Talk:Doctor of Juridical Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

creation of this article[edit]

This article has been created per discussions on the Doctor of Laws page. Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a misleading statement: "The JD is the HIGHEST professional doctorate". It is not the highest but is the FIRST (there are no other law degrees below the JD. The LLB is an equivalent degree) professional doctorate.

There is no professional degree higher than the J.D. An LL.B. is an undergraduate degree. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes were made to show two different views. 1. There are many leading law schools in the U.S. (and citations have been given) that refer to the J.S.D. degree as the terminal or highest degree in law. 2. Apparently there are other who argue that the J.D. is the terminal professional degree and the J.S.D. is the terminal academic degree. Okay, there are two points of view and they have been inserted. Isn't that what we are supposed to do? Even if there are only one or two people who hold the latter view, I am in favor of including those views in the article. Also, someone keeps referring to Harvard and other leading law schools as misleading people. By the way, the J.D. and S.J.D. are both academic degrees. University degrees are either: 1) academic; 2) honorary; or 3) bogus.

Let's put the facts out there; let's put the different points of view out there, and then let's let people use their common sense and make up their own minds on this issue.Mv-22 (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the citations state that the SJD is a professional degree, and in fact make it clear that it is a research degree. All of those institutions are integral members of the Council of Graduate Schools in the United States and the other academic associations which have clearly stated that professional doctorates are usually terminal professional degrees (there are some exceptions in some medical specialties). The publications of those institutions make it very clear that there are two types of academic degrees: professional and research. This situation is unique to the United States, so I understand why it might be a foreign concept to some editors. The statements on the websites of those schools must be read in context of the clear and authoritative statements of inter-institutional organizations such as the Council of Graduate Schools, as opposed to making baseless assumptions that those statements contradict them. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There is more than one view that is supported by appropriate citations. That is why they are both here. Some of the finest law schools in the United States are of the opinion that their SJD degrees are the terminal or highest law degree of any kind (whether professional or research). There are others who are of the view (and make a good argument such as yourself) that the J.D. is the highest professional doctor of law while the SJD is the highest research doctor of law. That great. We have the different sides out there, each supported by citations, and we want the readers to draw their own conclusions.Mv-22 (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The content to which you are objecting merely stated (to paraphrase): Although some schools state that the SJD is the highest law degree, this doesn't mean that the JD isn't a terminal degree. That's all it said.
The point of citing solid authoritative sources later in the sentence is to clarify, for those unfamiliar with the U.S. educational system, the meaning of the statements by those schools. There are not two points of view represented. Those schools are major members and contributors to the CGS, and CGS would not make any statement or report without their full consent. To assume that the schools would say one thing in one forum and another on their website is strange. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The University of Sydney offers an SJD - that's where I got mine .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think one thing that this discussion is missing is what role the SJD plays in the United States legal and academic system. If you look at many SJD programs, you'll find that quite a few of the students in US law schools are foreign students with foreign law degrees. The SJD (and, to a similar extent, the LLM degree) is a way for foreign lawyers to study US law. Unlike a PhD in other disciplines, however, the SJD is not necessary to become an academic. On the contrary, most legal academics in the United States do not have an SJD -- although they very well might have a PhD in another discipline. This makes the SJD a rather odd duck as research degrees go. It's not necessary as a gateway to legal scholarship. Epstein's Mother (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. There is no other place in the world where one can teach law without having the 2nd or 3rd level law degree than the United States, where one can teach in a law school with only a first-level law degree. Most European universities require the PhD or JSD/SJD. That's why they send their students to the U.S. to attend some of the most prestigious universities in the world in order to obtain their doctoral qualification, i.e., JSD. The JSD is not a gateway to teaching law or writing law journal articles as "scholarship." But to undertake empirical legal research such a qualification is necessary (PhD, JSD, SJD, etc.)That is also why some US academics pursue their LLM and JSD after receiving their JD. This makes them eligible for more legal scientific-based grants and to be on par with their colleagues in other countries. Requem001 (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikify or Copyedit[edit]

It seems like one of these template messages would be appropriate for the article. Agree/Disagree? (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Doctor of Juridical Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)