpose for which a given organization or individual is seeking to use the definition
(b) it doesn't make sense to treat various scattered references to the M.D. being a doctorate or not a doctorate as part of one unified debate over the universal status of the degree
(c) categorizing particular characteristics or treatments of the J.D. as either "for" or "against" classification as a doctorate presupposes a single, universal definition of "doctorate" when that definition itself is open for debate. For example, categorizing a hypothetical statement that "the J.D. is not a terminal degree" as evidence that a J.D. is not a doctorate presupposes that all doctorates must be terminal degrees. Categorizing a hypothetical statement that "the Juris Doctor does not contain an independent research component and should not be confused with a Ph.D." as evidence that the J.D. is not a doctorate presupposes that a doctorate must have an independent research component and/or that the Ph. D. is the benchmark for "doctorate" status.

On a separate matter, I did not remove any of the substantive content (or at least I don't think I did) so I'm not sure what the objection is. I merely tried to clean things up skimming off the highest level of "editorial comment". I put a lot of work into doing so, and it seems a bit extreme (given that I didn't introduce or remove any new content) to simply undo the entire effort in one fell swoop.UrbanisTO (talk)

Thanks for your comments. The discussion on this section has been going on for some time and so simply editing the section away into scattered comments without regard to this discussion isn't appropriate. The point is to gain WP:CONSENSUS here since it is clear that bold-revert has already occurred. Although I understand your points, the fact remains that there are people saying (e.g., the Wash. Times article), quite baldly, that the J.D. is not a doctorate. We can't analyze whether or not the 'doctorate' they claim it isn't is a well-defined concept--that's WP:OR. Wikipedia reports the facts, and I feel some here have been arguing for what the facts should be rather than what they are. JJL (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

AHA! I just thought of a better way to describe what my issue is here! None (or at least very few - I didn't notice one) of the INDIVIDUAL sources cited in the erstwhile "debate" actually documented a debate between different individuals regarding the status of the Juris Doctor. It is true that they describe the Juris Doctor in different ways, and I'll even allow for the sake of argument that some of the descriptions conflict with one another. However, in the absence of anything within the individual sources referring to their contents of part of a debate, placing them in a category such as "Debate Over Whether the Juris Doctor is a Doctorate" can only be a SYNTHESIS of the information. It is my understanding (perhaps I'm wrong) that Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to include synthesis. Does this make sense?UrbanisTO (talk)

We have discussed whether 'debate' or 'disagreement' is a better term. Some of the sources regarding discussions of whether university administrators can hold only the J.D. clearly reflect debates between (and possibly among) those faculties and their administration. Surely there is not agreement as to its status? JJL (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait a sec! :) A debate over whether university administrators can only hold the Juris Doctor is a debate over whether university administrators can only hold the Juris Doctor (no?) not a debate over whether the Juris Doctor is a Doctor. Shouldn't it be placed under a category relating to eligibility to be a university administrator?

I don't think its fair to describe the way I organized things as "scattered comment". I did organize the points in terms of how the Juris Doctor is treated in various circumstances. Further, if there are only some sources documenting a debate or disagreement on that point, then that resolves the synthesis problem only for those particular sources, not all the sources. On the use of the terms 'debate' or 'disagreement', I think the problem with those terms is that they can be interpreted as pertaining to a discrete incident or relationship between individuals. What we're really saying is that the status is described in different ways. That should probably be the term used. I'm reverting your revert, not as a way of "trumping" on the existence of such differences, but because I think the structure leaves it open to the reader to come to her own conclusion based on the facts listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanisTO (talk • contribs) 04:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Others disagree with you. I encourage you to seek WP:CONSENSUS. The current debate section is the outcome of a WP:MEDIATION that was sought for that section only. Please gain consensus for your changes here before making sweeping edits. JJL (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait - do people disagree with me, or do they disagree with something someone else did a while ago? What is it specifically about my statements above that you disagree with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanisTO (talk • contribs) 04:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked back at the result of the original mediation, which was framed in terms of whether Juris doctor holders are "entitled to the rights and privileges accorded holders of doctoral degrees" and whether they are equivalent "academically". It strikes me that my headings are much more true to that framing than version prior to my edit, What my headings do is recognize that it is not a all or nothing game. (a) J.D. holders may have some specific rights and privileges but not others (b) that different "doctor" degrees other than the J.D. have rights and privileges different from one another (c) that J.D.-holders rights and privileges overlap (or fail to overlap) variously with different doctoral degrees. My subheadings look at particular sub-bundles of rights, including subsets of "academic" status and ask whether holders of the Juris doctor have those particular rights.UrbanisTO (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC).

I disagree with your assessment of your headings. How would you propose we proceed? JJL (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I was involved in the mediation. I don't recall (either in word or spirit) the mediation addressing "whether Juris doctor holders are 'entitled to the rights and privileges accorded holders of doctoral degrees'". I believe that the mediation focused on the larger question of whether (and how) the article should address the status of the JD with respect to doctorates as they are understood in academia. Wikiant (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The mediated article framed the overall opposition as: "Some argue that the J.D. is academically equivalent to other doctoral degrees and that holders are entitled to the same rights and privileges accorded holders of doctoral degrees (such as the use of the title, "Dr."). Others argue that, despite its name, the J.D. is academically equivalent to a masters degree and that holders are not entitled to the rights and privileges accorded holders of doctoral degrees." I don't think its reasonable to say that these mediations are meant to "freeze" an article completely. It seems more reasonable to treat them as having resolved a particular substantive in dispute between by the parties. The changes I've made to the previous version are true substantive point which was the outcome of the mediation (i.e., that some organizations assign the juris doctor different academic status, rights, and privileges as compared with certain other doctoral degrees). What I've really done is to add detail e.g., "Honorifics", "Doctoral Robes" and privileges "Academic Employment" "Academic Research Funding" to recognize that the J.D. has some rights in common with X doctoral degree and other rights in common with Y doctoral degree. The revised subheeadings also recognize the obvious reality not all other doctoral degrees have a standard set of rights and priveleges (e.g., medicine vs. divinity). Unless someone is insisting it is actually truethat all "genuine" doctoral degrees have a single, uniform package of rights, privileges and status, without internal variation, it seems patently misleading to insist that the organization of information not recognize this.UrbanisTO (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The mediation and the discussion leading up to it lead to compromises such as always describing it as a professional doctorate (as opposed to a professional degree). I read the mediation differently than you do. In particular, where you write "...that the J.D. is academically equivalent to other doctoral degrees and that holders are entitled to the same rights and privileges...", I read the and logically and not as a 'therefore'; the first part of that is the key issue, to my mind--is it the same as, and indeed considered to be, a doctorate. One could have a different degree yet be accorded similar privileges, as with allopaths and osteopaths.

The mediation isn't meant to limit future editors, but WP:CONSENSUS is indeed a rule that is to be followed. I don't see consensus for your changes, which I do find to be changes of substance, if for no other reason than the breaking of a coherent section across so many parts that the point is lost. JJL (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Degree vs.doctorate (cf. the Wash. Times article on law degrees as not being actual doctorates): From "Indiana University medical school lands $60M gift; Lilly Endowment will bestow its largest grant of 2009 as institution steps up recruiting of physician-scientists" in the Indianapolis Star, 15 Dec. 2009 [4], we have "IU plans to use much of the money to lure top researchers with medical degrees and doctorates. Such physician-scientists..." and "$10 million for IU's Medical Scientist Training Program, which trains students seeking medical degrees and doctorates. The program now provides full scholarships to about 50 medical students enrolled in Ph.D. programs at IU or Purdue University." JJL (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Too bad it doesn't actually specify what it means by "degree", unless we use a little editorial inference. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Too bad it doesn't mention the MD degree by name, and it doesn't have anything to do with the JD. It seems like JJL believes that the source under-cuts the professional doctorate's status. Too bad this is the best he can do, and there is good authority for the status of the professional doctorate. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

stone walling edits by UrbanisTO

It is clear in the wiki guidelines and policies, such as Wikipedia:Be_bold, that change is encouraged, and behavior that stone walls other editors is clearly discouraged, as can be seen by the Wikipedia:3R#The_three-revert_rule. Restrictive treatment of other editors and such other conservative approaches are only appropriate for administrators. To my knowledge there are no administrators who are participating in editing this article. Therefore, completely excluding the edits of UrbanisTO is entirely inappropriate and will lead to appropriate action if it does not cease immediately. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We are in the discuss phase of WP:BRD. As has been mentioned previously, perhaps it would be good to seek outside help via WP:3O or WP:MEDIATION or the like. JJL (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so now you quote BRD?! Discussion has already gone on, and two editors keep reverting the edits, mostly over an issue of format, in a way to further their unsubstantiated POV-pushing. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I quote Zoticogrillo from 00:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC) (currently in archive 4):

"The dominant paradigm in wikipedia is that the product is an encyclopedia, and therefore if something is informative, it should be included. Just because you disagree with the inclusion, does not mean that it must be excluded, as consensus does not require unanimity. As stated in the consensus policy description, "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons"...Including content [that] is highly relevant and informative improves the article..."

Zoticogrillo, you have deleted informative material. I understand that you disagree with the inclusion, but that does not mean that the material must be excludedl; consensus does not require unanimity. Wikiant (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Add the stuff back! The content changes are minimal (I haven't studied the details), the format has just changed. If I have changed the content and not the format, then add back the information within the context of the format. The format you propose is misleading and not neutral. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If this is in regard to the "differing form" edits, I think Zoticogrillo's edits are patently correct. The J.D. does take a unique form in other countries. It seems like Australia's JD is a "JD in name only" so to speak. 67.221.94.229 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Breaking it into sections for regional variants, as is done at many other degrees, is reasonable, as I've mentioned before--but the issues concerning the U.S. J.D. would remain. It's true that a small part of the current debate section is that part of the problem is that the J.D. is a moving target from country to country, but the DoL, Wash. Times, etc., issues would still be there. JJL (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Then add those issues to the article format as introduced by UrbanisTO. Zoticogrillo (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This business of yours of undoing ALL of UrbanisTO's edits with little discussion as to why the elements are inappropriate, making no attempt at compromise, not even to add in your own content within that framework, and instead relying on me to guess what content you are looking for so that you won't "undo" the edits, is really frustrating. You know how you want the article to look, so make those changes, but stone-walling all edits to a section over which you have claimed ownership is not contributory. With each "undo" there should be more discussion, but the only additional information you have introduced is that the DoL, Wash. Times and other cites need to be added. Then add them! And let this article improve through the organic wiki process, as opposed to stagnate and become a source of contention through your conservative strong-arming. Zoticogrillo (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

They were added. You had specifically asked that they be added, and they were. Now you are repeatedly removing them with misleadingly labeled edits. This is counterproductive. The edits are much too sweeping for such a contentious matter. You are not discussing them--simply reverting to them. JJL (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I must not have been careful. I've been trying to spend less time on wikipedia lately. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I found your statement to be misleading. If you want the content included in the article under the format created by UrbanisTO, please do it yourself. I am not responsible for your editing. I will try and add it according to how I understand you might desire it, but please try and be more conciliatory next time, instead of falsely accusing me. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I added them. The sweeping changes made by UrbanisTO removed them. Those changes were reverted. When you then made changes, you removed them again, just as UrbanisTO had. Once again you are using mislabeled edits and false cries of persecutions. That is the sort of behavior on your part that led us to mediation previously. JJL (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

So, you return my accusation of being rude with an accusation of acting in bad faith? How rude! :P

If I'm that bad, I'm sure you would have submitted a complaint or something... oh wait, you haven't. How interesting. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha! I can't believe this debate is still going on. How many years has it been guys? Dumaka (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mooooommm! Dumaka is laughing at me for being a stubborn moron again! :P Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Added New Zealand

New Zealand's case with respect to the Juris Doctor is interesting. It is far easier to teach law at a NZ university with a J.D. than it is to get licensed to practice there. It is even conceivable that you could get hired at a university to teach Laws 101 and Property Law, then get required by the NZLS and the university to take those courses in order to get licensed. Does this make any sense at all? On a slightly different subject, are there other countries where a bar association gets to administer law licenses?--122.57.253.99 (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

See Admission to the bar in the United States, and State Bar of California. Note that the State Bar of California even operates a State Bar Court. Membership is mandatory under the California Constitution, though; lawyers can be suspended and eventually disbarred for failing to pay membership fees. The fees mostly go to pay for the disciplinary system---that is, the State Bar's investigators and prosecutors, as well as the State Bar Court, and partially subsidize the Office of Admissions, which is also paid for through application fees charged to applicants. For example, every time we have a large-scale mass-casualty incident involving hundreds of "walking wounded" victims, the State Bar sends out an investigator to watch out for ambulance chasers and their agents, known as runners or cappers. Plus the State Bar publishes the State Bar Journal. The only lawyers who don't have to join the State Bar are J.D. holders who don't practice law in the state, either because they're merely law professors or simply not working as lawyers. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick Straw Poll

Hey there. I'm the IP back from December who started posting about the Debate section. Unexpected circumstances came about in December, so I was unable to continue my discussion here. But I'd like to have a quick straw poll to see what other editors are thinking about the situation.

Debate section is unmerited Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Debate section may be merited, but needs work

Keep the Debate Section

Thanks! Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)IntLiGrll (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Given WP's position on polls, I'd like to know what is the point of the straw poll before answering. There has been a tremendous amount of discussion on this topic. How is the outcome of a straw poll going to add to what has already been (and continues to be) discussed? Wikiant (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, consensus is a standard but a straw poll isn't. JJL (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to take this to arbitration, so I'd like to get a list of people who might be interested in participating. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fair, though it would be more straightforward to simply ask, "Who would like to be on the list for arbitration?" Go ahead and put me on the "Keep the debate" list. Wikiant (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in participating, though I would need the protocol explained to me as this would be my first wikipedia arbitration. Put me in the "Debate section may be merited, but needs work" camp. Mavirikk (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing a bit of research on this. I'm not anything close to an expert on Wikipedia. I'll let you know what the protocol is when I figure it out. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thesis

Law schools are now required to have their students complete a rigorous writing paper. Wouldn't that count as a thesis, for editing the first paragraph of this page? I don't have time to find more info on that right now though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.188.81 (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What distinguishes a thesis from other papers is not the rigor (though theses tend to require more effort and be subject to more faculty scrutiny than other papers), but the topic. A thesis is an original piece of research work. -- i.e., the author discovers and writes on something that no one has written on before. In the US, the term "thesis" usually refers to the research work that culminates in a masters degree, while the term "dissertation" refers to the research work that culminates in a doctorate. While both represent novel contributions, the dissertation requires a major contribution to the body of knowledge while a thesis is typically a minor contribution. (How "major" and "minor" are distinguished varies by discipline.) Wikiant (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe your formulation of what differentiates a thesis from a paper works for law. One does not "discover" law. I'm not trying to quibble over semantics, but I believe law is a unique discipline. What constitutes a contribution to "knowledge" in the legal field is hard to define. Furthermore, your formulation could be used to support the argument that JD students actually do write theses. A typical JD paper often is structured as follows: the author identifies a troubling legal problem, describes the problem and its history, proposes a legal solution and uses facts, statutes, legal doctrine, precedent, and reasoning to support that solution, and predicts the consequences of such a solution. In another typical paper structure, the author identifies a recent or famous case, describes the case and the point of law that was decided by the court, and either defends the rule from critics or proposes a "better" rule. Finally, in a third category of paper the author describes and explains an area of law or trend in law, without advancing a particular argument. This type of paper provides a kind of taxonomy function, which can be quite useful. All three types of JD paper, if written well, could very well advance novel ideas and/or contribute to the development and understanding of law. However, I don't think JD students write theses. In my opinion, what distinguishes a master's thesis from a J.D. paper is a thesis's far greater length, scope, complexity, and faculty attention. Also, as an aside, with the large number of master degrees awarded annually in the United States, I am skeptical that all of these theses make novel contributions to knowledge - even in minor ways. Mavirikk (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Going by the definitions given for thesis, as long as the way that you are supporting or disagreeing with a legal problem has not been argued in that way before then it should qualify as a thesis. It doesn't really make sense if the concept of what you are writing about has already been written about in the same way but by another person. What I mean by that is that you're not looking at the legal problem and using the exact same evidence and facts and viewpoint that somebody else has already used towards that problem. If you have new evidence or a viewpoint towards a particular matter, and can back it up, then you have a thesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.136.122 (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

New Evidence

George Mason University, a rather large public research university located in Fairfax, Virginia, has an online "factbook." At 171 pages long the document is very comprehensive and describes many aspects of the university. In the appendix it gives definitions of terms mentioned earlier in the text. Under terminal degree it states:

"The highest earned degree in a discipline. In most cases, this is the doctorate (Ed.D. Ph.D., D.A., ENGR). In

the fine arts, the M.F.A. or Master’s of Fine Arts degree is considered the highest appropriate degree. Other

Master’s in music and art theater don’t count as terminal. The J.D. in law is considered a terminal degree."

