Jump to content

Talk:Juris Doctor/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

The Lawyers on wiki need to stop pushing their opinions. What happened to facts ?

The JD is a professional doctorate (Yes). The JD like other professional doctorate, (MD, DDS), is not equivalent to the PhD (Yes). Those statement are not opinions but facts. Please stop messing with the JD pages trying to push your agenda; you can't have it both ways.--Viscountrapier (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually suggest that it is the PhD's who are pushing their opinions, and need to stop. Sawagner201 (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So, you are saying that it is the PhD claiming that the JD is equivalent to the PhD ?--Viscountrapier (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of funny when you talk about facts, because you keep reverting my edits when I try to make your sentence more accurate. [[1]] Let's count all the ways that you are misrepresenting facts...
You claim "US universities" but you don't have any citations from a US university.
You claim "non US universities" (plural) but you only have one source from a non US university.
The ERC cite doesn't even mention the Juris Doctor degree.
The United States Department of Education released that report, not the United States Government as a whole. Read what's at the top of the document.
The sources mentioned generally talk about whether it is a research doctorate or not, not about whether it's "equivalent".
You keep edit warring to keep these things in there when these are obvious misrepresentations of the sources provided. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I assume your references to edit warring are an attempt to gain upper ground should this go to mediation or arbitration. We have a WP:RS for the claim that the U. of Michigan doesn't consider it a doctoral degree. There are many sources from Australian and Canadian schools claiming it's LL.B.-level throughout the archives. The United States Department of Education is the relevant entity for U.S. governmental education policy, but the DoD is in full agreement. The Mwenda paper is from a refereed academic journal and Mwenda plainly states the matter--what more could you want? (Oh yes, it's important to you that the sources be from people with American-sounding surnames, you said. I don't know of a WP rule to that effect, however--it's your own personal bias.) The position that the J.D. is not a true doctorate is well-sourced and is in fact the dominant view in academia, save possibly by J.D. holders. That's well-reflected in the many cites in the archives of schools that place J.D. holders in lower precedence than all doctorate holders, for example. JJL (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Wait, you think the NY Times cites are reliable? They don't even have a name on them - we can't tell if they're opinion pieces, or if they're student-submitted, etc. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I assume you mean the Wash. Times articles. Yes, they're clearly reliable in the sense of WP:RS-and if you honestly can't tell whether they're opinion pieces or not then I daresay you might need to learn a great deal more about sources before participating in a discussion like this. You're confused by this, the AAU report, and whether sources by people with African-sounding surnames can be considered reliable. You should start with WP:V and keep reading. Follow as many links as you can. JJL (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The fact that your only argument is a vague "learn more", I can tell that you don't have much substance here. You linked to the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Tell me, in your Wikipedia wisdom, how would you go about verifying the content of this article if you have no idea who wrote it? Furthermore, I don't appreciate the insinuation that this has anything to do with "African-sounding surnames." I never said that Mwenda was not a reliable source; I'm saying that the position of a couple authors just does not deserve the same WP:WEIGHT as a position advanced by several reputable academic organizations. Let's see if you can come up with a response that lacks ad hominems. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
That you need to learn more about how WP works was a conclusion, not an argument. Had you read WP:V you would have seen this: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." You could check whether the article alleged to have been published in the Wash. Times had indeed been published there with the help of any librarian. (Note also: "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy and by No original research. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries.") The page also states: "Other reliable sources include [...] mainstream newspapers." The Wash. Times qualifies. As to your complaining about Mwenda and Muuka's unclear immigration status as a reason to disregard their published work--your comments on that are available above. Note: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available" and Mwenda has published his opinions on this matter in just such a setting. I don't see where academic orgs. are listed at WP:V. Indeed, the ABA is clearly not a disinterested party here: It's an advocacy group for J.D. holders. So, Mwenda should be given the first consideration by WP standards. JJL (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My edits are "sourced" from known and trustworthy sources; I did not make the wiki rules. You can rewrite my piece to make sure that it is fair, but you cannot remove the gist of the topic, which is : The JD is a professional doctorate, but professional doctorates, not only the JD, are not equivalent to the PhD and other PhD equivalent degrees. Not my words, but the sourced words of the US Government,and the National Science Foundation. If you have a problem, take it up with them. --Viscountrapier (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Department of Education is part of the US Government. They act for the US government in all matters concerning Education. Also the OPM, the Federal government agency in charge of hiring all federal government employees, places the JD beside Master degree. I can provide you with a source if you are interested ? This should be about facts and not opinions. --Viscountrapier (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Department of Education issued the statement. Why are you so opposed to being specific about this? I don't get it. Also, you still haven't addressed how you were edit warring to keep "US universities" in there without a cite from a US university, or how you edit war to keep foreign universities plural when you cite only one. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
There are many that could be cited and they're here in the Talk page and its archives. Feel free to improve the article by adding such sources. JJL (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have changed it to the Department of Education. --Viscountrapier (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also removed any generalization language. In your case, I find it funny that you are willing to keep a statement from a "single" voluntary, non academic group, and non-binding group, but are quick to try to remove sourced material from the US Department of Education, and the National Science Foundation; the National Science Foundation for the love of God! . To me this is about facts, and not opinion. --Viscountrapier (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I don't want these sources to be used: it's that I want them to be used appropriately. You can't cite only one university and claim that there are multiple universities saying this. That's just misleading by any definition of the word. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What a load of tripe. As a practicing lawyer holding both a J.D. and an LL.B. (different jurisdictions) I can say there is no practical difference in the education necessary to obtain these degrees; and contrary to much of the discussion, simply obtaining a J.D. (cf. LL.B.) DOES NOT make one ready to practice law (even though technically in the U.S. one simply need obtain the degree, write the bar exams, and hang out a shingle - pity the client who relies upon the services of a sole practicing brand new American attorney!). It is only with practice, articling or working under senior lawyers for several years, experiencing hands-on legal work, that any lawyer, regardless of the degrees they might hold, truly becomes a practicing lawyer (rather than someone who knows how to conduct legal research). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.91.194 (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Various sources

I finally tracked down this reference. It appears that this is from the Malet Street Gazette (cited by Mwenda as http://www.malet.com/_ArticleFile/000000b8.htm which I couldn't find). Pappas [2] is a NC attorney with an LL.B. from a U.K. school and an LL.M. from a U.S. school (among other degrees, including an M.Phil. in Law). Several ac.uk web sites described it as a "web based journal" [3], [4] and it has been cited in other peer-reviewed articles [5] but it isn't clear just how well-known and well-regarded it is. It doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed. The LL.B. article here uses it as a source Bachelor_of_Laws#References. JJL (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

From two authors at the U. of Sydney: Loughnan, Arlie and Shackel, Rita, The Travails of Postgraduate Research in Law, Legal Education Review, Volume 19 Issue 1/2 (2009):99-132 [6]. The article says in part (while discussing research degrees in law in Australia, including the S.J.D.): "In keeping with the North American model on which it is based, the JD is not a doctorate and does not bring with it the right to use the title 'doctor'." JJL (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

From the ABA [7]: "the ethics committee reversed course in light of the newly adopted ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility. Disciplinary Rule 2-102 permitted a J.D. or LL.M. (master of law) recipient to use doctor with his or her name, the committee concluded in ABA Informal Opinion 1152 (1970)." (Emphasis added.) So, the ABA considers having either a J.D. or a master's degree sufficient to entitle one to use the title 'doctor'. As an aside, this is interesting reading on the S.J.D. vs. the Ph.D.: [8]. I wish there were more detail here [9]: It sounds as though the judge's law degree didn't qualify him as a 'doctoral recipient' but his management degree did, if valid. JJL (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The LL.M. is not a masters in the sense that it is equivalent to a MA, MS, MBA, etc. It clearly outranks those degrees. One could argue it is analogous to the Master of Theology, which would make it a "higher masters." Regardless, the LL.M. is a misnamed degree. And if you can can argue the name Juris Doctor is not dispositive to its true academic rank then we can also disregard the name of the LL.M. as to its academic rank. Mavirikk (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Professional Doctorates and the J.D.