Here's the link: http://irr.gmu.edu/factbooks/0809/Factbook0809.pdf. The quotation is on page 155. This university offers JDs through its school of law, which has a fairly strong academic reputation. So, while it doesn't state the JD is a doctorate, it does unequivocally state it is law's terminal degree. I think this statement, particularly the last sentence, should be included as a bullet point under the section that lists evidence that tends to support the argument that the JD is a doctorate. Mavirikk (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There are institutions that claim both ways. The thing is, institutions that offer the LLM (master of laws) and SJD (doctor of juridical science) require the JD as a prerequisite. That suggests that, in fact, the JD is not terminal. Others have argued that the JD is terminal for the *practice of law*, but that speaks to the requirements of the ABA (which is not an academic institution) rather than to the status as an academic degree. Wikiant (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that this evidence in no way resolves the debate. However, I believe the fact that this document states in express terms that the JD is a terminal degree ought to be added to the "pro-JD" evidence. Currently, none of the bullet points state the substance of this document and it would serve as a counterpoint to the "con-JD" bullet point that states the JD is not a terminal degree because of the existence of LLMs and SJDs. Mavirikk (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, George Mason does offer the LL.M. Mavirikk (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I read that opposite to the way you do--if it was an actual doctorate, why list it separately rather than with the "Ed.D. Ph.D., D.A., ENGR" (is the last one a D.Eng.?)? Listing it separately, following the master's degrees that are terminal degrees (which is all it says of the J.D.--terminal), tells me that it's different than the doctorates. JJL (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a cannon of statutory interpretation that states that the express mention of a thing or a list of things excludes all others not listed. When I posted this information, I recognized that as a viable interpretation, JJL. But your argument is an inference, which cannot trump the plain meaning of the text. The plain meaning being: a degree, named Juris Doctor, is the terminal degree in its field. How that plain meaning is trumped by the fact that “Juris Doctor” is separated from the more traditional research degrees in the paragraph and implies it is not a doctorate at all, despite them clearly stating it is a terminal degree, is beyond me. However, I anticipated this objection being raised and thus limited what I thought was significant about this document to merely that it directly answered one of the main points of attack upon the JD: that it is not a terminal degree. Clearly, if it stated that it was a doctorate and it was a terminal degree, that would be much stronger and helpful to my case. Unfortunately it does not. Nonetheless, it does expressly state that the JD is a terminal degree and I believe this evidence ought to be included as a counterpoint to bullet #2 in the anti-JD list. Mavirikk (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't clearly comment on the doctoral status either way despite what would be the odd omission from the first line if it were indeed a true doctorate. It does clearly state that it's a terminal degree. I don't know how much weight to give it. JJL (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It does, indeed, state that the JD is terminal. So, in the interest of balance, I suggest that we include the thing. FWIW, I've seen how academic documents like this one get produced and, as an acadmic, wouldn't put much stock in what it contains. The passage was likely written by a single department chair or could even have been inserted by the student assistant who is typing the thing. In short, with the exception of key passages relating to credit requirements, faculty tend not to scrutinize the content of such documents. Wikiant (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that's fair. Mavirikk (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we already address the is-it-terminal issue: It's as terminal as an M.D., which can be followed by a M.M.S. degree. The J.D. is like the M.S.W. or M.Arch. or M.F.A. or M.S.N.: Terminal for practice and considered sufficient prep. to teach, but there are D.S.W., D.Arch., D.F.A., and D.S.N. programs out there. Terminal for practice and terminal in the sense of being the last in the chain of possible academic degrees are two different things. You can get licensed as a professional engineer with only a B.S.E. but there's also the M.S.E., Engineer degrees, and the Eng.D./Ph.D. 'Terminal' raises the question, 'terminal for what purpose'? JJL (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree; but it does seem to stretch the implication of the word "terminal" since the JD is the first degree in law. It's kind of like describing a beautician's license as "terminal" for the purpose of cutting hair. Yes, it's the last certification you need, but it is also the only certification you need. Wikiant (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is a danger of terminal being stretched, but as you said, the document is from an academic institution that grants JDs and clearly states the JD is a terminal degree. Hence, it should be included for fairness. Also, the JD is a lot closer to a Ph.D than it is to a beautician's license. Mavirikk (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it can properly be said that the profession of law, and the academic study of law are distinct disciplines (just as engineering and architecture are discrete disciplines). The J.D. is the terminal degree in legal practice (following, e.g., a B.A. in Law and an M.A. in law, but to which (like many other doctorates)access can be gained by way of a degree in another field), which entails issues such as how to draft pleadings, facta, make oral submissions, how to elicit evidence in chief, cross). In contrast the Ph.D. / SJD in law is the terminal degree in the academic study of law (i.e., what is the nature of law, what should law be, what is the direction that law in this or that area should take). Before entering into the academic study of law, it is reasonable to require the highest possible familiarity with the practice of law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IntLiGrll (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

More sources on J.D. vs. Doctoral

One thing I note is how often one sees the J.D. listed separately, apart from all doctoral degrees which are lumped together. E.g., from the U. of Memphis [5]: "The University offers 15 bachelor's degrees in more than 50 majors and 70 concentrations, master's degrees in over 45 subjects, doctoral degrees in 21 disciplines, the Juris Doctor degree and a specialist degree in education." The doctoral programs include tha AuD, EdD, DMA, and the PhD at the least [6] but the J.D. gets separate treatment. Similarly for a Maryland school district's degree type codes [7]:

001 Bachelor’s (Baccalaureate) degree (e.g., B.A., A.B., B.S.)

002 Specialist’s degree (e.g., Ed.S.)

003 Master’s degree (e.g., M.A., M.S., M.Eng., M.Ed., M.S.W., M.B.A., M.L.S.)

004 Doctoral (Doctors) degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D.)

005 First-professional degree other than JD (e.g., D.C. or D.C.M., D.D.S. or D.M.D.,M.D., O.D., D.O., D.Phar., Pod.D. or D.P.M., D.V.M., L.L.B. or M.Div., M.H.L., B.D., or Ordination)

006 Juris Doctor (J.D.)

Similarly at U. of C.-Boulder [8], [9]: All doctoral programs get the designation D save for the J.D. which gets JD. Look at the commencement announcement for the U. of Alabama [10]: Students receive either a Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, Juris Doctor Degree, or Doctoral Degree. The school offers different types of bachelor's etc. degrees (e.g., B.A., B.S., B.F.A., B.S.C., B.Mus.) but doesn't distinguish between them, yet it doesn't lump a J.D. in with the other doctoral degrees. Cleveland State U. is another example [11]. How about the U. of Idaho's commencement instructions to law degree students [12]: "Doctoral and Juris Doctor students will lead the student procession. Juris Doctor candidates will process across the stage after doctoral students and before the specialist and master’s students." It's almost as though they see a J.D. as less than a doctorate but more than an EdS or MS. From Baylor University [13]: "The university offers 147 undergraduate, 76 master and 25 doctoral degree programs, plus the juris doctor degree, through 11 academic units." What could they mean by "doctoral degree programs, plus the juris doctor degree" (emphasis added)?

On the international side, a couple of Fulbright program sites [14], [15] that explain the U.S. educational system to their country's applicants are clear on the fact that it's the SJD that is 'doctoral', and the U.N.E. in Australia remains unambiguous [16]: "The Juris Doctor is not a doctoral-level award and graduates are not entitled to use the honorific title "Doctor"." (Emphasis in original.) The RMIT [17] says the same: "The Juris Doctor (JD) is not a doctoral level award and graduates are not entitled to use the honorific title “Doctor”." Recall once again that this article is not entitled "The J.D. in the U.S." but rather "Juris Doctor".

I'm not suggesting any of these be put in the article, but it's another indication that those of us who perceive a difference are seeing a real effect. When the J.D. students have to line up behind all doctoral students but ahead of the specialists, it's pretty clear that there's not just a distinction but an actual pecking order. The J.D. is a degree of lower order than a doctorate. JJL (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, I don't necessarily disagree that this is evidence that some university administrations hold the Juris Doctor, and professional doctorates generally, in "lower" esteem than research doctorates and in higher then Magister and "specialist" degrees (whatever those are), to the point where they separate them. However, these are not statements that this is the case. Further, that misses the point of those who object to having a discrete section grouping together the order JDs stand in various universities' convocation processions, the robes they wear, their eligibility for science and engineering research funding, the titles they are authorized to use by the body which accredits their programs, the amount they get paid in a summer student program, the amount they make on average in various private sector companies, along some singular "high-low" vector. Each degree has distinct features, and it is possible that if you look at all professional doctorates, you'll find they're more likely to have certain features, while research degrees might be more likely to have certain other features. Depending on the context, and the values of the evaluating individual, certain features might be valued more highly. The J.D. might indeed be described colloquially "lower" than research doctorates on some "pecking orders". However it might be higher on other pecking orders (e.g., with respect to the salary one would earn with a corporation). It is simply subjective and contextual, and not a single coherent question. What I find most misleading is to artificially "clean up" what is IN FACT a very messy, subjective, multifaceted jumble of partially or non-overlapping facts and ideas without a clear focus, and which cannot have any single answer, into a single section, and thereby make it look like a debate among people who are talking about the same thing. UrbanisTO (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You see this sort of thing on all sorts of WP pages, like the DPT, MD, etc. For the most part I don't think it's helpful to the typical WP user accessing such a page...but my experience has been that not having a section on it is not stable. Pretty soon an editor will drop in and either disparage or promote the degree, and then someone will disagree...we've seen it happen repeatedly here. JJL (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't access the full text of this easily and am not sure of its relevance: [18]. Apparently the question even showed up in Ann Landers once: [19]. (I recall, years back, a similar story of a California dentist who lost his license for misdoings but insisted he could still use 'doctor' as a purely academic title and was being taken to task for it by the state or the dental org. Unfortunately I can't recall the outcome of the case.) Disagreement over the distinction between 'Doctor of Laws' and 'Juris Doctor' for using the Doctor title: [20], [21]. JJL (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Article on three-year M.D. programs that also mentions two-year J.D. programs: [22]. JJL (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Format Change

Someone changed the format rather drastically. I thought it was better organized with points in favor grouped together and points against grouped together. Change it back? Mavirikk (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. It takes (at least) two sides to have a disagreement. JJL (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself, but I also don't see how mixing up the order of the examples helps to make the article easier to read. Wikiant (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I know that I'm probably jumping into murky waters here--I notice this seems to be a pretty sticky debate between several people--but is this debate section really even necessary? I've never heard of any real debate on the matter outside of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.242 (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you 71...242.... many many editors have advocated getting rid of the section or at least removing misleading descriptions of sources which do not in fact take a position (let along a generalizable position) on whether the J.D. is a doctorate, however, Wikiant an JJL consistently stonewall such changes. Just look at the history of changes by Zoticogrillo, UrbanisTO, 24.56.246.88, Sundayschild58, Intelligirl, 67.221.94.158, X-factor, 98.209.6.176, Rick Norwood, ElKevbo, 68.48.0.92, 192.203.222.85, as well as comments by DeepPurple, Coolcaesar etc.

Each and every time there is an edit which reveals just how limited the evidence is for the existence of a genuine question of whether the JD is a doctorate, either JJL (beligerently) or Wikiant (more politely) simply jumps in and reverses it. If this section has ever given the appearance of stability, it is only because there have been two semi-fulltime watchdogs methodically pushing it back into their desired perspective (and aggressively "smacking down" anyone who dared to undermine them). Nobody has the energy (or the passion) to persist in correcting this.UrbanisTO (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

We took it to mediation. This is what came out of mediation. What more do you want? Look at the recent edits that I just reverted that changed the title to say it was clearly a doctorate and redacted cited material to the contrary. If you're OK with that, then get off my back about my position on the matter and my actions. JJL (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediation shouldn't be used to tie hands like this. My problem is that it's a pretty well-accepted fact that the JD is a doctorate. Some sources disagree, but that disagreement isn't large enough to warrant a section that consists mostly of cherry-picked quotes that are often take out of context. Perhaps it merits a sentence or two (or even maybe a paragraph), but not the way it's represented in its current form. My distinct impression is that this section exists to try to prove a position that runs contrary to what is generally accepted. It seems that most of the editors that have participated in this disagree with the section. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Deep Purple, you ask us to accept, without citation, the statement that, "it's a pretty well-accepted fact that the JD is a doctorate." Yet, you are not willing to accept, even with citations, that such is not the case. Why does one side of this discussion face a higher burden of proof than the other? Wikiant (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof is the same, it's just that the citations for the JD being a doctorate are far more authoritative than the ones against it. The ABA, the Encyclopedia Brittanica, the University of Utah, the German Federal Ministry of Education, among many others... versus a Student Law Society, a Washington Times Reporter, some "Mr. Smith", and a DOL paygrade chart for summer employees from 2005? Clearly, the sources against this proposition are hardly authoritative and mostly consist of the opinion of one or a handful of people, while the sources supporting the JD being a doctorate are reflective of the opinion of large, authoritative groups. Plus, some of the cites against the JD being a doctorate are -- in my view -- misrepresented. An example is the European Council cite. The European cite does not even mention the words JD. The editor is inferring that when it says "other degrees", it MUST mean JD, which is entirely unreasonable because the article goes on to speak about MDs. The document is about medical doctorates. Furthermore, there's an editorial inference that the PhD is the only doctorate and to be a doctorate, the degree must have equivalency to a PhD. Yet, this cite remains in the article and some editors refuse to let it go. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A similar argument can be made in the other direction. The ABA is not an academic institution and so what it does or does not believe about the status of a degree (as opposed to a certification) is irrelevant. The first bullet says that the ABA "authorizes" lawyers to use the title doctor when, in fact, the cited sources say that the ABA *does not prohibit* lawyers from using the title doctor -- authorizing and failing-to-prohibit are very different things. Wikiant (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. The American Bar Association is the organization that accredits all JD programs in the United States. While it may not be an academic institution per se, it is certainly an academic authority. And failing to prohibit JD recipients from using the title "doctor" is certainly below explicit authorization, but quite above prohibition. The fact that they express no opinion on the matter means exactly that, they have no opinion. Thus, everyone on both sides needs to look elsewhere for their evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varus2319 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps the wording should be changed. It still doesn't dilute the argument that the Juris Doctor is a doctoral degree. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the ABA is the body that accredits JD programs in the US, isn't the ABA's opinion indeed quite authoritative? Indeed, since, as I understand it, the United States government does not play any particular role in regulating JD programs or their content, it seems that the ABA is in an almost unique position to authoritatively generalize about JD programs. Perhaps the AALS would serve a similar role, but I can't think of any other organization that could. 98.245.232.89 (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Accreditation is a stamp given by the ABA that says that the law school teaches what the ABA believes should be taught. While the ABA is free to withhold its accreditation for whatever reason, accreditation is irrelevant to the university's ability to issue degrees. Wikiant (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's relevant insofar as the ABA ensures that a Juris Doctor degree comports with the national standards for the validity of the degree. This is of particular importance to this article because a standard needs to be set for what we're calling a JD. I'll make an analogy. Let's say I decide to print my own PhD certificates on very official-looking paper at the University of Deep Purple Dreams Medical School, which I then sell for $50 on the local sidewalk. Surely you wouldn't say that PhDs are not a doctorate because my "medical school" sucks. So we need some body to tell us what exactly a PhD entails. The ABA performs that function for the JD, and their opinion should be given weight since they are the most qualified source of information regarding this degree. This might be debatable, but it would seem that their authoritative position over the accreditation of law schools puts them in a position to assess the nature of a JD. After all, a degree from an unaccredited law school is -- for the most part -- functionally useless for being a lawyer. Some jurisdictions allow those with JDs from unaccredited schools to sit for the bar, but for the most part, they need a JD. If anyone has any doubts about the authority of the ABA, just look at the necessity of accreditation in the United States.

Now, with the importance of the ABA in mind, the futility of the argument that JD is not a doctorate becomes apparent. As I've said innumerable times, let's cut out the "anti-doctorate" cites that only make an inference, like the ERC cite. I would think it's reasonable for us to only look at cites that clearly state that the JD is not a doctorate, since anything else would require editorial inference. Now, with that in mind, the cites that oppose the JD being a doctorate are primarily composed of individuals and handful of groups, none of which are very authoritative. Since the ABA basically decides which JDs are legitimate and which aren't worth the paper they were printed on, the ABA holds far greater weight than any of the "anti-doctorate" sources. To say otherwise would be like saying that medical boards aren't good authorities on specialist doctors. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not all law schools in the US are ABA-accredited, and the ABA does not (as far as I know) accredit any law schools outside the US. So, from any perspective other than US-centric (and perhaps not even always there), it is unclear that the opinion of the ABA is relevant with respect to the academic status of the JD. Wikiant (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that not all law schools are ABA-accredited doesn't really change anything. Just because there are unaccredited JDs out there doesn't mean that the JD is not a doctorate. Take my example above: if I start printing my own PhDs without requiring any work done, does that make the PhD not a doctorate?

Anyway, as the article illustrates, "JD" means different things in different places. That's one reason why this whole section is so problematic. The ABA is authoritative in the United States, but may not be elsewhere. The reciprocal holds true for the opinion of foreign institutions as applied to the US JD. I think it's clear from the evidence that the JD is a doctorate in the US, but not in Australia. The section should, in my view, be absorbed into the regional sections in order to give this fair coverage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's pretty much settled that the JD means different things in different countries. If that's true, then this section can't possibly exist because it presumes that the JD is the same everywhere you go... which it's not. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

General Reorganization

Please note that this reorganization has NOTHING TO DO with this incessant "doctoral" squabble.

I've attempted to expand the content of the history section, while at the same time reorganizing it to make it more comprehensible (it was jumping all over the place and repeating the same information in multiple places).

I've grouped all discussion of the typical United States, ABA-type J.D. together. I've expanded discussion of the J.D. curriculum, because it is ridiculous that the page for a degree doesn't get across what a holder of the degree is really taught (something an ordinary reader would be interested in.

I've grouped discussion all overseas JDs and variant-type together.

Hardly anything is in the same place it was before, but the content of paragraphs is only altered here and there. Again, I've made NO change to the comparison section, so please do not make my work a civilian casualty in all this, —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManishKottayam (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This is great! Makes way more sense! However I added some stuff to your "Pakistan" section, because some Pakistan law schools offer undergraduate LLB degrees. It's mixed-porridge over therre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.108.139.208 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent Changes

In the past 48 hours, there have been a huge number of changes (more than occurred over the past couple of months combined) that have significantly altered the page -- mostly in opposition to a previous compromise that resulted from months of discussion. I've reverted the page to roughly the state it was 48 hours ago. Prior to 48 hours ago, this page has seen the most stability it's had in several years. Let's see some serious discussion before implementing sweeping changes. Wikiant (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes from overnight, e.g. (THE EDITOR IS INTENTIONALLY TAKING THE ABA (THE BEST AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUE) CITE OUT AND WANTS TO GIVE YOU ANTI-LAWYER RHETORIC WHERE NO ISSUE EXISTS AS DOCTOR MEANS DOCTOR DESPITE WHAT THESE EDITORS ARE TRYING TO CREATE BY MYTH...GOING OUT OF THEIR WAY... LOOKING FOR ANYTHING HOWEVER WEAK THE ARGUMENT...WITH VERY WEAK CITATIONS AND MISQUOTING NEWSPAPER ARTICLES AND CITE THE GOVERNMENT AS A MERE EMPLOYER - AN EMPLOYMENT STANDARD SET DECADES AGO WHEN LLBs WERE ISSUED - AND NOT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WHICH CLEARLY RECOGNIZES THE JURIS DOCTOR AS A "PROFESSIONAL DOCTORATE", to the last stable version, which was Wikiant's version. This doesn't mean I'm against the reorganization (though it was a lot to do without discussion first and the section headings were much too wordy). Look at the edit summaries in the versions from last night by IP 98.209.6.176:

Listing one employer that previously elevated the LLB pay...why don't you list the thousands that pay JD as PhDs? Hello!

I will NOT let you further denegrate the Juris Doctor...it is NOT a RESEARCH doctorate but it is a doctorate.)

This is BOGUS...this Australian law school does NOT purport to offer an equivalent US JURIS DOCTOR. Apples and Oranges

I say once again, a balanced 'Status of the J.D.' section is needed here because nothing else will work. Anything else is inherently unstable. Also, as people think about a reorg., I say again that this page is about the J.D. degree, and not about the U.S. J.D. degree alone. If a reorg. is being considered it may be worth asking whether this page should be a generic page about the degree intentionally with a separate page for the U.S. version. Take a look at what's done for some other degrees on WP before deciding. JJL (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection for the article in the hopes that the IPs will spend more energy discussing and less on waging a revert war. Wikiant (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

While I would like to see this article move forward, many of changes made in the last few days have not been positive. The "is the JD a doctorate?" section has a confusing and disjointed organization now. Furthermore, I think individuals ought to explain major edits before they do them as this page has been subject to a lot of debate over the years. Seems arrogant and disrespectful to not consult those that have already put considerable time into the effort before making drastic changes. Mavirikk (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the "Is a doctorate...is not a doctorate" section. Please stop vandalizing the page. Facts people not opinions. --Viscountrapier (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is Absurd, Absurd, Absurd! There have been a dozens of strong arguments about the problems with the way the JD "doctoral" sections were labeled, (as "Is a Doctorate / is not a Doctorate) and no effective answer to them, yet we have a massive revert that completely ignores all that! THEN Wikiant says we need more debate before we make changes. Geez, you've even gone and falsified the content of the sources "The US department of labor" when before it said it was just a summer job program. What is the point of having debate if one or two people keep ignoring it and reverting. The sources in the doctorate / not section largely DO NOT talk about doctorate / not! Wikiant and JJL YOU listen to the debate!