Per recent edits, while it's true that the professional doctorates and the research doctorates are different, even among prof. doctorates the J.D. is viewed differently. We have many cites indicating that it isn't universally perceived as a true doctorate (unlike, say the M.D>), and that in practice it receives differential treatment compared to other prof. doctorates (e.g., the commissioning grade for lawyers vs. physicians/dentists/pharmacists/etc.). Some editors seem to want to impose a simple, rigid, logical taxonomy on what is after all an uncoordinated system--schools largely make their own rules, within reason (as determined by accrediting bodies)--with multiple players. The view of the ABA, which is very partisan, is not the view of the U.S. govt., for example. Until we see evidence that holders of an M.D. have been criticized as being unqualified to hold high academic office, the difference remains, whether one thinks it should or not. The J.D. is a platypus. It isn't going to fit neatly into a simple category. JJL (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You're overstating your position on a number of counts. For one, the same criticisms that are applied to the J.D. by Mwenda&Co. are equally applicable to the M.D. (that it's not terminal, for example.) Secondly, there are sources from the US Gov't that put J.D. holders at the same pay grade as M.D. holders. Also, might I remind you that Reuben-Cooke did hold high academic office for years until she apparently retired, and the only thing we have to go on about her degree are some anonymous articles. You're also misstating the position of the ABA. The ABA never said that the JD is a research doctorate. The US Government is not claiming that the JD isn't a doctorate. The Department of Education cite merely states that it is not a research doctorate. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
You continue to advance the same WP:OR argument: That these criticisms could be applied to the M.D. But there are WP:RS showing that they have been applied to the J.D. JJL (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Might I remind you that you were the one that brought up the M.D. in your previous post? Your sources don't deal with that, yet you bring it up. It sounds like you're the one who's using OR here... I should also note that we have reliable sources placing the JD as equivalent to the MD as early as 1919. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. That source has a subcommittee of a particular law school recommending that as a good idea. Once again you're exaggerating your sources' statements beyond recognition. As to the M.D., it is not I who wishes to place material about it and other prof. doctorates in the article. JJL (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to shake my head, JJL. You're willfully ignoring the fact that the AAU Committee on Academic and Professional Higher Degrees stated in 1921 that "the professional Doctor's degrees to be recognized for the present shall be the following: J.D., M.D..." [[10]]. That's hardly the "subcommittee of a particular law school." Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The 1921 source isn't the 1919 source. You can tell that because they were published in different years.
As to your 1921 source, where was that introduced into and discussed on the Talk page so that you can claim I am "willfully ignoring" it?
The 1921 source says that a committee presented a report. I didn't see where it said that the report was accepted or endorsed, or in any way enacted. I don't think you understand how this works. It's sort of like the difference between a single congressman introducing a bill, and Congress as a whole passing that bill and making it law. I could report that the moon is made of cheese but that doesn't make it true--or even the org.'s official policy.
Beyond that, the question isn't "Has some org. stated that the J.D. is a true doctorate?" but rather "Is the J.D. viewed as a true doctorate?" We have plenty of sources indicating that the answer to the second question is "Not universally--not by a long shot." This is unlike the case with the other prof. doctorates of long standing. JJL (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I've brought up the 1921 source before. I don't feel like looking through six months of debate to try to find it. You're also being inconsistent. You consider a book with two authors to be the most authoritative source here, but you're willing to disregard a committee report? Just doesn't make any sense. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
You simply don't understand what the nature of a committee report is. You're ignorant of what it represents. You might ask someone at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard to explain it to you. JJL (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yet another personal attack post by JJL. You seem to be arguing that the AAU didn't adopt this committee report, but an AAU cite in the article lists the J.D. along with the M.D. as a professional doctorate with no distinction between them. [[11]]. This is exactly what the committee reports have been saying since the early 1900s, and this source has been in the article since 2008. It's even in the lead. You might want to check that kind of stuff before claiming that I'm "ignorant." Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
That a terse glossary now lists the two without distinction is unrelated to a committee report that may or may not have been adopted having been given in the early 1900s that makes broader claims. If you're claiming a relationship, that's WP:SYNTH at the very least. You still don't seem to understand how committee reports to orgs. work. This isn't a personal attack; it's an observation. JJL (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's pretend for a moment that we're living in some bizarre world where it's just a freak coincidence that the policy statement and the committee report happen to be in concert. The fact remains that the current position of the AAU is that the M.D. and J.D. are equated. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's pretend that a glossary entry is an official statement on behalf of an org. A tugboat and an aircraft carrier are both examples of ships: Does that make them equal? JJL (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you honestly claiming that the AAU Data Exchange didn't issue this glossary? Wow. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
No, the ABA didn't say that the JD is a research doctorate, but it did say that the JD should be regarded as equivalent to the PhD (which is a research doctorate). Wikiant (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
That's not the full argument. The ABA is saying that -- for employment and education purposes -- it be considered equivalent to a PhD. This is going a bit out of the scope of the sources, but that makes sense. The JD is absolutely sufficient to teach a law school course. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
What other purposes are there that are germane to a degree? Wikiant (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it goes without saying that we're talking about the legal field here. Deep Purple Dreams (talk)

Just to address Wikiant's question about purposes germane to the degree, and I take it he is referring to the J.D. in particular (please correct me if you were speaking more generally), aside from being able to teach a law school course, or more specifically, a course that covers legal materials (as opposed to say, an elective course on writing, or some sort of other policy-related law school course that tackles policy and political considerations, among others, other than legal content), the other point of getting a professional doctorate would be to get the training necessary to be qualified to apply for and receive a license to practice the profession. But if it's just teaching, the J.D. should be sufficient. Maybe that's what the ABA meant with its recommendation. Since most universities will insist on hiring faculty members with Ph.D.s (or at least prefer them over all others), the J.D. should be given the same treatment, so as to allow a degree holder to teach law in universities. That is, of course, reading a bit into the ABA recommendation, and I hope I am not too far-off when I do so. On that note, can't we just ask ABA for an opinion, and cite that? :) Rmcsamson (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, I'm not sure if the same can be said about people who hold M.D.s, since I have little idea about standards for medical education. I don't know if an M.D. is in itself sufficient to teach medicine, unless we're talking about basic or fundamental medical courses, as opposed to certain specialized classes that might need a diploma of specialization. Rmcsamson (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

I see that the IPs are back. I put in a request for temporary semi-protection. Wikiant (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit revert 03OCT10

I undid the edit noted as content that was well referenced and seemingly factual was replaced by an unsourced statement from the ABA that only stated that the ABA would seek to have this degree made equivalent to a Ph.D.

vulture19 20:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I should have included the section that I removed, as follows:
"J.D. Degree - Ph.D. Degree Equivalency
WHEREAS, the acquisition of a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree requires from 84 to 90 semester hours of post
baccalaureate study and the Doctor of Philosophy degree usually requires 60 semester hours of post baccalaureate study along with
-
the writing of a dissertation, the two degrees shall be considered as equivalent degrees for educational employment purposes;
-
-
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that all appropriate persons be requested to eliminate any policy, or practice, existing within their jurisdiction which disparages legal ::education or promotes discriminatory employment practices against J.D. degree-holders who hold academic appointment in education institutions."
vulture19 20:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This same IP keeps deleting this section claiming that the council statement is not recommending. It is true that the word, "recommend" does not appear. However, it is also true that the council statement itself says that the statement is non-binding. I'm not sure what else one calls a non-binding statement other than a "recommendation". Wikiant (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If it doesn't say "recommendation", then we shouldn't say it... it's not our place as editors to insert our own judgments about what it happens to be. That would be OR or synthesis. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

By saying it's not binding is merely telling laymen the obvious--to avoid misunderstanding. It clearly states that in this statement "all appropriate persons [are] requested..." to behave as stated. A recommendation and a request are synonymous enough, aren't they? Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

One concern I have is the logical connection between the two clauses of the sentence in which this is used. It's borderline OR to connect the two (to say "although" and join these two things), but more importantly, it seems like they're not really related. Whether the JD is a research doctorate isn't relevant to whether it should be treated similarly in academia when it comes to hiring. These seem like two completely different issues and I think I'm going to split that sentence in the near future. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Canada...