Also, why on earth did you reverse all the reorganization and added content without any substantive objection to the substance of the content or the reorg! What is wrong with expanding the section on the J.D. curriculum? What is wrong with NOT having multiple sections that repeat the same information? JJL and Wikiant, you do not OWN this page. You just wasted hours of someone's time! Show some respect - for the TRUTH of the sources - and for the regular people who contribute!

I quit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.108.139.170 (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

New Sources

I’ve been following this article for several years, but until this week I’ve never participated in this editorial discussion. Earlier this week, I commented about the ABA being authoritative because of its duties as an accrediting body for United States JD programs.

Wikiant noted, and I agree, that accreditation is more about dictating minimum educational standards than a university’s ability to issue degrees. Nevertheless, this got me wondering about what other sorts of sources could make an authoritative statement about the status of the JD degree in America. (This whole post will relate, unless otherwise noted, only to the American JD.) See, for instance, http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/mtg_sm08Rawitch.pdf (“Accrediting associations should not tell institutions that to be accredit[ed], they must grant a doctorate.”).

So, I did some research, and uncovered some new sources that I think speak with some authority (some more than others) to the status of the JD, and doctorates other than the Ph.D. I think these sources support the assertions of those editors who argue that the JD is not a doctorate in that they reveal that academia has been struggling with how JD and other degrees containing the word 'doctor' fit in the traditional bachelor/master/doctor degree hierarchy, particularly in light of a proliferation of new professional doctoral programs. These sources also support those editors who say that the institutions that grant the JD recognize it as a doctoral-level degree in a category of professional doctorates that are distinct from the research doctorate.

So, here are the sources I found, and I briefly quote certain relevant points verbatim from each source. The sources are interesting reading for those of us with an interest in this subject.

The Higher Learning Commission, North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Report of the Task Force on the Professional Doctorate (June 2006), http://www.ncacihe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=92&Itemid=86

“There is some confusion about who determines the appropriateness of the degree, particularly whether it is championed by practicing professionals, the academy, and/or the accrediting agency.”

“There is an effective argument for other doctoral degree designators to signify higher-level learning and competency related to but different from the research doctorate.”

“There is a significant need for clearer understandings about rigor and outcomes of degrees that carry the doctoral title and thereby allow the holders of degrees to use that title.”

“For decades higher education in the United States has produced would could be called ‘professional doctorates,’ but until recently many of these degrees have been classified as ‘1st Professional Degrees. […] The M.D., D.D.S., D.V.M., and J.D. are notable examples.”

“[T]he task at hand was to locate the professional doctorate within the existing hierarchy of degrees and to capture the fundamental differences within a given field between its professional doctorate and its other programs that lead to the master’s degree and the research doctorate (Ph.D.).”

University of California Task Force on Planning for Doctoral & Professional Education, Report of the Subcommittee on the Professional Doctorate (Aug. 2008), http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/underreview/MW2DivChairs_PDPE%20Report_Review.pdf

This task force was chartered to “develop a set of principles and recommendations to help guide decision-makers in determining which doctoral programs UC should offer, and for which doctoral titles UC should strive to retain its sole granting authority among California public higher education institutions.

The task force notes that the National Center for Educational Statistics has “recently proposed a new classification scheme for reporting doctoral degrees in their Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The NCES classification would eliminate the ‘first professional degree’ category, and establish three new and discrete categories of doctoral degrees: (1) Doctor’s degree – research/scholarship; (2) Doctor’s degree – professional practice; and (3) Doctor’s degree – other.” The second category “includes the original advanced professional degrees formerly classified as ‘first professional’ (M.D., D.V.M., D.D.S) as well as the J.D., O.D. (Doctor of Optometry), Pharm.D., and several others.”

The National Center for Education Statistics, part of the U.S. Department of Education, does include the J.D. in its glossary in the “Doctor’s degree – professional practice” category. https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/VisGlossary.aspx (search for doctor)

“A doctor’s degree that is conferred upon completion of a program providing the knowledge and skills for the recognition, credential, or license required for professional practice. The degree is awarded after a period of study such that the total time to the degree, including both pre-professional and professional preparation, equals at least six full-time equivalent academic years. Some of these degrees were formerly classified as “first-professional” and may include: Chiropractic (D.C. or D.C.M.); Dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.); Law (L.L.B. or J.D.); Medicine (M.D.); Optometry (O.D.); Osteopathic Medicine (D.O); Pharmacy (Pharm.D.); Podiatry (D.P.M., Pod.D., D.P.); or, Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.), and others, as designated by the awarding institution.”

The University of Wisconsin at Madison, Report of the Working Group on the Professional Doctorate (Apr. 2008), http://apa.wisc.edu/Program_Review/ProfDoc_Report_FF_April42008.pdf

The report also notes that “[o]ne sure signal that professional doctorates are here to stay is a recent introduction by the federal Department of Education (a slow-to-change organization) or a reporting category for professional doctorates.”

The report distinguishes professional doctorates from traditional “first-professional” programs “that either do not now or did not historically require a prior degree for admission (Law, Medicine, Veterinary Medicine, Pharmacy). And they are distinct from the research doctorates (Ph.D. programs), which have original scholarly work at the heart of the educational experience.”

Nevertheless, the report does list the JD degree as among “Some Examples of Non-Ph.D. Doctorates Awarded in the United States.”

Council of Graduate Schools, Communicator, Assessment and Strategic Planning in Graduate Programs: A View from Fordham University and The Ohio State University, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Apr. 2009), http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/comm_2009_03.pdf

The article notes that “Fordham offers the Ph.D. in 15 disciplines across four schools, the Doctor of Education in two areas, and the Doctor of Ministry. The largest doctoral program is the juris doctor, or J.D.”

Council of Graduate Schools, Communicator, Nuts and Bolts of Professional Doctorates: A Case Study from the University of Utah, Vol. 41, No. 8 (Oct. 2008), http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/comm_2008_10.pdf

“‘Professional doctoral degrees comprise an important and growing component of higher education.’ This truism introduces a 2007 CGS Task Force Report on the Professional Doctorate (CGS, 2007) that provides context for this degree in contrast to the research doctorate, the Ph.D. The CGS report describes three generations of professional doctorates. The first generation includes programs with a long history in graduate education: M.D. (doctor of medicine), D.D.S. (doctor of dental science or surgery), and D.V.M. (doctor of veterinary medicine). A second generation includes J.D. (doctor of jurisprudence), Ed.D. (doctor of education), Pharm.D. (doctor of pharmacy), D.Psych. (doctor of psychology), and D.P.H. (doctor of public health). A third generation includes the most recent additions in the professional doctorate field: Aud.D. (doctor of audiology), O.T.D. (doctor of occupational therapy), D.P.T. (doctor of physical therapy), and D.N.P. (doctor of nursing practice). In addition to the degrees listed in the CGS report we include the D.M.A. (doctor of music arts), and Arch.D. (doctor of architecture).”

“At the start of the 2007-08 academic year, the University of Utah had eight approved professional doctorates. In addition to the long standing M.D. and J.D degrees, which are administered by the School of Medicine and the College of Law, respectively, the following professional doctorates existed: Doctor of Audiology (Au.D.), Doctor of Education (Ed.D.), Doctor of Music Arts (D.M.A.), Doctor of Nursing Practice (D.N.P.), Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.), and Doctor of Physical Therapy (D.P.T.). A Doctor of Architecture (Arch.D.) was under consideration and therefore is included in this discussion.”

Julia Wrigley and William Ebenstein, Report on Options for Organizing Professional Doctorates at CUNY: A report prepared for Executive Vice Chancellor and University Provost Alexandra Logue (Jan. 2010), http://cuny.edu/about/administration/offices/aa/acr/profdoctorates/Professional_Doctorates.pdf

The article also discusses the changes in the IPEDS classification system.

“In 2005, the Carnegie Foundation also changed its system of classifying higher education institutions, a system built on IPEDS data. Its new system relies on multiple, parallel groupings rather than a single classification scheme. Carnegie has retained a Basic Classification, however, that updates its traditional classification system. In its Basic Classification, Carnegie follows IPEDS in distinguishing between research and professional doctorates. It categorizes a higher education institution as a ‘doctorate granting university’ if it awards at least twenty doctoral degrees a year—excluding professional doctorates, or as Carnegie describes them, ‘doctoral level degrees that qualify recipients for entry into professional practice, such as the JD, MD, PharmD, DPT, etc.) (‘Basic Classification Description,’ www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications).”

“Despite these ambiguities, the distinctions between the two main types of doctorates are growing clearer and the era when the word ‘doctorate’ was used as a synonym for ‘Ph.D.’is now over.”

“Degrees and systems for classifying them are in flux and there is as yet no consensus on a new taxonomy, but at least at the national level its outlines are becoming visible. There is also no uniformity in the way universities organize professional doctorates.”

New Mexico State University, A Brief History of the Doctorate, http://business.nmsu.edu/academics/economics-ib/economics-programs/ded/faqs/history-of-doctorate/

“The first doctoral degree was granted in Paris in the 12th century (Bourner, Bowden, and Laing, 2001). The first PhD was granted in Germany in the early 19th century. Between these times, the typical doctoral degree was a doctorate in theology, law, or medicine. The first U.S. PhD was conferred by Yale in 1861 (Bourner, Bowden, and Laing, 2000). The first English PhD was issued be the University of Oxford in 1920, the same year that Harvard conferred its first “professional doctorate,” a Doctor of Education (EdD). Variety in doctoral education has increased since. Ries and Thurgood claim that, by 1991, there were over 50 distinct doctorates offered in the U.S. Some examples are the JD (law), the MD (medicine), the EdD (education), the DBA (business administration), and the DPA (public administration).”

Sk75 (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! These are interesting and do contain points that go to both sides of the matter. The previously cited (in the archives here) "Crednetial Creep" article from the Chronicle of Higher Ed. is also on-point here although it primarily goes to the new D.P.T. JJL (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. These sources, which appear very authoritative, establish: (1) that there is a class of doctorates called "professional doctorates," and (2) that the JD is included within that class of professional doctorates. I recall a few months ago that JJL (or Wikiant), I believe, conceded that professional doctorates exist, but was not convinced that the JD was a professional doctorate. These articles expressly include the JD as one of the professional doctorates.

At this point, I renew my call that this article remove the "Is the JD a doctorate?" section, classify the JD as a professional doctorate (and can expressly note that it is not a research doctorate), and include a link to the professional doctorate article. With this new information I believe that is the appropriate place to discuss the merits of professional doctorates vis-à-vis research doctorates. Mavirikk (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Awesome cites, awesome ideas, great work! But obstinate editors (mostly just the two that have been pushing the same POV for the past few years) have caused the predictable result: Nothing. Awesome Sk75! The rest of you: After more than a year, you know where we stand. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Review needed

Many sensible alternatives have been presented to the article as it now exists, and those changes have largely been dismissed to uphold the POV of only a few editors, who wish the article to remain unchanged despite all attempts at reason and logical persuasion. Therefore, this article continues to suffer from the biases of those few editors, who dominate this article without shame. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Many changes have been made to this article. The recent sweeping reorg. changed everything and no one should be surprised that WP:BRD applies. There were good things and bad things about it. The article is edited all the time--it's the handful who attempt to sweep out the copious sources indicating that there are questions about one aspect of the degree that find their edits to be found contentious. I'm certainly not opposed to a third-party review. JJL (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I was mostly referring to typos and the "debate" section being under the "eJD" heading. There was too much to clean up, so I just complained about it.

Isn't it strange that numerous editors have proposed numerous sensible alternatives to the present "debate" section, which have gained if not majority but substantial support, and we're still stuck with the same content that was proposed almost a year ago? Don't bother replying--as you have seen over the past month or two, I don't really care anymore. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

J.D: Doctorate degree or not a Doctorate degree

This is an issue that will not go away because there are information out there that support both side of the argument. It is clear to see that the lawyers on Wikipedia are pushing very hard to present the J.D as a doctorate degree and the non-lawyers are pushing back on the idea. The fact of the matter is that the J.D is called a professional doctorate degree by some universities. Another fact of the matter is that the J.D is not a equivalent to the Ph.D. This is where the trouble begins; if the J.D is not equivalent to the undisputed doctorate degree (a Ph.D) then is it really a doctorate regardless of the fact that it has the word doctor in its name. Most universities simple call it a first professional degree and list it separate from their doctorate degrees. Put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig. I mean this is self evidence in the fact that even most of the lawyers pushing for the JD on Wikipedia do not use the title doctor in their names. If the JD is a doctorate then please go ahead and start address yourself as Dr. this or that. My own two cents in the matter is that the J.D is indeed called a professional doctorate but it is not regard as such by others. I hope you guys find a solution to this (I doubt this will ever happen) because this debate has been going on for almost 5 years now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viscountrapier (talk • contribs) 22:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am a licensed attorney in the United States and I can assure you that neither me, nor any peers I know of, consider the JD degree to be a professional doctorate degree. Not even close. Our doctorate degree is the S.J.D. (and it’s damn tough to get).

Are there really lawyers out there claiming otherwise? — Satori Son 18:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Based on my recent research, and my understanding of the positions of the interested editors, I think the actual disagreement as to the status of the J.D. is rather narrow, and I hope that we might be able to arrive at a consensus. As you point out, and as my recent research confirms, the J.D. is listed by a number of universities and authoritative organizations as a member of the professional doctorates. My recent research also shows that the appellation "first professional" will likely be diminishing since the National Center for Education Statistics has recently abandoned its use of that term in favor of "Doctor's degree - Professional Practice." As you also point out, the J.D. is not a Ph.D. or in the research doctorates group. Because of this, it is quite natural that there are any number of contexts in which a J.D. holder is in an inferior position relative to the Ph.D. I think there is general consensus on those two points, and I think we can capitalize on this consensus to move forward.

I think it might be reasonable to follow Mavirikk's suggestion and remove the whole section on the status of the J.D. and let that discussion take place on the "professional doctorate" page.

But, before we resort to that, I would also like to propose, and ask the other editors for feedback on rewriting this section along the outline that follows. In my proposed reorganization, all of the existing sources could and would be retained, and some of my new sources would be added. If there is a feeling that this could work, we could flesh this out further.

Status of the JD in the United States

1. Academic and professional organizations describe the J.D. as a professional doctorate, like the M.D., D.V.M, D.D.S, and others. The J.D. is not a research doctorate like the Ph.D. An important distinction is that the J.D. lacks a dissertation requirement that is typical for research doctorates. [Incorporating the existing sources related to professional doctorates, as well as the new sources I've identified above.] [Other distinctions, supported with appropriate sources could also be incorporated.]

2. The professional doctorate programs have been developed to fill perceived needs for doctoral-level education that is intended for professional practice rather than academic research. Holders of the J.D. and other professional doctorates receive some of the recognition typical of a doctoral-level degree, such as a degree containing the word 'Doctor', the wearing of the doctoral gown, and the ability to use the title of doctor subject to whatever professional practice restrictions may apply. [Incorporating existing refs about regalia, ABA/local bar sources]

3. There has been considerable discussion in academic circles as to how the J.D. and other professional doctorates fit into the traditional bachelor degree/master’s degree/doctorate degree hierarchy. The J.D. and other professional doctorates are not considered Ph.D. equivalent, especially in higher education settings where the research element of the Ph.D. is important. [Euro Research Council source; Austin Peay source; reference to Carnegie practice in CUNY source above]

4. There is a practice, particularly in academia, of using the word 'doctorate' and 'doctoral' to refer exclusively to holders of the Ph.D., and, perhaps holders of other research doctorates, like holders of the research doctorate in law, the S.J.D. [CUNY source; DoL source] This sometimes generates confusion about the meaning of the term. [Washington Times source] Of course, when the word doctorate is used in this way, it necessarily excludes holders of the J.D. and any of the other professional doctorates.

5. Some universities have selected presidents that hold only the J.D., even though universities commonly require a Ph.D. or comparable degree for the position. [with the present footnotes 122, 147-149] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sk75 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Status of the JD in Other Countries

1. Australian universities that award the Juris Doctor do not consider it to be a doctoral-level award.[RMIT source]

2. [Address Canada as well -- although the source the article presently has on Canada doesn't appear to be working now. We may have to find some new ones. ]

I also would propose moving the U.S. part of section up to be the new 4.2, and then to merge the parts of the discussion addressing the "status" of the degree outside the U.S. to the existing "4.2 Descriptions of the J.D. outside the U.S." sections.

Sk75 (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt to settle matters, but the proposed reorg. doesn't show the balance of the arguments well, in my opinion. The repeated use of "the J.D. and other professional doctorates" would hide the fact that the M.D., say, is accorded more academic respect than the J.D. We have evidence of faculties not considering a J.D. sufficient for appointment as a president/provost, and of style guides saying the J.D. holder isn't addressed as 'doctor', and a law school spokesperson describing the J.D. as not a doctorate, but the same isn't true of the M.D. All professional doctorates are not equal, despite the proscriptive comments of various orgs. Point 5 emphasizes the cases where a J.D. has been found to be sufficient, but doesn't clearly state that the opposite has also been true at times. For point 2, "to fill perceived needs" is the official line but in the cases of the J.D., D.P.T., etc., a case has also been made that it is "credential creep" for simple self-aggrandizement. Presenting the party line as being factual is a POV position. JJL (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Are there particular sources, beyond the ones presently in the article, you can point me to that support these points? That would aid me in revising my proposal. Sk75 (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Check the archives here--they're littered with sources found that never made it into the article (in part to keep the appearance of a balanced approach). JJL (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I will. Do any stand out in your mind as particularly persuasive or authoritative? Sk75 (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, as to sources "not working", sources need not be available online to be valid sources. I might add that setting up "Other Countries" as a secondary category is a U.S.-centric viewpoint, but the article has always suffered from that. Other degrees are better placed in a global context in their articles. JJL (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that a "not working" source was not valid, but if the source continues to be inaccessible, it will not be easily verifiable, so working sources would be helpful supplements at the very least. Additional sources for the non-U.S. degrees would only improve that portion of the article anyway, since it's skimpy on sources. Sk75 (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the article would be improved by taking a global view of the J.D. and then having a section or separate article for the U.S. version; again, cf. B.A. (or Bachelor's degree) or M.D.. JJL (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

JJL, I am not impugning your good faith, but I believe you have shown to be too biased to look at this objectively. The question is neither "is the JD a good professional doctorate?" nor is it "does the JD merit being classified a professional doctorate?" Those are not issues that should be discussed in an encyclopedia article. The question merely is regarding its academic status as professional doctorate. These articles, which are far more authoritative than the articles on which you rely, establish: (1) professional doctorates exist and (2) that the JD is most certainly in the class of professional doctorates. The argument should to be over. Any further criticism of professional doctorates should take place in the professional doctorate article or in the articles of every single other professional doctorate. Since you criticism is targeted only at the JD and not professional doctorates as a whole, in the face of overwhelming evidence that the JD is considered a professional doctorate, I think a reasonable person would be justified in questioning your objectivity.

Further, a comparison of the "respect" of the JD versus the MD is completely irrelevant. That is not the issue. Moreover, why do you only compare the JD to the MD? The MD is probably considered by many as the most "prestigious" and most difficult to obtain of the professional doctorates (and many may consider the MD more difficult to obtain than many Ph.D programs so does that undermine the validity of those Ph.Ds?). Why not compare the JD to less "prestigious" professional doctorates that it might fair better against, like DNP or DPT? Also, why not compare less difficult Ph.D programs to more difficult ones and conclude those "lesser" Ph.Ds are not really Ph.Ds, despite all other evidence to the contrary? I think that framing the argument the way you have demonstrates you're advancing a POV.