An anonymous user (who appears to be a Canadian nationalist, or is just sick of Canada jokes from down south) keeps messing with the Canada section. This user takes out almost anything that might be slightly disparaging to that country, even if it includes healthy citations, and has never contributed to this discussion page. The user rarely even includes comments in the editing. One common action by the user is to remove references to the LL.B. in Canada and to mislead the reader into thinking that the J.D. is the primary law degree. This is despite the fact that the citations to the previous content were more than sufficient and clear, and he replaced those with citations which usually provide little to no support for that user's content. This has been ongoing for more than a year, but instead you guys argue ad nauseum about subtle interpretations of citations and crap. Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, I just accused you of self-interested behavior... and you have no reply but a tacit admission. I just wish people would care more about this article. I will make the necessary changes, and as has become habitual the pro-Canadian anon user will revert them. And all-y'all will do exactly: Nothing! You're condemned as dorks by your own (in)actions. Go rot in the "J.D. in Academia" section y'all crawled out from! Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, just did a brief check to make sure I'm not crazy. The very first sentence of the Canada section, added by the anon user, is completely wrong. Just click on the links to the following schools and check it out: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_law_schools_in_Canada#Schools_teaching_common_law That anon user is full of it even if you exclude French schools and include schools with "plans" to transition to the J.D. How could you let this fly? And continue to let that author make the SAME changes month after month? And if ANY of you complain about mis-behavior of ANY other editors, let this posting in the archive serve as evidence: you guys don't really give a damn. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Be still, my friend. There is no untoward self-interest in our behavior. It's simply a matter of our (or at least, my) not having knowledge one way or the other wrt the anon edits. In fact, I assumed that your silence on the matter reflected your agreement with the edits. With you and the anon (apparently) agreeing, and my having no knowledge, I thought the prudent thing to do would be to remain silent. Wikiant (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your recognition and for humoring my rants. I've addressed this issue twice previously on the discussion page. The editor always makes the same edits with almost identical wording when that editor's content is removed. Zoticogrillo (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

So, with no further comment, here's what's going to happen: After a few days if no further comments are posted, I'm going to change the article to reflect extant and previous citations, the changes will remain for a few months, anon editor will then reverse all changes restoring that editor's content with inflammatory edit summaries and no contributions to the discussion page, and we will then remain with a ridiculously inaccurate, non-verifiable and contradictory Canada section. Anyone care to place a bet? Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC) I know it sounds retarded, but I really have tried a number of other strategies already, some of which were carried through with no result or no other editor support. Therefore, I invite support for a temporary editing lock on the Canada section after content is repaired. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm for a more extended lock (circa several months). This page has had on-going problems with anon users. Wikiant (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks Wikiant. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Concur with both of you on this point, the page needs to be temporarily locked. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Howdy. I just wanted to mention that I am one of the editors agreeing with Zoticogrillo about the Canada LL.B. vs. J.D. reality (that there are still more law schools offering the LL.B., though that might change at some point) and that greater attention must be made to content. However, of the most recent edits I did revert one - it has to do with the little comparison table. I just wanted further clarity on why 'NA' was replaced when there are no LL.B. programs offered in the US to my knowledge, and also the fact that a Canadian law degree does not entitle anyone to a 'license' - a Canadian LL.B. or J.D. is merely a prerequisite to the bar admission courses offered by each province's Law Society and only upon successful completion of those - and articles ('clerking') - can one obtain a license to practice. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about not being clear or contributing here before changing in the article. The category "Different curriculum from LL.B. in Jurisdiction?" is not restricted to current degrees, and the U.S. has a long (though old) tradition of awarding the LL.B. (notably Yale). Japan's row reads, "N/A" because the LL.B. never existed there. The category, "Sufficient Education for License?" prompts about the education required to obtain a license, and additional courses is additional education, therefore the J.D. is not sufficient education in Canada. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

74.235.203.41 ....

.... is being a lamer, I suggest a mod ban this guy from editing any further for a little, please and thank you. No particular interest in Law, just not cool with wiki-defamation, calumny, and slander. Joshua Torelli (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. Thanks. A Sniper (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

J.D. vs LL.B. in Canada

Howdy folks. I am just as eager to verify whether or not the J.D. has now overtaken the LL.B. in Canadian law schools as anybody. Knowing firsthand that the University of Calgary has just made the switch (legally as of September 2010, physically as of December 2010) I do know changes are happening. Please stop the edit war and I will make it my business to check every university website to see. OK? Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've researched this issue a few times and addressed it three or four times in the discussion section. The last time was in September, and maybe the research needs updating, but I would be very surprised if the result were any different. It appears that there is just one anon user who has issue with the content, and that user shows no interest in behaving like a logical or civil editor. Zoticogrillo (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Executive Juris Doctor

Asserting the Executive Juris Doctor degree is "not widely accepted" is a bald face assertion lacking any supportive evidence. In other words, it's a simple opinion.

I would like others to join me in re-writing the Executive Juris Doctor section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasmonkeyfarm (talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am about to either purge the whole section or tag it because the refs are either not specific to what is mentioned or else are dead links. RE: whether or not it is accepted, I would agree that would need to be qualified somehow - but the fact remains this is essentially a made up degree by two correspondence schools without any full accreditation, either within the field of advanced education or in the legal community. A Sniper (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary text in the "Academia" section.