Finally, the fact that MD holders are accorded the honorific title of "doctor" has nothing to do with its status as a "superior" or "true" professional doctorate. It arose by medical schools in the 18th century, jealous of the respect accorded to university scholars, claimed the title for their graduates who, by the time, had usually earned bachelor's degrees and thus they argued their graduates were entitled to the honorific. It did not occur because the academy made a conscious decision that the MD holders warranted the title "doctor." I suspect you are aware of this so your inaccurate recitation of the facts underscores your lack of objectivity. Thus, I respectfully ask you to reconsider your position in light of the overwhelming, authoritative evidence Sk75 has posted.

Mavirikk (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Sk75 wrote in part "I think these sources support the assertions of those editors who argue that the JD is not a doctorate" (emphasis added), you seem to be arguing against yourself. I think I've already addressed your concerns. I've repeatedly cited the Chronicle article on the DPT as an (already) notoriously weak professional doctorate; and, I've indicated differences between the J.D. and M.D. w.r.t. qualification to sit as a university president/provost (sourced) and a major research university declaring that their J.D. is not a doctorate (sourced). I'm not arguing that the J.D. isn't considered a professional doctorate, nor that it isn't considered a terminal (for practice) degree; but you seem to be insisting that 'professional' is an adjective that modifies 'doctorate' here making it a subcategory of the class of all doctorates, but there are sources that don't place it as a doctorate meaning that there's an aspect of WP:SYNTH there. (Did you know that the killer whale isn't actually a whale at all?) I've cited many, as have others. I note for example that offering the J.D. isn't enough to make a school a doctorate-granting institution in the current classification scheme, but offering the Ph.D. is. This seems to break your semantic analysis.

Given the large number of sources indicating support for the view that the J.D. is not a true doctorate, I don't think the claim of bias holds. When a University of Michigan law college official spokesperson is specifically asked to address this issue and responds, according to the Wash. Times article, that the J.D. is not a doctorate, that's pretty unambiguous. If you do a web saerch on something like "Is the J.D. a doctorate?" you'll see that the question comes up quite frequently on law school forums etc. (This is all cited, with links, in the archives.) So, it's a natural question to address here. The language is used naturally by academics, as I've indicated before: At Harvard [23] "Students in the program earn a JD and a PhD, allowing them to integrate the study of law with their doctoral studies."; at Northwestern [24], "JD-PhD Admissions Information for Current Law Students or Doctoral Students". Law students and doctoral students are different as the terms are commonly used. This isn't a bias, it's how things are. I think Harvard and Michigan are in a better position to speak authoritatively on the matter than the ABA is. JJL (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

JJL, I appreciate you responding to my post and for engaging me seriously on the substance of the discussion. As I said before, I do not challenge your good faith intentions. Responding to your arguments, first, I believe if you look at the substance of what SK75 wrote it shows that he largely agrees with my position. I interpret that quoted language merely as an overture to Wikiant and you. Regardless, I, and most others here, have conceded the JD is not a research doctorate and not equivalent to one. That is all the sources do to support your argument. But since that point is not in contention, the sources actually do nothing to strengthen your point. On the contrary, they explicitly state the JD is a professional doctorate. Second, your charge of WP:SYNTH is off base. The sources divided doctorate into "research" and "professional" categories; I did not. For example, the first source explicitly states: "The NCES classification would eliminate the ‘first professional degree’ category, and establish three new and discrete categories of doctoral degrees..." There is no inference being made on my part. Third, your third argument fails because it is an example WP:SYNTH. You argue: (1) X agency rates universities as doctorate-granting institutes; (2) schools which only grant JDs are not considered doctorate-granting institutions by this agency; thus, (3) X agency does not believe the JD is a doctorate of any variety. You are inferring that from the material. The only appropriate inference one can make from that source is that offering JDs isn't enough to make an institution considered a doctorate-granting one under their criteria; it makes no judgment about the merit of professional doctorates. Fourth, the spokeswoman from Michigan Law and the quotations from the websites of Harvard and Michigan are certainly not dispositive. You are taking those quotes from the websites out of context: the sentences are not affirmative declarations of the academic status of the JD vis-a-vis the Ph.D. Also, as Wikiant stated earlier about a website source I quoted, those sentences were probably drafted by the webmaster and not someone with knowledge/authority on the matter. As to the Michigan Law spokeswoman, I believe that she understood the question to be whether the JD is equivalent to the Ph.D, not whether it is a doctorate of any variety (since, as an above source states, for many years in the USA the word doctorate has largely been a synonym for Ph.D). Since I cannot prove that, I will concede that statement is a point in your position's favor. Its probative value, however, is slight when weighed against the other sources. Mavirikk (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in Sk75's approach, but with a caveat. We tried this approach before -- specifying the JD as a professional doctorate. The original version was ok. Very quickly, though, an editor started adding gratuitous references to the JD being a doctorate (pictures of academic robes, Chinese characters that translate as "doctor", etc.) and removed the qualifier "professional". The end product was a "pro-doctorate" JD POV. If we can avoid this, and perhaps the way to do it is to discuss -- as Sk75 suggests -- the differences between a professional doctorate and an academic doctorate, I'd be interested in trying the approach. Wikiant (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm open-minded, but as suggested above, one reason for the current structure is that editors on both sides of the issue, here and on other pages (e.g., the D.N.P. page), often drop-in and rework the article to one side or the other only. The current structure is somewhat defensive in that regard, for better or worse. JJL (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that SK's proposed edits would finally bring some closure to an obviously troubled section. I think that it presents the various viewpoints neutrally instead of trying to convince the reader of a certain viewpoint. If people want to do battle about whether professional doctorates are "real" (whatever that means) doctorates, I think that's best done in the page about professional doctorates instead of here. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I, too, think SK75's proposal is a huge step in the right direction. The sources, presented by either side, show that the bachelor/master/doctorate paradigm in the USA is in flux. I think it is fair that the article reflects that the profession, government, and academia are not sure as to (a) what to call these degrees and (b) how these "professional doctorates" fit into the traditional degree model. Are they second, intensive bachelors degrees? Are they above the bachelors degree but below the masters? Are they equivalent to master's degrees? Are they above master's degrees but below research doctorates? My objection has been, however, that that discussion should largely take place in the professional doctorate article rather than in the individual degrees' articles (especially not in select professional doctorate articles). Mavirikk (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. Where the JD falls on some kind of academic caste system is really an issue about professional doctorates as a whole, not with the JD itself. That's why I like SK's suggestions: it's much better for the article to have it streamlined like this, maybe with a see also at the top of the section that links to the professional doctorate article. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's specifically a JD thing. The MD is a professional doctorate also, but it is terminal -- the MD is not a pre-requisite to another degree. In academia, not all terminal degrees are doctorates but, all doctorates are terminal degrees. It's the fact that the JD is a pre-requisite to higher degrees (among them, a masters degree) that raises questions as to its academic status. Wikiant (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the J.D. is special among professional doctorates (but the story with the M.D. is a bit more complex; there are master's degrees, e.g. the Master_of_Medical_Science#Master_of_Medical_Science_.28MMS_or_.28MMSc.29, that can follow it, but not generally another doctoral degree in the U.S. system). The D.P.T. will likely get similar treatment. The J.D. is different in so many ways (as repeatedly documented in these archives): J.D. grads are commissioned at pay grade O-2 in the military whereas M.D./Ph.D./(the new) Pharm.D./etc. grads come in as O-3s; J.D. holders have been called out as unqualified by lack of degree for academic administrative positions but similar evidence for M.D. holders has not been adduced; and on and on. Lumping them in with other professional doctorates is itself an attempt to gain more credibility for this degree. The J.D. isn't like other professional doctorates of long standing--it's like terminal master's degrees (M.F.A., M.Arch., M.S./M.P.H. (physician assistant), M.S.W., M.P.T., etc., all taking 2-3.5 years for most cases). This can't be handled just by referring it to the professional doctorates article and then claiming it's just like an M.D. JJL (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can find a reason for why the JD comes in at a pay grade of O-2, it can't be somehow deduced from that information that the JD is somehow worse than the MD. Who knows, maybe JD holders in the military rarely get shipped out but MDs frequently are, and therefore the pay is higher. The point is, you can't infer meaning here and use it to synthesize an argument. Cobbling together various sources and saying "Here's what all this means" seems like the textbook definition of "WP:SYNTH". Besides, most of the cites being used to argue that the JD is different don't seem to have much weight. The "academic administrative positions" article is flawed in many ways: (1) the article doesn't seem to have an author (at least, that part looks blank on my screen), (2) only one person is saying it and (3) the person in question is being criticized mostly by their lack of experience in administrative positions.

These are all arguments that have been hashed-out before. I've demonstrated on numerous occasions that the sources against the JD being a doctorate either come from individual, non-authoritative sources or are from sources describing the JD in countries outside the US. The question is here, will SK's edits be stonewalled much like every attempt to edit this section in the past few months? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't SYNTH because I'm not proposing it be put in the article--I'm explaining some of the reasons why I feel that directing all the J.D. status material to Professional doctorate is inadequate. If I was trying to make the argument in the article, it'd be SYNTH, but this is a decision about structuring the article. In addition to differences like the one with the military, a simple web search confirms that the question about whether or not the J.D. is an actual doctorate arises frequently. The same doesn't happen for the (U.S.) M.D. degree. For that reason the status of the J.D. should be addressed here. Incidentally, when you proclaim that you've already demonstrated that all of the sources for the other side's position are "non-authoritative" you're hardly making an effort to discuss the matter. Since it's been demonstrated, do you suppose that the problem is my inability to grasp the demonstration, or my stubborn refusal to concede that your logical abilities are superior to mine? I feel confident that I've repeatedly demonstrated that there's an issue here and that the claim that the ABA is authoritative here is unsupported. JJL (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Times cite is already in the article. As for your argument about the military citation, I don't see how Google explains why there's a different in pay grade. I've made plenty of efforts to discuss the matter. I've actually talked extensively about why the sources don't meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion but I've received no response. If you'd like, I'd be happy to discuss each source with you. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A bit of history: For years, this article was extremely unstable -- until about six months ago when we adopted the current format. The purpose of the current format was two-fold: (1) to remove all discussion, either pro or con, to the JD's status from the body of the article; (2) to include a single section where evidence pro and con would be listed in a bulleted, cited, and non-debate form. The purpose of (1) was to encourage stability throughout the rest of the article by removing the single issue that was causing 99% of the instability. The purpose of (2) was both (a) to give a directed and limited outlet to the evidence, while (b) leaving it to the reader to draw his own conclusion. Whether this was effort was successful or not is for others to say. I do point out, however, that the format achieved one of our major aims -- the recent flurry of reversions has been largely confined to the section we set aside for the pro/con evidence. Wikiant (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the motives behind this section, but I think that SK's proposal is a far more elegant way of going about it. Simply having a pro/con section does no justice to the real issues that underlie this discussion. I'm referring, of course, to how you define doctorate. Some would say that both professional and research doctorates are doctorates. Some believe that only research doctorates -- or only the PhD -- are doctorates. And of course, there's all sorts of permutations of these beliefs. I'm sure that many people have their own "ranking system" of doctorates. But the point is, SK's proposal deals with this issue by explaining that there are some who call a doctorate one way, and others who call it differently. Having a pro/con section is going to necessarily cause conflict because those of a particular viewpoint are inevitably going to stack the deck toward that viewpoint. Why would SK's proposal be a bad thing? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, the suggested section lumps the J.D. in with all other professional doctorates and frames the matter as primarily one of professional vs. research doctorates. That's arguing a POV that I for one don't accept: Even among that class, the J.D. is treated differently than, say, an M.D. is. JJL (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything you could add to the proposed edits that would satisfy you? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that a point 6 be added to my proposal that would contain a discussion of how the J.D. differs in status from the balance of the professional doctorates, provided that we can find sources that show differential treatment that is based on the degree. I am presently in the process of combing through the archives (much has been written over the years!) to find sources that support this perspective, but I have not yet encountered one that confronts the issue squarely. If any of the editors specifically recall sources that speak to this point, I would appreciate the assistance. It would also be helpful knew of sources that compared the status of the JD with the other professional doctorates other than the MD. Although I understand that the addition of such a point is likely to be controversial, why don't we write it up and see if we think that, on balance, it moves the article forward? Thoughts? Sk75 (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

JJL, I understand from your post on March 9th that SK's edits are unsatisfactory to you, because they do not include the POV that you accept. Have you given any thought to what you could add to SK's edits in order to make them acceptable to you? I really think that given the history of this article, we should try to work together on this instead of rejecting the edits wholesale. The history of the article is pretty clear - this is a contentious section that many editors have tried to change but have been reverted time and time again by the same two editors. I think we should cooperate to come up with a mutually agreeable solution instead of clinging to a status quo that most users don't seem to accept. I'm sure there's something we can add to reflect your position.

"Treated differently" is quite broad and could mean a variety of things. It could mean "worse" treatment or "better" treatment, for example. I'm putting this in quotation marks because I don't know exactly how this would manifest in the real world. Perhaps you could have a statement regarding that? Like how people actually treat it differently? I would oppose the "paygrade" cite for this section because it doesn't explain why they are paid differently, but if there's some cite that explains it, I think it would probably be great for inclusion. Like I've stated before, I think the current approach -- that is, cobbling together various bits of "evidence" -- is unencyclopedic and really does nothing for the reader. Perhaps we can appease both the readers AND the editors with SK's edits... properly modified, of course. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What's there is still a list of points, but with the opposing views smoothed over. I don't find it an improvement; it tends to bury rather than explain the issue. If it isn't going to be reworked into a prose paragraph(s), I think the points for/points against format works better. It makes it easy for the reader to find the sources he may wish to check. It's been noted that there are few sources that address the disparate treatment itself as opposed to just taking one side or another, so sourcing these smoothed statements rather than phrases within them would be hard. Would three paragraphs--here's the bone of contention, here's arguments for one side, here's arguments for the other side--be an improvement? JJL (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, if you believe it smooths over opposing views, then please add your own opposing views into it somewhere. Condensing the points into paragraphs might be a solution, although that's really close to what SK was proposing. One thing I'd be interested in is how we describe the bone of contention, so to speak. What is the issue here, in your opinion? The section, in its current form, does not currently address this (although SK's proposals do.) Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The bone of contention? I'm not sure I follow you--the issue in the section is whether or not the J.D. is considered to be a doctorate or whether, despite its name, it's not considered to be such; within that is the issue of how it stacks up against the other professional doctorates. As to adding things in--again, I think the format is worse for this purpose, not better, and adding in other views would only make it less worse. There are two sides on this matter, and attempting to hide that fact is not a step forward for the reader. I see a big difference between five "well, it's complicated" points and three "issue/side one/side two" paragraphs. JJL (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the discussions of this section of the article back here on the talk page show that it IS complicated. The present section does not convey any of the nuance a reader would glean by reading this extensive (talk page) discussion. In that sense, I think the present section is not complete. Rather than do a good job of explaining the nuance, the section just makes the two opposing statements, supplies a small number (relative to those discussed here) of sources, and leaves the work to the reader. Sk75 (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty we keep hitting in trying to fix that is that there are many documents on both sides of the issue but not much that addresses the disagreement itself. So there are sources in conflict as to whether or not it's a doctorate, but we could use a solid one that says "There is disagreement on this matter and it isn't yet resolved" or whatever it might say. For now, opposing statements seems to be what's sourceable. JJL (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The very first line of WP:SYNTH reads: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." That's an apt summary of the entire "con" section. That's why SK's edits are superior. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The con section falls short of synthesizing those points into a statement that says "Therefore..." so WP:SYNTH is not violated. The statements are sourced--and sourced to reliable sources. We have, between the article and the archives, clear statements that the degree is not a doctorate. The second line of Wikipedia:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view clearly states that all non-fringe views be addressed and disinterestedly. The bland presentation we have now is certainly in line with that, apart possibly from the subsection titles ("Evidence that..."), and we've been back-and-forth on those. Is there any doubt that there are legitimate sources from non-fringe groups that support the not-a-doctorate viewpoint? Because if one accepts that such sources exist, WP:NPOV kicks in and all sides must be addressed (if any are). Until someone finds a source that covers the disagreement, I don't see how to address both sides without giving each some space--and that might still be needed even if a source on the disagreement was adduced. JJL (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but it does synthesize those points. Gathering a bunch of individuals -- some who are anonymous, even (like the Washington Times article) and putting that up against the consensus of large professional groups violates WP:WEIGHT. Is a student association in Canada equal in authority to the ABA? Anyway, if a legitimate viewpoint actually exists, it should be capable of being summarized, right? I see you've found the American JD mentioned in a book about African higher education. It's certainly not a great citation for this section because I am unclear how they are experts on the matter, but wouldn't you agree that it now allows you to add a point to SK's edits? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's a synthesis, and WP:DUE is a different matter. The fact that you are unclear about their expertise on the matter doesn't make it "not a great citation", esp. given, as I've said, that they cite within it several other authors, but feel free to dig deeper until you become more comfortable with it (or expose them as frauds). JJL (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something like, "(The author) in (This book), however, does not consider the JD to be a doctorate because it is not the terminal degree in that field." (or whatever you'd like to put in) Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is the non-doctorate side the "however" side? This is part of the POV woven into the suggested approach. JJL (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't take my suggestion too literally. The "however" would be appropriate depending on the placement in the article. If it comes directly after a cite that claims the JD is a doctorate, then it would be appropriate. What would you like it to say? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Source on the not-a-doctorate issue

From "The challenge of change in Africa's higher education in the 21st century" by Kenneth Kaoma Mwenda, Gerry Nkombo Muuka (Cambria Press, 2009; [25]) we have on pg. 87 (available via [26]): "However, the U.S. law degree program is neither a master's degree nor a doctorate." He quotes from Pappas (2004): "The J.D. is not a doctorate degree." The authors go on to argue that the J.D. does not fit easily with the other professional doctorates either. This source has several pages on the matter and I encourage all to read it. It also clearly addresses the issue of a disagreement (which I went looking for once again after my last edit). The first author works for the World Bank in D.C. and the second author teaches at a Kentucky university. JJL (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

An earlier version of the 4th chapter (by Mwenda)in which this material appears as a refereed article in Journal of Commonwealth Law and Legal Education 3(1), 17-38 (Nov. 2004): "A new paradigm for Commonwealth African law schools: The decline of the LLB and PhD, and the ascent of the JD and SJD". JJL (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble locating a copy without waiting a 2-3 weeks... Any help with the full citations? (Cromwell and the others) The limited google view doesn't allow a peek at the bibliography or footnotes. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm in the same boat I'm afraid. JJL (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Pappas is also quoted on pg. 18 of "Comparing American and British legal education systems: lessons for Commonwealth African Law Schools" by Kenneth Kaoma Mwenda (Cambria Press, 2007; [27]). (See [28].) The content is clearly the base for Mwenda and Muuka (or vice versa), but this book quotes from Cromwell at length on the history of the matter and Cromwell's rejection of the J.D. as even a graduate degree. Mwenda states (pg. 23): "The J.D. is, therefore, not a 'true Doctorate'." He goes on to argue against considering it even a professional doctorate--a view with which I substantially concur but that I have given in on as a matter of compromise in this page. Several other sources are cited in the several pages he devotes to this. It has a lot of redundancy with the source above but also some different material. JJL (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Note Sec. 2.5: "Is a JD a Professional Degree in a Real Sense?". JJL (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That was a very interesting read, JJL. I'll spend more time digesting it later, but I wanted to respond to the argument that the JD isn't even a master's degree. First, is that what you believe? I ask because I want to narrow down for what you are arguing. I think there is some legitimate debate about the JD academic status, but it seems to be a fringe belief that it is below a master's degree. For example, if you look at resumes or post-nominal letters of people who have both a master's and a JD, they usually list the JD higher indicating they believe the JD is a superior credential. Further, when I attended law school I had many classmates who had earned master's degrees in a variety of disciplines prior to law school. There was universal agreement that JD classes were more difficult both in terms of content and in terms of intensity of classmate competition than their master's degree classes. Finally, I don't really have any evidence of this, just my own experience (and perhaps bias), but I think most people believe the JD's status, both academically and in terms of prestige, is somewhere above most master's degrees and below the Ph.D and MD. Mavirikk (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My personal belief is more-or-less in line with what you state: A J.D. is comparable to the more demanding master's degree programs, like the 3-3.5 year M.Arch., or 2-3.5 year M.F.A., or 3-year M.P.H. for physician assistants, etc. Certainly it tends to be a more intense experience than those programs, although on the other hand they generally require at least a few specific undergraduate courses on which to build. In general, then, it's above most master's degrees and below the doctoral degrees. That makes it sound like a Specialist (degree) or Engineer's degree or certain varieties of the License#Academy...which once again it isn't. I place it as equivalent to a (lengthy) master's degree, myself, but would of course agree with the quoted material in that it isn't a master's degree proper. JJL (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can't count how many times I've wanted to learn about the J.D. degree, and I really hoped to find not cited material, but JJL's personal opinion. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I was asked what I believe, and I responded. No one is suggesting that that goes in the article--you're simply stirring up trouble by intimating that that was the idea. JJL (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think these are indeed helpful sources that present the existence of a debate far more directly than the present citations. I support their inclusion among the "con" portion of the section. Sk75 (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

From [29]: "JD – Abbreviation for the Latin term Juris Doctor, used in the United States to refer to professional law degree that the vast majority of LL.M students acquire before embarking on their LL.M. degree. Although it is mostly considered to be a postgraduate degree -- completed after undergraduate studies -- it is not actually a doctorate degree as the name might suggest." From [30]: "The term creates considerable confusion as distinct from the doctorate-level doctor of law or LL.D. degree. The attempt to solidify the basic law degree to a doctorate level failed and even American law schools have had to re-invent first a master's degree in law (LL.M.) and then a Ph.d. or doctorate-level law degree program with the awkward name of Doctor of Juridical Science or J.S.D." JJL (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

From [31]: "It was William Shakespeare who advised that “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Unfortunately, this age-old wisdom does not seem to apply to a law degree. In the United States and many other countries, law graduates get a JD, but in Canada, it’s called an LLB. It’s the same thing[...]At the end of the day, the whole JD v. LLB issue may seem like a classic case of form over substance. After all, whatever the name, the law school curriculum remains the same." From [32], a court case in Mass.: " The bachelor of laws (LL.B., from the Latin "legum baccalaureus") degree, technically an undergraduate degree, is the principal law degree in many common-law countries, including Nigeria. In the United States, it has largely been replaced by the juris doctor (J.D.) degree, which is a graduate degree. This difference in name and form masks a substantive similarity in legal education." Form to request that the GWU LL.B. be administratively changed to a J.D. with no additional coursework: [33]. JJL (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Those citations are not useful for anything other than as tools for SYNTH to promote a fringe theory because they are non-authoritative or irrelevant, and all but one make no clear statements about the status of the JD degree. In fact, the court decision and Duhaime article provide support for the JD as a doctorate.

The LLM guide is an unathoritative commercial website which provides solicited and non-solicited advertising for law schools offering LLM programs. As compared with other more authoritative citations, it is clearly in error.

The selection of the portion of the duhaime.org could easily be misleading, as the entirety of the article makes clear the history and context of the J.D. degree (created to emulate the continental doctorates of law), while the selected portion quoted out of context suggests some ambiguity, and isn't even relevant since the selected paragraph discusses the JSD and not the JD.

The Canadian Lawyer Mag citation is an op-ed piece that makes references to experiential anecdotes but gives no authority, and is clearly in error when compared to authoritative historical and academic articles on the topic. Namely, it is clear from authoritative and primary sources that the curriculum in the US law schools changed substantially to create the doctorate-level JD program, and there are academic papers which examine the numerous differences between the Canadian and U.S. curricula. Nonetheless, the purpose of the article is to discuss the difficulties experienced by Canadian lawyers outside of Canada because of common misunderstandings of the Canadian educational system (e.g. the Canadian LLB is a second-entry degree), as not to examine precisely the history of the LLB and JD in North America. That is, it was never intended to be authoritative, and the mis-statements in the article have little impact on the purpose of the article.

The court case is not authoritative because it deals with a small county court in Mass. (not even at the state level) and the decision of the court is related to bar admission only and not educational policy. The quotation given is from a footnote in the opinion, and the status of the J.D. as a graduate degree does not seem to the a decisive factor in the opinion anyways. Nonetheless, the opinion merely states that the LLB and JD are similar, clearly affirms as an aside (footnote) that the JD is a graduate degree and the LLB is an undergraduate degree, and makes no statement that would cast doubt about the status of the JD as stated in authoritative materials. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

OR, Misleading, and Weasel tags in the "Academic status of the J.D." section

Original research--The section should contain clear references to this analysis contained in verifiable sources, as opposed to a synthesis of facts.

Misleading--The section should be more clear about whether it is addressing the academic status of the degree, professional status, legal status, etc. It should also be clear whether it is merely listing incidents, or whether it is summarizing "opinion" (first sentence of the section). It's structure and content appear to be biased, giving too much weight to one side of the alleged debate.

Weasel--There are numerous weasel words which seek to restrict the application of one fact or another in support or opposition in the alleged debate.

Those aren't the only issues with this section or this article, but they are salient heated issues in the editing of this article, and readers should be alerted to this fact. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Which, exactly, are the weasel words? Wikiant (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, "There are numerous weasel words which seek to restrict the application of one fact or another in support or opposition in the alleged debate." Wikipedia states that, "Weasel words are phrases that are evasive, ambiguous, or misleading..." et cetera, et cetera, et cetera... Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe he was asking specifically which of those words were weaselly, not what the term meant. JJL (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So, which words do you find weasely? Wikiant (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly? Really? Every single one that is, "...evasive, ambiguous, or misleading," and not less. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Zoticogrillo and I've made a page in my userspace compiling my complaints with the sources. You can find it here: [[34]]. I will add more but feel free to discuss these problems here or on the discussion page of that article. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For the DoL source, the point is that they label the J.D. as equivalent (their term) to the M.S. They're structuring their pay grades as they like, but rather than list all possible degrees in a given class they give some examples. It seems clear to me that they believe the J.D. is equivalent to a master's degree--it's not about the pay, but about what they believe are equivalent degrees. As for the intl. focus, this page is about the J.D., not the American J.D. As I've said many times, cf. the treatment of e.g. the bachelor's degree here at WP. This page is very U.S.-centric. JJL (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As was pointed out by SK on my JD Citations page, other parts of the government put in new attorneys at the GS-11 pay grade. This seems to undermine the idea that the government is making a statement on the worth of the JD, and indicates more that it was some other concern that guided their paycharts. As for your discussion about the international focus, this is only more support for SK's edits. If we adopt a structure much like SK has proposed, we can actually explain the difference between countries instead of lumping very different degrees together. It's very misleading as it stands, especially since most of the "anti-JD" cites come from non-US sources. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I take some mild offense at the notion that disagreeing about the placement of the J.D. w.r.t. other degrees is being "anti-J.D.". I don't think a B.A. is equivalent to an M.D. but I don't have anything against either degree. The issue is taxonomy--and I think we can all agree that it isn't perfectly well-defined. If anyone "owned " the J.D., I doubt there'd be online versions of it being offered. If only Harvard etc. had trademarked all these degrees as they arose, I sometimes think...but I digress. I'm not looking to denigrate the J.D. or lawyers, but I disagree that it's treated as any other doctorate, or even prof. doctorate, is. JJL (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Anti-JD" was just a way for me to shorten the longer term "against the JD as a doctorate". I wasn't implying that this is being against the degree in any way. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to see the incorporation of some of the sources I've identified above into the section, as I think they are more directly on-point. They directly discuss the deprecation of the term 'first professional.' They discuss how professional doctorates fit into the bachelor/master/doctor hierarchy. I know we do not all agree that JD is among the professional doctorates, but the sources I'm suggesting be incorporated do include the JD in their discussions of professional doctorates. Thus, if we prefer to stay with the bulleted pro/con list, I think some of these sources would fit well in the "pro" section. Sk75 (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly the majority opinion that the J.D. is a professional doctorate and agreeing on referring to it that way was an outcome of the mediation. However, I think there's also reason enough to asterisk that statement--it's not treated the way the four-year and more ones are. JJL (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no question among the most reliable and relevant sources that the J.D. is a professional doctorate--they explicitly and clearly say so over and over again. It is sad that some feel this fact was allowed to be expressed in this article only as a result of mediation. I truly admire the resistance of your view of reality to reality. It's almost artistic. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is why I'm so confused as to why this section even exists -- and especially why SK's edits are being refused. There's a majority opinion that the JD is a professional doctorate. There's a majority opinion that the JD is not a research doctorate nor is it the terminal degree in this field. So why does this section exist? I say that because its status as a prof. doctorate is well-established enough to stand on its own. Whether it's treated differently or not doesn't seem to go to the issue of its status as a doctorate. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an elision in there from professional doctorate to (just) doctorate and that's part of the issue. However common-sense it may seem to be able to say that all professional doctorates are doctorates, it isn't quite that simple because of the haphazard way things have evolved. Is the three-year initial-entry Master of Arts (Scotland) a master's degree? It's not a graduate degree. Is the graduate Bachelor of Philosophy a bachelor's degree? Well...yes and no. How about the Oxbridge-style Master of Surgery, which is comparable to the M.D.? It isn't so simple. JJL (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So what should the article state? That it's a professional doctorate but not a doctorate? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There are clearly at least two views on that matter. I am in favor of including both...or neither, but that just doesn't work. Someone always tries to add one viewpoint or the other. The current section is somewhat defensive in nature because of that. JJL (talk)

Is there absolutely nothing you could add to SK's edits to make them work for you? I don't want to sound pushy on this, I just want to try to work toward something instead of blocking all changes for all time. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think it's a worse format and adding to that won't help. It muddles the main point: The J.D. is not universally perceived as a true doctorate. An improvement would be to start with that simple statement. Right now there's a vague heading (what type of 'status'?) followed by five points, none of which directly address the only issue at hand. They address the use of the title 'Doctor' socially, the nature of professional doctorates in general, the fact that some J.D.'s have held high academic office (but not the interesting counterpart--it's also been an issue for some), but never directly address the only item that's at issue. It's POV by dilution, and I don't see the point in going further down that path. I've suggested condensing the current bullets into paragraphs; alternatively, the Mwenda sources, which seem to handle the key issue head-on, could be the focal point of the section. Would that be helpful? JJL (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If the majority viewpoint is that the Juris Doctor is a professional doctorate, then the minority viewpoint should be diluted by comparison. It's not POV; it's Wikipedia policy. Significant viewpoints should be represented, but minority views shouldn't be put on the same level as majority views. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure with whom you're arguing here--we've long since agreed to represent the degree as a professional doctorate here, and that language is used throughout the article. JJL (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

We've agreed to represent the degree as a professional doctorate, yet, we have a section of "evidence" aimed at discrediting this theory. While this is not necessarily bad, the "con" evidence is given just as much weight as the majority opinion. This section may be geared at discrediting the JD as a doctorate (not a prof. doctorate) but the evidence seems to be arguing against it being a prof. doctorate. Either way, it's vague, and that's why we need some actual text -- like an encyclopedia -- instead of just listing arguments.

One more thing. There's been a lot of evidence about how the JD is not equal to the PhD. I believe this to be a manufactured debate. Are there any cites which allege that the JD is a research doctorate? Or any cites that claim the JD is equivalent to the PhD? I think most people are content with calling it a professional doctorate, yet this makes it sound like there's a debate over whether it's a research doctorate or not. It may change in the future (since many JD programs are now requiring dissertations), but at the moment, that's how it stands. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations, citations, citations. NO ONE CARES what YOU PERSONALLY think about this stupid stupid degree--they only care what verifiable sources say DIRECTLY about the degree. NO ONE CARES in how many google results you can find buried and obscure references to the JD degree. And almost NO ONE cares what some shmuck in Africa thinks about an American degree that hasn't been transplanted to ANY country on that freaking continent. Especially when there are so many quality citations clearly establishing the degree's status. Get real or get lost, already. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, Zoticogrillo. Why are citations that support your POV acceptable, but citations that refute it are irrelevant because they come from "some shmuck in Africa"? Wikiant (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Both schmucks are in the U.S., as I clearly indicated initially--one in Washington, D.C., and the other in Kentucky. They're performing (peer-reviewed) research on the U.S. higher-education system as a potential model for African institutions to follow. They cite several other schmucks on the same matter (e.g., that schmuck Pappas). I think we've reached a case of simple bias here. Zoticogrillo, their names don't matter--please address the citation itself. JJL (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I am just stunned that this "debate" even exists. It is undeniable that the J.D. is a doctorate degree; the only place I really read anything regarding a supposed debate is this Wikipedia page. The sources allegedly against the J.D. are tangential or andecdotal at best, and often are not even referring to the American JD. Maybe we should break article into sections regarding J.D.'s in different countries, but then again, it is still primarily an American degree. I suppose I just want to add my disappointment that this "debate" exists on Wikipedia when no real debate exists in real life. Sawagner201 (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It exists in real life. Search the web on whether the J.D. is a real doctorate (or search the archives for this page). You'll find forum after forum of people--including law students--asking this question. It's a real issue, and it's quite reasonable for this page to try to provide an answer. JJL (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite obviously, after clear statements from easy-to-find sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, and from highly reliable sources such as the ABA, such questions are entertained by only the obstinate and ill-informed. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The ill-informed may well come here looking to become better informed. JJL (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Best of luck to them, then. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, based on my memory of the source, which I read over a year ago, I remembered reading that the scholar is located at an African institution.

Anyone who has a clear mind and reads the extensive research on the history and context of the development of legal education in the United States will understand why the degree exists, why it is labelled a "Juris Doctor" (and NOT by accident), and why it is clearly stated by numerous educational institutions and organizations such as the ABA (which does not stand for American Bass Association) what the status of the degree is, and why.

After years of JJL and Wikiant promoting their cause, exclusively at times, I am thrilled that more citations are being brought to my attention. Citations only improve the article. But this whole, "the J.D. isn't any kind of doctorate because I don't think it is and I'm going to data-mine google to death to prove it," is getting REALLY tiresome. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Over a year ago? I wish you had shared it with us then. It seems like just the sort of source you've been asking for all along. I only found it this past week and put it up here--why would you not bring it to our attention, given how often you asked for just this exactly? The goal is to better the article, not to 'win' the argument. JJL (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that assumption of good faith there, JJL. You can fluff my budder you foo-headed mole. What we discussed (and you were there) was actually not the book (my mistake), but the article. We discussed it in detail. Wikiant wants me to do his thinking for him on "weasel," and you're trying to make me look bad... perhaps your behavior is more purposeful that you try to make it appear. Wikiant wants to distract us and debate minutia, and you want to throw in some ad hominem fodder. After years of harranging and POV-pushing--it totally makes sense. Thanks again, guys. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you're exactly wrong. What is discussed in Archive 4 is the earlier book by Mwenda, not the later book edited by Mwenda and Muuka or--what I thought we were discussing here--the peer-reviewed article by Mwenda, which is what you have been asking for: A peer-reviewed, scholarly, reliable source on the matter. Perviously you dismissed Menda since, you said, he was "not educated in the United States" and his work "appears to be opinion and conjecture". Here, you dismissed him as "some shmuck in Africa" (which is not correct--the schmuck's in D.C., or at least was at the time of the second book). The peer-reviewed article surely meets WP:RS, though, doesn't it? Isn't a peer-reviewed article a better find? Or will you allege that the peer reviewers were probably non-American schmucks too? JJL (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that correction again, and thanks for giving me that reference to the archives. I'm not sure why you care so much. Last time I looked at Mwenda, I stated that, among the other citations we discussed at that time, "These are all great sources which could be included in the article." I'm sorry that you objected to my opinion of his work--I'm so confused as to when expressing one's opinion is ok here. My observations that he has not been educated in the United States is true, and he has almost no citations in his earlier works (as compared to most other scholarly works). Above I just asked for help accessing his citations. Why do you keep beating me up over this? Back off. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we have more common ground than it may appear at first glance. JJL, if I understand his (or her) position correctly, believes that the JD, in terms of academic hierarchy, is roughly equivalent to a terminal professional master's degree (e.g., MArch, MFA, etc.). In his view, those terminal professional master's degrees rank above "true" master's degrees (e.g., MA, MS, MBA, etc.). Thus, those terminal professional master's degrees really aren't true master's degrees either. They could be labeled "masters plus." I, and others here, believe the evidence shows that the JD is above a "true" masters, but below a research doctorate (a "true" doctorate?). We are describing it as professional doctorate, or could be labeled "doctorate minus." But whatever the label, we all are describing the same thing: an advanced degree, requiring an undergraduate degree for matriculation, typically with a competitive admissions process, requiring more than 60 credit hours of intense, high level coursework, which satisfies the education component of a professional licensure. The only dispute is precisely where it falls in this vague area, somewhere between a "true" doctorate and a "true" masters, or, to conceptualize it differently, the gray area between an "A" grade and a "B" grade. JJL believes the JD is a B+; I believe it is an A-. Thus, while the rhetoric is racketing up around here, we should realize we are just talking about a third of a letter grade. With that it mind, that we are arguing over a rather small difference in classification, I believe it is possible to come to some sort of resolution. Mavirikk (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

JJL appears concerned that, by classifying it a professional doctorate with no qualification, the "professional" portion will be eventually be dropped and the JD will garner higher prestige/credibility/whatever that it does warrant. Conversely, by grouping it with the terminal professional master's degrees, we have the reverse concern: the "terminal professional" portion may be forgotten and the JD's prestige/rank in academic hierarchy/whatever will come to be that of master's degrees. There are other concerns and arguments (particularly, framing the issue with the starting point being either the MD's status vis-a-vis the JD or the LL.M's status vis-a-vis the JD), but this seems to be the foremost concern. Can these concerns be reconciled short of the current pro-JD v. con-JD bullet points? Mavirikk (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

My argument to JJL is that the evidence shows the USA academic hierarchy is in flux, and I believe a trend is emerging that supports the argument that the JD is a professional doctorate rather than a terminal masters. The simple bachelor/master/doctorate paradigm no longer holds with terminal masters, mid-career masters and professional doctorate being awarded in high numbers by many reputable institutions. Further, what will happen if most/all terminal professional master's degrees rename themselves professional doctorates in the next couple decades? Will it be that they are all fake doctorates and the sad result of credential inflation, or were they being undervalued as merely master's degrees for many years and this is the appropriate label? Mavirikk (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The CoHE article on credential creep hits at this issue. You're right that I am concerned that the "professional" will eventually wear off in "professional doctorate" in the article, but I also feel it's well-established that the J.D. "less equal than others" among the M.D., D.D.S., etc. I don't know what will happen in the WP:FUTURE but for now it's correct that I place it among those master's degrees that stretch the notion of such to its limit. I find your observations to be in a useful direction but am not sure how to translate that into article edits. JJL (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it's well-established at all. Just look at the JD Cites page which I've linked to here. I screwed up the slashes and someone fixed it so the new page is at [[35]]. How can it be well-established when we're using sources like the ERC, which don't even mention the Juris Doctorate? Controlling "credential creep" is not our duty as editors. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the attempt at reconciliation and a reasoned approach, (according to wiki policies) it doesn't matter what we think--only the citations matter. This kind of discussion is prolix, futile, and is distractingly prevalent in the archives. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is no one counting credit hours? The JD is like 90 credits, with so many credits, I could do like two and a half masters. How many credits is a PhD? My two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.26.4 (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The PhD is circa 100 to 120 credits after the Masters (which, in turn, is circa 40 to 60 credits), but that only gets you the course work. Regardless of the course work, you don't get the degree until you produce the dissertation (which is an original piece of research). The dissertation alone is a 2 to 4 year undertaking. Wikiant (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What country are you talking about? If you are talking about typical USA Ph.D programs, you have grossly inflated the amount of time it takes to earn a Ph.D. I have extensively researched Ph.D programs in the USA, as I have contemplated pursuing one, and none were 100-120 credit hours above the master's degree. Moreover, I know many people with Ph.Ds. Their degrees did not require the amount of time you are suggesting it would take. You are either talking about a very rare program, not talking about USA Ph.Ds, or you are grossly exaggerating facts to support your argument.

USA Ph.D programs are typically around 72 credit hours in length (I have seen some up to 90 without a prior master's), which often include something like twelve credit hours for the dissertation. Further, no Ph.D programs I am aware of, and I have researched many, require 72 credit hours only of classwork, not to mention 100-120 credit hours of purely classwork, with that large number of credit hours giving no credit for time spent working on the dissertation. Also, most Ph.D programs reduce the mount of classwork required to around 48 credit hours (or 60 hours for 90 credit Ph.D programs) if a student has a prior master's degree in that discipline. Further, no non-terminal master's degree program I am aware of is more than ~35 credit hours, and certainly not 60. While perhaps you can point to a few select programs, no typical master's + Ph.D program is 140-180 credit hours, not even including the dissertation, like you state.

I recognize that Ph.D candidates are not awarded nearly enough credit hours to reflect the amount of time they spend working on their dissertation or their time working in a lab (if they are in a science discipline) so perhaps they *should* be awarded 100 or more credit hours to reflect their full program. But, the fact is that they are not awarded nearly 180 credit hours, at least in a typical USA program. Grossly exaggerating easily verifiable facts does not help your argument. Mavirikk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC).

Yeah, counting credit hours doesn't make much sense for a research degree (cf. taught degree in the british systems, of which the US is not a part). You guys are chasing your tails trying to compare research degrees and professional degrees with such tight standards. You should read some of the numerous rich articles listed in the reference subject discussing the topic in depth instead of just 'shooting from the hip' and engaging in lounge-chair philosophizing. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The majority opinion is that the JD is a professional doctorate. There are some people who claim that it's not, but these squarely in the minority. By using this pro/con bullet point system, it appears to give equal validity to both positions. This is absolutely against Wikipedia policy. It's simple: this section should go. It's full of misrepresented information and bad sources. The points that Maverikk makes are very correct. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC on the "Academic Status" Section.

The section "The Academic Status of the JD" on the Juris Doctor page is currently under dispute for a variety of reasons. I'm looking to get input on whether this section is appropriate or not for this article. Some related policy concerns are NPOV, SYNTH, WEIGHT, and source issues. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of the criticisms of the validity of the "is not a doctorate" sources can be found here: [[36]] Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully oppose this section being included in the article. Aside from my opinion that this section has been given undue weight, I think it largely represents a mere wikipedia debate as opposed to something more concrete in reality. I believe this article should merely state what the J.D. is, describe its history and curriculum, etc., and allow the reader to decide whether or not this meets their definition of a "true" doctorate. As a side note, a lot of the sources used seem to be tangential at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.242 (talk)

I support the removal of this section. I agree with Deep Purple Dreams that the pro/con section lends too much credibility to the "not a doctorate" side of the argument based on the relative weight and authoritativeness of the sources. The existence of the section also contradicts the first paragraph of the article, which reduces the credibility of the whole. I also agree with Deep Purple Dreams that the discussion primarily represents a discussion among editors, and that the sources document little discussion or debate on this issue outside of Wikipedia. The sources do indicate discussion and debate about the relative meaning of professional doctorate degrees and research doctorates, as well as meaningful debate as to how to assess proposals for new professional doctorates; I would suggest that to the extent a section addressing these topics is needed, it should logically be in an article addressing the professional doctorates. Sk75 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A two-minute Google search yields the following citations showing that the status of the JD is very much a real issue. There are other citations in the "debate" section also.
Journal of Criminal Justice Education
Canadian Lawyer Magazine
Wikiant (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

These sources do not support the existence of the debate or disagreement in the section DPD is discussing. They reflect debate, respectively, about (1) whether a JD is an adequate credential for teaching in a criminal justice faculty position and (2) whether a Canadian law school should award the law degree as an LLB or JD. Sk75 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

These sources are so off-point I am alarmed that Wikiant is citing to them for support. In fact, a reasonable interpretation of the Journal article is that it actually supports the JD as a doctorate. While the author of that article does not think so, he is responding to apparently wide-spread assertions that the JD qualifies one to teach in a field outside law. Clearly if some believe the JD is equivalent to a Ph.D in Criminology, it is at least a professional doctorate in its primary field: the law. Mavirikk (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with people succinctly expressing their opinions in this section, but keep in mind that this is primarily a request for comment from uninvolved editors, not another debate section. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The citations that Wikiant put forward are, as stated previously, tangential at best. This section simply is given far too much weight for a questionable debate to begin with.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.205.242 (talk)

I can't remember if I've ever commented here before or not, but I've been watching the debate here for a while, and I feel it should be mostly, if not completely removed. Providing talking points and evidence for each side seems like a severe violation of WP:UNDUE and a single sentence stating that the disagreement exists (with a neutral reliable source regarding the debate itself, or since I am unaware of such a source, one for each side) would seem to be sufficient if coverage to any degree is deemed necessary by consensus, and such a netural reliable source can be found. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Previous RFC: Talk:Juris_Doctor/Archive_2#Proposal (see also Talk:Juris_Doctor/Archive_3#Comments_previously_posted_and_placed_in_RFC_section). Previous mediation: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Juris_Doctor (see also Talk:Juris_Doctor/Archive_5#Result_of_Mediation_and_Moving_Forward). JJL (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The "is not a doctorate" section is patently ridiculous. It misleads the reader by giving undue weight to the fringe theory that the J.D. isn't a doctorate. It's undisputable that it is a professional doctorate. In fact, the criticisms of the J.D. used in this section could largely be applied to 'any doctorate, including the Ph.D. The PhD is a relatively recent novelty, and is not a synonym for "doctorate." A PhD is merely one type of doctorate; not being a PhD has nothing to do with whether a JD is a doctorate. That's like saying a PhD isn't a doctorate because it isn't a JD (or an MD, a DO, a DDS, etc). Wikipedia's role is to present the facts; not give undue weight to fringe theory. Sawagner201 (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The debate as to whether the JD is a a doctorate degree or not is asinine. The typical Masters degree requires 36 hours of course work and research beyond the baccalaureate. The typical Ph.D requires 90. The typical JD requires 72 hours beyond the baccalaureate with an additional 20 of work-study. The debate could, and probably should, end right there. Varus2319 (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions of the past 1+ years: the synth and weight and pov issues with the section are serious. After many discussions on the topic it has been decided to retain the section, not as a result of sound reasoning, but merely because two POV-pushers (Wikiant and JJL, persistent on the issue for the past few years) wanted it to remain, and used a strange interpretation of the consensus rule to justify it. That is: The section remains merely because two editors want it to. I warned them that such reasoning would back-fire when more sound-minded editors chimed in on the issue and out-voted them... Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Reasons why the "Juris Doctor is not a doctorate" section should be left alone

The fact of the matter is... if the Juris Doctor was indeed a doctoral level degree, we would not be here fighting over its academic standing. I do not see anyone fighting in the Ph.D section, or even the Doctor of Liberal Studies section. A few years ago the JD use to be call a first professional degree, and is stilled called so by the government. Even some universities do not consider the JD to be a doctoral-level qualification ( http://www.une.edu.au/courses/courses/JURISD ). And let us not forget that the US government, including the military, does not considered it a doctoral level qualification (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-structure-us.html). This obvious division in perception and facts is a very good reason why the "is not a doctorate" section should be left alone; whether we like it or not, there is a real dispute about the academic standing of the JD. --Viscountrapier (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Even the ABA is too chicken to say what it knows : "A spokeswoman for the American Bar Association (ABA) said a J.D. degree does not bestow upon a lawyer the title "doctor." She later retracted the statement, saying the association does not have a position on the matter" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/aug/05/20030805-113408-9575r/?page=2). So people, deep down we all know the truth about the JD, but like with anything that has to do with lawyers, the truth may differ in definition lol --Viscountrapier (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If the PhD is the de facto standard for a doctorate, and the Juris Doctor is not equivalent to a PhD, is the Juris Doctor a doctoral-level qualification? And please people, we all know what equivalent means.

The typical Masters degree requires 36 hours of course work and research beyond the baccalaureate. The typical Ph.D requires 90. The typical JD requires 72 hours beyond the baccalaureate with an additional 20 of work-study. The debate could, and probably should, end right there. Varus2319 (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The contention is not that it's a typical master's degree, but that it is viewed as a M.S.-level degree...cf. the M.F.A., M.Arch., M.P.H., M.S.W., M.P.T. (on its way out), etc., all of which are, or have versions that are, 2-3.5 years long. The J.D. is of that ilk. JJL (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If the SJD and the LLM are both “more advance degrees that the Juris Doctor, and a doctorate is the most advance degree, then what is the Juris Doctor? --Viscountrapier (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(If the Master of Dental Science (M.S.D.) is a more advance[d] degree than the D.D.S., and a doctorate is the most advance[d] degree, then what is the D.D.S.?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.238.137 (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that the mere fact that people are disputing it on Wikipedia elevates it to a legitimate controversy? Interesting. So if I went to the PhD page and said it wasn't a doctorate, it wouldn't be a doctorate?

Also, what's your opinion on the MD?

I'd invite you to check out my cites page and give any input you might have. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the presence of Post-JD degrees is evidence that the JD is not worthy of Doctorate status? It is the work that is put into earning a degree that determines what it is equivalent to, not the presence of additional degrees beyond that. If the JD requires the same amount (or more) of hours, research, and writing as the Ph.D, why then should it not be equivalent? Simply because there is more work yet to be done? Remember, the field of law is considerably more vast than most other fields. The fact that more advanced degrees are available should be more a characterization of the fact that yet more research is available, not that the research already done is less significant. Varus2319 (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(Are you claiming that the presence of Post-DDS degrees is evidence that the DDS is not worthy of Doctorate status? ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.238.137 (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No...the fact that other bodies outside wikipedia have different opinions about the JD's academic status; some schools and the U.S government clearly state that regardless of the fact that the JD has the word Doctor in it...it is not a doctoral level qualification. They call it a first professional degree. Now some people call it a professional doctorate, but that term is clearly putting lip stick on a pig and calling it Susan :)

Now if you went on the PhD page and said it was not a doctorate, everyone include "me" will laugh and then ignore your comment. Because it is grounded and undisputed that the PhD is the de facto standard for a doctorate degree...even wiki agrees with on that one :)

The MD section is very clear. It clearly states that in some countries the MD is a professional degrees and in other countries, like the UK, a PhD level qualification. And because Medical doctors are confident, you don't see them on Wiki trying to convince others that their degree is more than it is. --Viscountrapier (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please! Physicians are the most under confident group out there! Lawyers are the profession that, for years, had a prohibition on self-laudation, whereas physicians are the only "doctors" I know of that insistent on being referred to as "doctors" outside their professional capacity. Further, they jealously guard their prissy white jackets. "Oh no! Did you see that nurse practitioner wearing that white coat? Who does she think she is?!" Mavirikk (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The sad fact about the JD is that is was born out of a desire to elevate the legal profession and in their haste they messed up. The Bachelor of Law got transformed into the Juris Doctor, but someone forgot there was a Master of Law and a Doctor of Laws ahead of it. So we now end up with a Juris Doctor, followed by a Master Law and another Doctor of law. I mean it is pure madness. Now we have a degree with the word doctor attached to it, but it lacks the foundation of a doctorate. Only in this loopy JD world is a master degree (LLM) more advance than a degree with the word doctor next to it. Crazy I tell you. Crazy--Viscountrapier (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(But also in the DDS world is a master's degree (MSD) more advanced than a degree with the word doctor next to it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.238.137 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please consider the formatting and redundancy of your edits. The law, medical, and dental degrees were all originally baccalaureate degrees (possibly second bachelor's degrees). At that time a following M.S. made sense. When the bachelor's degree was upgraded to one with 'doctor' in it, the M.S. degrees weren't. But the J.D. is unique in that that master's degree is followed by a 'doctor'-containing degree. That doesn't happen with the others--you can earn a different, but not a higher, doctorate. JJL (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you taking into account the evolution of the profession, and the evolution of the nature of the education? The LL:B was born in a time when legal education was more an apprenticeship than a formal education. The level of study, hours of work, extent and nature of research involved, and the nature of expertise needed to practice are all considerations that you are ignoring when deciding that a JD is not a doctorate simply because there are degrees that follow it. A university could easily create an M.Ph degree that is post-Ph.D tomorrow, would that necessarily demote Ph.D holders to non-doctors? The JD is certainly not a baccalaureate degree because you need to have one before you can get in to a JD program. Furthermore, it requires more hours, more research, and more upper-level writing than a Masters program. So what is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varus2319 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This article also states that the JD is a professional doctorate. Is this only different because you feel strongly about it? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

MDs were not "doctors" either until, by fiat in the 1850s, they declared themselves doctors. I don't really see what is so controversial about the LL.B transforming into the JD over time either. Clearly the law is many times more complex than it was a hundred years ago. Before it may have been realistic to be a generalist. Today, most lawyers sub-specialize. Is it so crazy to think that as the law became more complex, the degree evolved to reflect this growing complexity (just as in medicine)? Mavirikk (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Mavirikk. Sawagner201 (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

But is it clear that what it has evolved to is (considered to be) a doctorate? There seems to be considerable disagreement about that. JJL (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be considerable disagreement because most of the citations do not actually discuss whether the JD is a doctorate or not. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

We disagree on this. Remember also that the article (or at least this part of it) has been at a virtual standstill since the mediation. Other sources have been added in the Talk pages that have not made it in as we attempted to maintain a very balanced number of bullets for each side.

For those who don't believe this is a real debate, search Google for Is the J.D. a real doctorate and variants thereof. It's an oft-asked question, so addressing it here is valuable. Look at the fact that those with M.D.s and Ph.D.s enter the miltary as O-3s (Captain in the Army, say) while those with J.D.s enter as O-2s (1st Lieutenant, the next lower rank)--similar to those with specialized master's degrees (e.g., the M.P.T.). Look at the order-at-commencement cites in the archives here, showing J.D.'s line up after those with "doctoral" degrees.

Finally, recall that this is a page about the J.D., not just the American J.D. The pages for other degrees draw a much sharper distinction between when they're speaking of a degree from which country. This one doesn't. JJL (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

But all the citations discuss the status of the JD with respect to other degrees. Perhaps the solution is to rename (again) the section to "debate involving the academic status of the JD". If it isn't clear that the degree's standing as a doctorate is in question (which, it seems to me, is obvious), the citations make it very clear that the JD's status among academic degrees is unclear. Wikiant (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem I'm having is that there really doesn't seem to be any "debate." There are a few citations of some people that have made some claims, but I do not see any significant exchange of ideas. Where is the back and forth? Where is the dialog? Where is the evidence? The testimony? The research? I don't see any of the signs that mark an academic "debate" of any kind. There are always people that are willing to contest any point, and those people occasionally publish their claims. However, those claims do not rise to the level of debate unless there are counterclaims and dialog. Do you have any evidence of that? The difficulty in finding any evidence that anyone is contesting the status of the JD is evidence itself that the JD's status is not really in contest.

The washington post article that characterized the JD as not being doctoral more or less retracted their position and deferred to the statement from the school.

The statement from the "United States Government" is tangential and self-contradictory. They list the JD as equivalent to two-year programs and masters programs, while simultaneously mentioning that three-year dedicated programs are more equivalent to the Ph.D. Someone failed to notice that ABA approved JD programs in the US are three-year dedicated programs. This seems to be more accidental than anything else. Furthermore, the second US government source equates the pay grade of the JD to that of Ph.D. This source is far more generally applicable as it was not drafted for a single, specific program but for regular and repeated reference. It stands to reason then that this second page is more scrutinized and regularly updated (and thus, more reliable) than the former.

The Australian university clearly states that their JD is not a doctoral degree. However, no such American university makes the same claim. Quite the opposite, Harvard Law specifically developed their JD, which has become the American standard, to reflect the hours of study that most JD candidates put into their degrees. The transition was, in some small way, a recognition that JD candidates put as much or more hours of work into their JDs than most Ph.D candidates put into their Ph.Ds. It seems clear that if there is any debate as to the academic status of the JD, it is purely an international one.Varus2319 (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post article didn't retract the statement. The U. of Michigan law school's official spokesperson, identified by name and position and a J.D. holder, said it wasn't a doctoral degree, at least at that school. It's a simple statement from an authoritative source and is clearly in a reliable source. JJL (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(So why does the University of Michigan Law School, like all United States law schools, have its graduates and faculty wear doctoral robes and hoods during commencement?)

On a second look, you are correct. Yet while that may be the case, you shouldn't ignore everything else I've posted. Furthermore, you shouldn't ignore the opinion of the UDC in that very same article, which states that the JD is a doctorate. Lastly, you should certainly not take Mr. Baum's comments beyond what he states. He says that the JD is not equivalent to a research doctorate such as the Ph.D. His quote "Several of the [professional degrees] incorporate the term 'doctor,' but they are not research doctorates and not equivalent to the Ph.D.," states only that these "Doctor" degrees are not research doctorates. It does not state that they are not doctorates at all. I am actually inclined to believe that this article may be biased in your favor, and that the reporter may have used some selective quoting here. Notice the brackets around [professional degrees] that indicate the reporter has substituted their own words, I am curious if Mr. Baum didn't say "professional doctorates" there. While it is not neccesary to get into such fine analysis in a wiki article, I would suggest that you not simply quote the portions of the article that seem to support your position without due quotations to the portions that support the opposition. Varus2319 (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There's an important distinction here: The U. of D.C. didn't make a definitive statement on the matter--someone associated with the school expressed an opinion on the matter. But when a U. of Michigan officially-appointed spokesperson speaks on the matter, that's different. His words seem plain to me: "At Michigan, the juris doctor is not the same as a traditional higher-education doctorate degree, such as a Ph.D.," said David Baum, assistant dean of students for the University of Michigan Law School. "The juris doctorate is a professional degree," said Mr. Baum, who holds the degree. At the very least, doesn't this signal to you the presence of differing opinions on the matter? Doesn't the very fact of this disagreement at a major university signal that? Also, please note that the quote that starts "Several of the [professional degrees] incorporate..." is not from the U. of M. spokesperson as you suggest above. You need to take a closer look at the article(s). As to ignoring other things you've posted...I replied in several spots in a single edit. But I've also had this discussion repeatedly over the past few years. Right now I have to point out that you're misreading the article. One tires. JJL (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there is no difference of opinion, nor that the section be deleted. I'm asking that you actually include the sum of known evidence. There is no reason whatsoever to have a balanced number of bullets on both sides of an issue when the arguments are not balanced on both sides. You need only scroll up on this page to find volumes upon volumes of support for the argument that the JD is a doctorate amongst only a sampling of support that it is not. A single Washington Times article and the statement of a single university is nothing compared to the dozens of statements by countless universities and organizations to the contrary. Why are you including none of that evidence in this "analysis"? Varus2319 (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, several good sources were posted here a few months ago, which I thought resolved the debate in favor of the JD as doctorate (but clearly did not), so I thought the consensus was that those sources would at least be added to the JD is a doctorate sections. But, they were not. At the very least the article should add the recent pro-JD evidence. Mavirikk (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, take a look at your own advice: google "is the JD a real doctorate". You will notice that there are very few debates on point. The first page only lists two amateurs posting their opinions on what amount to personal blogs. The most credible source on that page is the Harvard JD/Ph.D joint degree description, that happens to state that you can combine your "legal" studies with your "doctoral" studies. This does hint that the JD is not doctoral, but not necessarily. Also, the very first hit on the first page is the wiki page for "Doctor," which states that the JD is traditionally a doctoral degree and that lawyers are traditionally called doctors almost everywhere in the world except England (and, by extension, many of the Commonwealth nations such as Aus). Again, I'm not saying that there is no debate whatsoever, but I am saying that your characterization of it is quite biased. (Which, incidentally, might be the reason you've had this argument so many times over the last few years.)Varus2319 (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there are many examples of not only questions but debates on the issue on the web (e.g. [37]; "At the end, to use your JD you need to take the bar exam. That is much like the comprehensive exams needed to ENTER the PhD program."). Most of them don't meet WP:RS but do show that this is a frequently asked question which must be addressed in the article, and also show that there is diversity of opinion on the matter (e.g. [38], [39]). Oh, and Northwestern U. also distinguishes between doctoral/graduate studies and legal studies [40]. See e.g. [41]: "With the highest percentage of PhD-trained faculty of any law school, it is an ideal place for students undertaking the considerable challenges of law school and doctoral studies at the same time." This seems to indicate that law studies are not doctoral studies, and that the Ph.D. is considered an important qualification beyond the J.D. by them. Clearly, the language reflects a reality: Law studies are not doctoral studies. Look here [42]: "The UH Law Center, in conjunction with the Baylor College of Medicine, now offers students the opportunity to jointly obtain both a law (J.D.) degree and a medical doctorate (M.D.) degree." The language refelcts the reality. Why not the parallelism of listing the J.D. as a juris doctor(ate) degree? What's discussed here matches my experience: [43]. JJL (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about, you have reinforced my point. There is scarcely any evidence other than incidental vernacular. You point me to one scholar that has written a paper or an article on this topic and I will concede that there is a debate. One. There is nothing out there, not on either side. Nobody is doing research to actually compare the study hours, class hours, research hours, papers written, extra-curricular requirements, examination difficulty, professional placement percentages, or average income of JD candidates vs MD vs Ph.D. Where is the evidence? Where are the arguments? Let me see some debate. All I see is circumstantial evidence, and most of that is based on inferences that you have made. If you are going to use this diaphanous and unreliable evidence to claim that there is some actual debate out there, then you can't possibly justify excluding the much more authoritative and explicit evidence that opposes your "side." If you do, you are nothing but biased. I'm not against the inclusion of this section, but I am against your gerrymandering of it. Varus2319 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't concerned with the lively debate going on in the learned pages of Yahoo Answers. Reliable sources is what counts here. You have plenty of sources that imply something only if you read a particular meaning into it. Nitpicking word usage is not enough to establish a debate. For example, the cite which says "law school and doctoral studies" - I would contend that it's far more reasonable that they were differentiating law from medicine in a convenient way rather than passing some sort of sly commentary on the status of the JD. Regardless, nothing you give indicates that there's a debate on this subject that's worthy of putting in the article. We can't add together a ton of unreliable sources like Yahoo Answers and come out with something usable. That's why this section seems so inappropriate - if this was a legitimate debate, would we really need to be parsing grammar to find hidden meanings or surfing Yahoo Answers for evidence? We need authoritative, on-point discussions that actually address the academic status of the JD rather than trying to cobble together a bunch of "evidence" to prove a point. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's my opinion too. There are examples (as have been pointed out) that the J.D. is not always treated the same as a Ph.D. (or an M.D., but I notice most people are avoiding that comparison), but combining them into an argument as there is at present is WP:SYNTHESIS, and listing them as trivia without an argument is WP:UNDUE, so as I said above a reliable source that specifically discusses the debate would be nice and I'm just not seeing one. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The J.D. and the M.D. have distinctly different purposes, so it seems obvious that they'd be treated differently insofar as what you can do with them. Clearly, one cannot practice medicine with only a J.D. and one cannot practice law with only an M.D., so of course they'd need to be handled different. But when it comes to "academic status", I don't see any reason to infer that the J.D. is not a professional doctorate - which seems to be the goal of this section. It seems odd to authoritatively state that the J.D. is a professional doctorate in the first paragraph and then come up with a section like this that makes it sound like there's an equally good case that it's not a doctorate.

I guess it just seems like a way around having to acknowledge that the JD is a professional doctorate. The citations used to support a debate here are fairly absurd. The European Research Council doesn't grant medical research grants to law degree holders? What a shock. This is hardly "evidence", and my JD cites page goes into all this in depth. There's one source that looks legitimate to me but it hardly indicates a debate. Someone coming out and saying "the JD is not a doctorate" doesn't automatically create a debate, just like someone saying "the Earth is flat" doesn't warrant a section on the Earth article entitled "Debate on the flatness or roundness of the Earth."

One question I have for supporters of this section: what's the point? Can you sum up the position of the "not a doctorate" sources clearly? Is it that the JD is not a professional doctorate, or that the JD is a professional doctorate but just not as "good" as the M.D.? It seems like it's well-settled that the JD is not a research doctorate, so it would be pointless to say that this section exists to show the difference between the PhD and the JD. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, each argument has as its basis (whether overt or implied) that the JD is not terminal. This seems to make it unique among degrees described as "doctorates". Wikiant (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(The JD is not unique, in that the DDS is also not terminal.)

So then why not say that? "The JD is unique among degrees described as "Doctorates" as it not the terminal degree in the study of jurisprudence." If this is the root of the argument, then just state it. However, I seem to detect some anti-JD sentiment here that is taking this argument well beyond the support of the evidence. Varus2319 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(Actually, the Juris Doctor resembles the D.D.S., which is the prerequisite for the Master of Dental Science (M.S.D.), making the M.S.D. the terminal academic degree in dentistry.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.238.137 (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is wedded to the term "debate" and indeed the term used in the article has changed from time to time. However, complaints have been made whether it said debate, disagreement, disparate treatment of the J.D., academic status of the J.D. (which I prefer), or what-have-you, by those who insist it's the same. It's simply not clear--despite the name--that all professional doctorates are viewed as being doctorates. If that seems illogical to you then all I can say is that I'm not accountable for the fact that the killer whale isn't a whale, either. As to evidence of the differing views on the matter, many have been adduced. Why not read the archives rather than ask me to copy-and-paste them here yet again? JJL (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is looking for you to paste it here. We've all seen the evidence that you claim supports your theory. What I'm asking is that the article reflect the evidence that has been presented. When I get the right to edit the article, I will post all the evidence that has been shown in this thread, both for and against. I expect two things to happen: First, the evidence will be quite substantially in favor that the degree is a doctorate. Second, I expect that you or someone else will revert the article back to a state that makes the two sides appear balanced when they are not. Perhaps we should agree that evidence can be added in favor of either side, but that no reliable evidence can be deleted from either side in an effort to maintain an artificial appearance of balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varus2319 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea that the J.D. is a professional doctorate but is not a doctorate is not supported - at least, not to the extent that it merits its own section. Many of the cites in this section do not comment on the academic status of the JD: instead, it uses a variety of inferences in order to synthesize a conclusion. That's the problem. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Like the tenuous argument, "When they stated 'law degree' when talking about the J.D. and 'doctoral' when talking about Ph.Ds, clearly that is demonstrating that the J.D. is not a doctorate of any variety (professional or otherwise." That is very weak and synthesis. Mavirikk (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

But no one has proposed putting it in the article--that was an indication on this Talk page that the treatment does indeed vary and so there is a legitimate question that should be answered in the article. What can go on the article's page for readers and on the Talk page to convince editors are different things, yet we keep seeing this straw-man argument that if something is mentioned here that couldn't go there it's synthesis rather than an attempt to get the other side to open its mind to the possibility that the situation is more complicated than they believe it to be. There isn't synthesis in this section of the article as written. It says simply Opinions differ as to the academic status of the J.D. and backs that up by quoting differing opinions from reliable sources. The U. of M. quote and the Mwenda quotes, for example, are directly on-target, from recognized authorities. What about Pappas? The DoL quote plainly states that--at least for their purposes--the LL.B. and J.D. are both equivalent to master's degrees. The Maryland school district codeas above make it very clear that the J.D. doesn't fall under "Doctoral degrees" for them. It doesn't matter whether they're making a larger statement or not. Look at the Fulbright program sites cited above. The section currently says that there's disagreement about the academic status, and the Wash. Times articles report on just such a disagreement occurring, with real-world employment consequences. The comments in the article are fully backed up by verifiable, reliable sources. Once you can see that, you may see how the language on web pages of doctoral vs. J.D., etc., reflects the current reality. JJL (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

First, my contention is not a straw man argument. I am not misrepresenting your views to make them easier for me to tear down; I am pointing out that some of your evidence is really bad and contains synthesis. Second, I am not really sure how evidence that is unfit for the article can be used here to bolster the evidence in the article on the talk page. If it is not competent to be in the article, then why is it competent to be used to decide if this section has merit? What is most important is the decision of whether the JD will be classified as a professional doctorate or whether we will continue to have this "academic status" section, not the details of what ultimately ends up in the article. That debate and decision is happening here. Thus, I do not think we should have a lower bar for what evidence may be considered on the talk page. Third, these quotations I take issue with are not probative of anything. Why did they use the term "law degree" and not "Juris Doctor?" I don't know, but neither do you. Law degree is a common term; it is used with much more frequency than Juris Doctor. Same thing happens in medicine: I often hear physicians and lay persons refer to "MDs" as "medical degrees." Using "law degree" in the same sentence as doctorate (referring to a Ph.D) does not prove the JD is not a professional doctorate or even give rise to the inference it is not a professional doctorate. Further, the persons who wrote those sentences either (a) may have no knowledge of authority on the matter, or (b) the writers may merely have been trying to distinguish between the JD and research doctorates. There are too many ambiguities in those statements which give rise to too many different plausible interpretations for them to have any probative value whatsoever - even on the talk page. Mavirikk (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

We've long since agreed to refer to the degree as a professional doctorate in this article--that's why it's referred to as a professional doctorate in this article. This was a result of the mediation and wasn't universally accepted as true but was a negotiated outcome. No one is trying to change that. Hence, I don't understand to whom this argument is being directed. Note, however, that sources have been given that say that some professional degrees, despite having the word 'doctor' in their title, aren't considered doctoral degrees. That's part of the reason why the academic status section was also a result of the mediation. It's a murky world out there. Trust me--if it were me in charge there'd be a clean, unambiguous, rank-ordered taxonomy of degrees. But, the degrees grew up here-and-there without master planning. I've referred before to undergraduate master's degrees and graduate bachelor's degrees, and the history of surgery makes the master's-vs. doctor's degree issue a bit fuzzy in some ways too. (Does McGill U. still grant their medical degree as a doctor of medicine and master of surgery degree?) You're looking for crisp answers where they don't exist, I think. JJL (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This "debate" section simply has no place in the article. The JD article isn't about the PhD, but rather the JD. If sections like this were allowed to stand, every article on every academic degree could have a "debate" section about how such-and-such degree isn't the same as so-and-so degree. I don't think anyone here, and certainly not the article, is claiming that the JD is a PhD. To the contrary, this article should be about what the JD is, not about what other degrees it isn't. I reiterate my position that the "debate" section should be removed on several grounds, not the least of which is that it is irrelevant.

As an aside, I also object to the headings questioning whether the JD is "doctoral" simply because it isn't a PhD. The term "doctoral" and "PhD" are not synonyms. A PhD is a type of doctorate, but certainly not the only one. Take a look at the "doctorate" article; it makes this statement quite clearly. Sawagner201 (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a "debate" section and hasn't been for a while. There's an "academic status" section. JJL (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This section identical to the former "debate" section. Nothing changed other than the name. It's the same thing. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course this is a debate section. When you state that opinions differ on a subject, then give pro-evidence and con-evidence, what else would you call it? Whatever you would like to label the section, it is irrelevant to the article. Sawagner201 (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

To all the lawyers on this post trying to justify their degree (by the way, how many of you dare use the title Doctor in public lol), there is a major debate about the JD academic standing, and there was a major disagreement that blow up in DC a few years ago. Some woman tried to get a doctoral level job with her JD. That did not work out well for her :) The ABA even stepped in and said the JD was not a doctoral level degree. Here is a link : http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/11/20030711-102314-3668r/?page=2 . Even the ABA does not dare call it a professional doctorate (a term which some law school and "people" started using only a few years ago to BEEF up the JD), they always refer to the JD as a first professional degree. And when I am talking about the ABA, I mean the ABA as an organization and not the opinions of a writer or a non binding board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.228.210 (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. You seem to take perverse enjoyment out of someone having adverse consequences to their career as evidenced by your smiley. That is shockingly petty and reveal you are so biased against the JD that your views are not even worth considering or rebutting. Mavirikk (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it did work out well for her: she took the job in 2003 and held it until at least 2007. [[44]]. It's possible that the position was eliminated at some point after 2007 due to budgetary concerns. I see no mention of that job position at all on the UDC website, and the article I cited speculated about the possible elimination of that job due to financial constraints. In summation, she got the job and held it for years, and likely left for reasons that have nothing to do with her degree. Your conclusion seems as misguided as the facts you base it upon.

Furthermore, your reasoning is inconsistent. When you say the "ABA stepped in", what really happened was that an ABA spokesperson said that the degree does not confer the title of "Doctor", but retracted that statement because it was not the position of the ABA. [[45]]. Putting aside for a moment the undeniable fact that the spokesperson is not talking about whether the degree is a professional doctorate or not, only about the title "doctor", this does not satisfy your own criteria for how the ABA should speak. You have a double-standard here: when the ABA says that the J.D. is a professional doctorate, you want the ABA to speak as an organization. But when an individual in the ABA makes a statement that supports your views, that's legitimate - even if the statement is retracted later.

Your claim that people only started calling the J.D. a professional doctorate "a few years ago" is equally divorced from reality. In a Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of The Association of American Universities - published in 1919 - the Juris Doctor is established as a professional doctorate and is equated to the M.D. [[46]]. This the earliest citation I could find in the span of ten minutes, but it clearly shows that the Juris Doctor has been referred to as a "professional doctorate" for at least 91 years. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

One assumes that a spokesperson is authorized to speak for the organization. That's an important difference. But indeed, the statement was retracted. Still...you don't think that indicates some confusion about the matter? How can you still claim it's perfectly clear when a lawyer who is an ABA spokesman is unsure about the matter? Would a spokesperson for the AMA who holds an M.D. degree ever say that physicians aren't doctors? JJL (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If a spokesperson for an organization makes a statement and then retracts the statement because it's not the position of the organization, there's only one conclusion: that the statement must have been the personal opinion of the individual. One person's personal opinion does not seem like enough to warrant this section. It should also be noted that this spokesman is not a reliable source as per Wikipedia policy. The charge that an ABA spokesperson said the JD was not a doctorate appears only in one anonymous article. We don't even have the spokesperson's name or the exact wording of what they said. It's hard to find a worse source than that. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The J.D. is a doctorate, which is clear from numerous sources of ideal authority. A paraphrasing from an unknown individual in a newspaper article from an organization that has made its position abundantly clear does not debunk those sources. Nor do the academic policies of some institutions in a country very different from the U.S. that is only just now accomodating the issuance of the J.D. degree. Again, our opinions and interpretations are useless and a waste of time. The issue is settled because there are verifiable sources of solid authority which are clear. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Terminal degree?

Indiana University [47]: "The S.J.D. is the terminal degree in law". Harvard U. [48]: "The Doctor of Juridical Science (S.J.D.) is Harvard Law School's most advanced law degree". Stanford U. [49]: "The Doctor of the Science of Law (JSD) is the Law School's most advanced law degree." (They also call it "postdoctoral", however.) From NALP [50]: "J.D./JURIS DOCTOR - Degree awarded after three years of prescribed study in a U.S. law school." and "J.S.D./S.J.D. – Doctor of Juridical Science, a 3-5 year program where candidates must submit a dissertation of significant legal value that is an original contribution to the scholarly field. The S.J.D. (or J.S.D) is typically the most advanced (or terminal) law degree that would follow the earning of the LL.M. and J.D. degrees." It seems there's some disagreement as to whether the J.D. is the terminal degree in law. JJL (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any disagreement on that. Are there any sources you can find that say that the J.D. is the terminal degree in law? The article lead calls it a "first professional degree" so I don't see where this disagreement is coming from. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I posted a source that stated the JD is the terminal degree for the practice of law. This source was from George Mason University, an ABA-accredited law school. GMU also offers LL.M degrees. That would be seem to directly contradict JJL's sources. Mavirikk (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Terminal "for practice" isn't terminal "in the field." Applying the same sort of definition, a bachelors degree (in the US) is a terminal degree for the practice of education in public schools. Wikiant (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, silly me. I checked the source again and it appears I misquoted it. The source states, "The JD in law is considered a terminal degree." My apologies. Mavirikk (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that GMU is more authoritative on this matter than IU is, or just that opinions on this degree...vary? JJL (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's terminal or not. The definition of "Doctoral Degree" isn't "That degree which is terminal in a field or profession." (FYI, there is no formal definition of "doctoral degree"). If anything, the fact that the JD isn't terminal can be one factor in considering whether it is doctoral. One factor of many. Personally, I think the hours of study, research, course time, and writing are the most important aspect. But I digress. Varus2319 (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

From Dictionary.com for "doctor's degree" [51]: "doctor's degree  –noun 1. any of several academic degrees of the highest rank, as the Ph.D. or Ed.D., awarded by universities and some colleges for completing advanced work in graduate school or a professional school." Is the J.D. of the highest rank? For "doctorate" []: "doc·tor·ate –noun 1. Doctor of Philosophy (def. 1). 2. doctor's degree (defs. 1, 2)." JJL (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

By that definition, the M.D. wouldn't be a doctorate either. You should get crackin' on an "Academic Status" section for that article as well. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that you're now correcting the dictionary on a matter of definitions, right? You might consider reconsidering your opinion as an alternative. JJL (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not. The dictionary has no definition for "professional doctorate." That doesn't mean that professional doctorates do not exist. There's mounds of evidence showing that professional doctorates exist outside of the realm of dictionaries and that the J.D. is considered equal to the M.D. in the United States. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is just my opinion: The American MD is not equivalent to the British or the Australian MD. This is what we get for being lazy; We transformed the LLB into a fake doctorate-light ( calling a pig with lipstick Susan does not make it a woman) and the MD into a so-called professional doctorate. The British MD is a PhD level degree for god sake. The fact remains the same....The JD outside the US is equivalent to a f-ing LLB, and the British MD will laugh in the American MD face. Jesus. Why are we arguing over this. Easy come, easy go. If you think your JD is a doctoral level degree, please feel free to start addressing yourself as Doctor. Just don't hold it against me or anyone else if we laugh our ass off when you do. --Viscountrapier (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What are the entrance requirements for the British JD and MD? Are they the same as the American JD/MD? Varus2319 (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In the U.K. you enter a law or medicine program initially, as a 'freshman' as we would say in the U.S. The medical degree is a bachelor's degree(s), usually written MBBS (a bachelor's in medicine and in surgery). The M.D. requires that or equivalent for entry under ordinary circumstances and is intended for researchers. So, the U.K. M.D. is somewhat analogous to the JSD for lawyers--a higher research degree rather than minimal qualification for licensing. JJL (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If that's true, how can it be said that the UK MD makes the American MD appear laughable, when the UK MD is actually an undergrad program but the American MD requires an undergraduate degree and upper level testing just to get into? Perhaps they aren't equivalent, but laughable is certainly an egregious error. I'm talking to you Viscountrapier. Varus2319 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

But as a practical matter, the M.D. is considered a doctoral degree, albeit a step below the Ph.D., while the J.D. isn't. That reflects how things are, which is the goal here--not how they should be. JJL (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the Association of American Universities, the J.D. has been equivalent to the M.D. for 91 years. It seems like that's a pretty clear statement of how things are. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What's your source for the claim that they have been equivalent for 91 years? JJL (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

[[52]]. Association of American Universities Conference from 1919 describes it as "a strict analogue to the degree of Doctor of Medicine (M.D.)" and calls it a professional doctorate. So it's been considered strictly analogous to the M.D. for at least 91 years, but it could have been longer. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. In 1919 it was offered by a small number of schools that also offered the LL.B. as a higher degree, and apprenticing to become an attorney was still common. That was a different time and effectively a different degree. JJL (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that document the change over time, or is it merely an opinion? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I knew JJL would come up with a reason not to regard this source as authoritative. Had it been a recent source s/he would have said, "Well, it's so recent! This just evidences credential creep; the J.D. isn't really equivalent to a M.D." Face it, we just fundamentally disagree and no amount of evidence will persuade either side from their respective position. Let's just be amicable about this, agree we disagree, and proceed to arbitration. Mavirikk (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Before jumping into arbitration, I'm curious - are there any policy-based reasons to keep the section as it currently is (or was when the RFC started, whatever)? There are arguments that as it stands it's a violation of WP:OR, in particular WP:SYNTHESIS, being made even by those who aren't opposed to the section's inclusion, but am I just missing an actual refutation of this policy-based issue (or a policy-based counterexample) somewhere? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This format was agreed-to as an outcome of the mediation process. It appears as a consequecne of WP:NPOV and the mediated outcome reflects Wikipedia:NPOV#Balance--that despite the many cries to the common typed here, there are solid sources for each side and hence they both must be addressed in a neutral and disinterested tone in the article. Efforts to do so in a different format have not succeeded, principally because they were used to dilute the not-a-doctorate viewpoint and give excessive weight to the clearly-a-doctorate viewpoint. JJL (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your response. Having not really looked at a mediation before, I didn't realize it was all contained on the talk page when you posted links to it before. After reading that it looks to me like this is really just a fight between WP:NPOV (it needs to be included) and WP:OR (the way it's included is a problem). Sadly, no method of going from there to consensus occurs to me at the moment. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic of re-initiating this discussion (yes, we have already discussed these cites at length a few times before, but the NALP cite is an interesting addition). It is illogical to assume chaos when there merely appears to be contradictions. In this case, for example, it's clear that there are various authoritative sources which could be interpreted differently. Instead of considering how the information could be interpreted as a whole, a logical jump has hasitily been made in interpreting the sources as in contradiction with one another. There are many sources which clearly state that the J.D. is a professional doctorate, and even explain why it is a terminal professional degree in its field. In examining the sources JJL has brought up we can also note that they do not state that the JD is not a terminal professional degree, and in light of all the sources on the topic it is easy to see that the sources above from JJL merely remind us that the J.D. is a prerequisite for the terminal academic JSD degree. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And therein lies the weirdness in calling the JD "terminal". One must first establish that there is a distinction between the LLM/SJD and the JD that causes the former to be "academic" and the latter to be "professional", and then argue that the distinction is substantive. Even if one is successful, you have the further weirdness of calling something that is the *only* degree the *terminal* degree -- it's like me calling my (only) wife my "first" wife. Wikiant (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought that "terminal degree" in academic parlance meant the degree one ordinarily needed to secure a tenure track faculty position in the field. In most fields, that would of course be the Ph.D., regardless of what further degrees, if any, were available in the field. Thus, since law schools require tenure track faculty to hold only the J.D., isn't the J.D. terminal regardless of what might further degrees be available to the JD-holder? Sk75 (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

People use 'terminal' to mean different things...a M.S.W. is terminal for social workers in that it allows licensure, but there is a D.S.W. The M.F.A. is terminal in the sense you describe, but many will seek a D.F.A. (still somewhat rare) or Ph.D. When one says a degree is 'terminal' you must ask, Terminal for what purpose? The B.S. is terminal in engineering in that it qualifies you for licensure (if ABET-accredited), something that a M.S. or Ph.D. in engineering cannot do (with a slight asterisk on the M.S. in that statement). In any event, my links above were meant to show that opinions on whether or to what extent a J.D. is a terminal degree vary. JJL (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC and revisions to relevant section

JJL suggested that revisions to the debate section be put on hold during the RFC, which seems reasonable although it is not required wiki policy. However, the editor is at the same time using this suggestion to justify his introduction of new material to the suggestion which is out of place. The comments he is trying to insert address arguments given the the next section regarding the JD as not being a doctor. Therefore, even if there weren't a reprive granted from editing the section, the proposed content would be objectionable anyways. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again you're being disingenuous. Deep Purple Dreams called for an RFC late on 28 April, then gutted the section on which input was requested on 30 April. Restoring it to the version on which the RFC was sought is the goal. Apparently your complaint is that in attempting to rerun material you redacted during the RFC it ended up in a different place than before. Perhaps if you didn't attempt to game the RFC this wouldn't be an issue, but it is you and Deep Purple Dreams who are changing it during the RFC. JJL (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So now you only speak up after violating 3R?! Cool. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You're lying. I didn't violate WP:3RR, and you're well aware of that fact. JJL (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My mistake: I miscounted days. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I couldn't touch the article while an RFC was taking place. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that someone had suggested that you couldn't touch the article while an RFC was taking place. I do, however, have difficulty understanding how you could have thought it could be helpful to perform this edit [53] right after you initiated the RFC. Starting an RFC and then turning right around and removing the section on which comment has been requested is hardly productive. JJL (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Deep Purple's actions can easily be interpreted as part of his seeking to initiate discussion and elicit comments on the content, which succeeded. Since an editor can easily "undo" an edit they disagree with, no harm has been done, and mal-intent is merely presumed but not proven.

During previous discussion and dispute resolution it was agreed that the sub-sections of this "debate" section would be more fair and balanced if they include only the material directly supporting the subsection. While complaining about the above mentioned edit by Deep Purple, JJL has tried to introduce content which contradicts the agreement, and opens the door for an editing war. As a result, JJL has reverted four times attempts to remove his content, and only started engaging in discussion after he was mistakenly accused of a 3R violation. I have suggested that the content be moved, as is, to the next section. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving it to the next section is reasonable. You could have done so yourself? JJL (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous links regarding the J.D. not being a true doctorate

From this blog [54]: "There is debate whether JD's can leverage their degrees as "doctoral level." The ABA approves the use of doctor when introducing ourselves, but other academic disciplines and the US government do not view the JD as a doctoral level degree, but rather, a master level." From this education directory [55]: "The most common doctorate degree in law, the Juris Doctor or JD, is an interesting degree in the sense that not everyone agrees that it is a doctorate-level degree." From this site [56]: "In academic circles there has been confusion, and those with other doctorates (particular PhD's) have fought against recognizing [the J.D.] as a doctorate, and want to consider it as a master's level degree." A lawyer opines on his web site [57]: "Law degrees say “Juris doctor”, not “juris doctorate”, I believe. I don’t think they are doctorates. A long time ago it was an LL.B. Just because the decided to change the NAME of the degree does not all of a sudden make it a doctorate. That’s my view." Efforts to limit JDs vs. PhDs in Criminal Justice depts. [58]A: "graduate programs that desire the ACJS imprimatur cannot have a faculty with more than 1 in 10 faculty members who hold a Juris Doctor degree." (See also [59].) From Inside Higher Ed. [60]: "The mayor has an undergraduate degree from Bates College and a law degree from Western New England College, but lacks a Ph.D and has never worked at a college. Julian F. Fleron, a mathematics professor at Westfield, said from his conversations with students and faculty, an overwhelming number of them object to Sullivan's candidacy. "He has zero academic experience at any level," Fleron said. "It says in the job description that there are minimal requirements. You can’t even teach here with just a J.D. It seems strange to me that at the oldest co-ed teachers' college in the country, someone who can't teach here passes a test to be considered for the presidency."" From Newsweek, Michelle Obama's law degree is described as a master's degree [61] (the article is clear that she was a lawyer; see also the comments here [62]). The doctor title issue at a Bar Board of Governors meeting [63]: "However, board member Jesse Diner said there are differences between a J.D., a master of laws and a J.S.D. degree, which is a true doctor in law. "I think it does mislead," he said. ". Remember, this is in addition to similar material sourced to books and refereed journal articles (Mwenda, Pappas, etc.) and in newspapers that has previously been provided. I don't see how anyone can hold that there is no disagreement over this issue...unless they don't have Internet access. JJL (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

From the Manila Standard [64]: "“Dr.” is no less troublesome. Actually, a practicing physician (in fact, even a non-practicing one) cannot appropriate the title “Dr.” although he can—and should, by tradition—be addressed as “Dr.” Academically, the M.D. (like the J.D.) is not an academic doctorate. Universities compensate MDs and JDs as holders of masters’ degrees. It is the PhD or the ScD that is the true academic doctorate. A physician should therefore properly identify himself by saying: “I am a physician” not “I am a doctor”—because a musicologist with a PhD in Music Theory could verily call herself a doctor as well." From a U. of London-associated law school site [65]: "By and large, this is merely an issue of semantics and the JD is not deemed to be of lesser standing than the more traditional LL.B. The American Heritage Dictionary (Second Edition) defines the Juris Doctorate as, "An academic degree that is the equivalent of a [LL.B.]." In the United States, as with the rest of the world, the advanced law degree above the JD continues to be the LL.M. or Master of Laws and the degree above that is the SJD, JSD or LL.D. - – true "Doctor of Laws" degree." JJL (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

From the U. of the Pacific's (California) law school's site [66]: "Let's start with the JD and the LLB. When a student completes a law school program, the student receives a Juris Doctor (JD) if they complete a program in the U.S., or a Legum Baccalaueus (LLB) if they complete a program outside of the U.S. Essentially, there is no difference between the two degrees except where you completed law school." From an online education site [67]: "However, unlike a Doctorate, a J.D. is not a terminal degree." From the City University of Hong Kong [68]: "The JD. Programme is formally classified as a Taught Master's Degree and it is not customary for JD graduates to use the title “Doctor”." JJL (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. More blogs and unattributed articles on websites of questionable veracity. Not to mention more misinterpretation of legitimate sources. This is pretty much standard. I'll get to refuting these later, when I have more time. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm wondering, which of these sources do you claim are WP:RS? All of them, or just some? I know there are some blogs and anonymous sources in there, so I want to just skip over those if possible. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Web sites can be usable per WP:RS--it depends on the circumstances and the claim. (E.g. World wide learn has received some attention.) But why not start with Inside Higher Ed. (that one may have been posted here before), or the U. of the Pacific, or the Manila Standard, say? JJL (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

From Sydney U. (Australia) [69]: "The JD is a professional masters degree." From here [70]: "The most ridiculous thing about American law schools is that they give out a Doctor of Jurisprudence (JD) to a law graduate who will never be called "doctor" and whose education is not on the same academic level as a PhD graduate who wrote a thesis or dissertation." JJL (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

JJL. Your sources are problematic. First, at best the Sydney University reference is only discussing that insitution's position on its JD program. It is not speaking for all JD's. It's possible that this article should have country variations--as the JD is being offered more and more in different locales--but whatever the case, it's a leap to use the source as a statement on JD's generally. The second citation must be dismissed outright: it's merely a user comment on someone's webpage. If it were to be allowed, someone could just as easily go post a comment on some blog that says a PhD is equivalent to an associates degree, and we could cite it here. Overall, these are fringe opinions that are being given undue weight in the article. I strongly question why a section on whether the JD is "equivalent" to a PhD is even relevant to the article. What's next? A section on why a JD isn't a DDS? Or maybe why a JD isn't a high school diploma? Sawagner201 (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I anxiously await your links showing active interest in whether or not the JD is a DDS. JJL (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Sydney University speaks only for itself is irrelevant. It need only speak for itself to confirm the fact that there is a difference of opinion on the academic status of the JD. Wikiant (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any difference of opinion on the "academic status" of the Australian JD. The sources are explicit and unequivocal that the Australian universities that award the JD do not consider it to be a doctorate. They seem to understand that if they award a degree with the word doctor in it, the natural assumption is that they intend for it to be a doctorate, and, if they intend otherwise, they have to clearly say so. And they do. Can we from this that infer that American universities actually do intend to award the JD as a doctorate, since they don't clearly say otherwise like the Australian universities do? I think it's unnecessary in light of the other sources already cited in the article and in the more recent sources I have provided on this talk page, but I think it is a fair inference. Sk75 (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't your inference a case of synthesis as it stands? Recall also that this page is not about the U.S. (or Australian) J.D. It's about the J.D. The Australians seem to be clear that having "doctor" in the title doesn't necessarily make a degree a doctor's degree. So, tehre isn't uniformity of opinion on that. I doubt you'll find the Ph.D. receiving similarly uneven treatement.

Anyway, have you find those cites about the J.D. being just a D.D.S. that you had alluded to earlier? I'm curious to peruse them. It seems like a fringe, crackpot theory.JJL (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is synthesis. And I didn't really expect it to change anyone's mind. But it does seem odd that so many US universities could fail to caution potential matriculants in the way the Australian universities do. Also, perhaps you have me confused with another editor, but I certainly have no JD/DDS theory. Sk75 (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes--I didn't look closely enough and thought I was still speaking with Sawagner201! I understand your point in it not being mentioned (but see the U. of Michigan statement) but then having watched credential creep take so many degrees to ones with a "D" in them over the years one sees that schools don't want to point something like that out about a moneymaker degree program. Australian and Canadian schools are adopting the J.D. because they feel their students aren't as competitive against U.S.-trained attorneys without it--but they're studied it and have an opinion on the U.S. version as well as their own approach to their version. JJL (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A question for those who support this section.

It's clear from the sources that the J.D. in Australia is significantly different from the J.D. in the United States, and the article reflects this outside of the "academic status" section. It is also clear that the J.D. in Canada is a J.D. "in name only", designed to increase the name recognition of their degree.

The current format of the "academic status" section places citations from organizations such as the ABA (an American organization) directly against citations from Canada (Windsor Law) and Australia.

My question for you is simple:

In light of the fact that the J.D. is fundamentally different depending on where you go, how is it intellectually honest to have a unified section about the J.D. that does not reflect this difference, and instead makes it appear that the J.D. is the same in all countries and the ABA/Canadian/Australian sources are arguing over the same thing?

I'll throw in a second question:

What would be the problem with dissolving this section and sorting the information that's currently within it into the regional sections? All your information will still be there, but it will be in the sections that will be most relevant to the reader. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Content regarding the status of the degree in various jurisdictions is already in the article, so I think it would be redundant. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Among other things, it would hide the fact that there is disagreement as to the status within the US. Wikiant (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been saying for some while that this article does a much worse job than comparable articles w.r.t. treating regional variations, but the few efforts to change that have simply been thinly disguised attempts to eliminate the legitimate discussion about the differing views on the U.S. version of the degree. JJL (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggested a similar change a bit ago for the same reason. There was not a consensus to implement it for the reasons Wikiant and JJL explained. But I still support the idea. There's so much variation among the legal education systems and the way they developed that I don't see how having the section unified makes sense. To the extent that there is a legitimate discussion to be had, in my view it should take place within each country's section. Sk75 (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that what that will achieve is to create N simultaneous variants of this discussion -- one for each country. Wikiant (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that your main concern is that it would "hide" the discussion. What if the exact same material was in the US section? Why would it "hide" the information to simply have it under the appropriate category?

Failing that, would anyone be opposed to changing the current pro/con into a paragraph style? Instead, maybe have some background information about how the degree differs from the US to Canada/Australia? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In principle a paragraph is better. In practice, even if the paragraph comes out well the next drive-by editor with feelings on either side edits out or dilutes the other side of the argument. I'm sure you'll say that's no good reason to have this easily defensible but unattractive bullet-structure, but that's my strong experience here. It's a contentious issue. JJL (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, it's not easily defensible. A J.D. in America is an orange and a J.D. in Australia is an apple, but we've got a section directly comparing the two without any mention of which type of fruit they happen to be. Not only is it inherently misleading, but there is no benefit to this layout. It's not like a bullet-point list makes it any harder to edit. If someone's going to remove information, they can remove a sentence from a paragraph or a bullet-point from a list: this format is not going to save it from drive-by editors. Is there any evidence to base this conclusion on? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm all for separating out differences by country--I've pointed out many times that similar articles, like B.A. or M.D., do so. When I've suggested it before there hasn't been much positive interest and I'm occasionally told that it's simply a U.S. degree. But yes, as a practical matter, the balanced bullet-list that came out of mediation is easier to maintain that a series of edits that begin to favor one point over another by many small changes. JJL (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If the point is to show that certain bullet points apply only to the JD in specific countries, then why not include words in the bullet point to the effect that the specific bullet point is relevant only to a specific country. Wikiant (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. There are separate sections for each country already. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not separated as clearly as it's done on the pages for other degrees--here the situation is presented as what happens in non-U.S. countries with a continued focus on the U.S. JJL (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So am I to understand that if I were to propose a paragraph style instead of bulletpoints, it would be reverted by Wikiant or JJL without any discussion? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't play the victim. I've only said that it hasn't worked before and tried to indicate why. JJL (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to find out if it'll be a waste of time to try to figure this out. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

One issue to consider is the fact that the degree is brand new outside of the U.S. and it appears that those educational systems are still forming their policies regarding the degree. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

One more piece of evidence against the claim that the JD is a doctorate as the term is normally understood: At Yale University, JD graduates are entitled to wear the doctoral gown, but NOT the doctoral hood. Instead, they must wear a master's hood. This seems to connote an understanding that the JD is something more than a master's and less than a doctorate. See http://www.yale.edu/secretary/commencement/html/Guide_to_Regalia_07.pdf