The text is this:

"Although the American Bar Association has issued a Council Statement[127] advising that the J.D. be considered as being equivalent to the Ph.D. for employment and educational purposes,[128] the United States Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, and the European Research Council do not include the J.D. or other professional doctorates among the degrees that are equivalent to research doctorates,[129][130][131] and there has been some confusion regarding the differences between the J.D. as a professional doctorate and research doctorates such as the Ph.D., with some sources noting that they are not equivalent.[132][133][134][135]"

The "some sources noting that they are not equivalent" is logically unnecessary; it's a non-issue. From what I can tell, no source actually says that the J.D. and the PhD are equivalent. The only thing that comes close is the ABA saying that the JD should be considered the same as the PhD for hiring purposes. This is not the same as saying that the degrees are equivalent, and it's already been stated in that very same paragraph that the JD is not a research doctorate.

The text says "there has been some confusion" - has there really? What sources maintain that the JD is exactly like the PhD? The only thing that has been claimed is that the JD should be equivalent to the PhD for hiring purposes - none of the sources that follow actually address this.

Saying "Although" implies that the sources that come after it contradict the ABA; but they don't. The ABA saying that JDs should be hired alongside PhDs in a teaching context has nothing to do with whether the European Research Council will award a JD holder grant money. It just doesn't make sense, logically. These are two separate issues.

(Not to mention the general weirdness behind comparing the "American" Bar Association to the "European" Research Council.)
Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

ERC

Reference to the European Research Council not accepting JD's as research degrees is irrelevant. First, the cited website doesn't mention JDs at all, merely refers back to the NSF (essentially saying, "we do what they do.") Consequently, since the NSF is already mentioned, the ERC is redundant. Second, the ERC, like the NSF, as others have noted, is primarily a science research entity. It goes without saying that funding for someone with only a law degree would be a bit out of place. (I would be surprised if the NSF gave any research grants to anyone with only a PhD is art history, too.) Third, JDs aren't used in Continental Europe -- or, for all intents and purposes, in the EU at all -- making the ERC reference utterly irrelevant. (If anything, the constant desire to reinsert the ERC reference, despite several editors' removing it, seems to involve some strange hang-up by a particular editor. Is this all about JD law professors getting paid more than the average PhD?) Epstein's Mother (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You're entirely correct. It's no surprise that a scientific research entity would not accept a law degree for scientific research purposes. It doesn't have any reflection on the JD degree itself, so it has no place in the article. That would be like loading up the Doctor of Engineering article and noting that the Doctor of Engineering degree can't be used for practicing medicine. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Comparison to Italy

All undergraduate degrees in Italy, no matter the subject, are awarded as "dottore" giving the right of the graduate to call themselves "Dottore" (Doctor). Therefore, if you do what would be considered a B.A. in the U.S. in Italy you are still awarded a dottore degree. The comparison here is spurious and gives a sense of inaccuracy as it suggests that somehow in Italy undergraduate law degrees are special degrees awarding the dottore title, while the reality is ALL undergraduate degrees award this title! The Italian undergraduate degree in law is equivalent of the LLB/JD. 86.163.24.60 (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I am told that likewise professore in Italian is just any university teacher, whereas in other countries it is the highest profession in universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbakels (talk • contribs) 12:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

English LLB

"The approach of the English degree can be seen in the required curriculum, in which there is no study of civil procedure, and relatively few courses in advanced law such as business entities, bankruptcy, evidence, family law, etc." ... What??? This statement is clearly wrong and you can figure this out by quickly examining any LLB in England and its curriculum! Plus, you completely exclude the LPC in England which is a required element of the English legal education that is specifically designed to cover off practical elements of the education. Even so, LLBs in England do cover these topics, for example Oxford University (http://www.law.ox.ac.uk/themes/all_courses.php) or the University of London (http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/prospective_students/undergraduate/panel/law/scheme_a.shtml). LLBs in Scotland have mandatory subjects (http://www.lawscot.org.uk/becomingasolicitor/students/studying-the-llb/professional-subjects) which are: public law and the legal system, conveyancing, Scots private law, evidence, Scots criminal law, taxation, European community law, Scots commercial law (that includes practical elements of bankruptcy and business entities specifically!!!). As a Scottish lawyer working in the UK, I find this article wholly an inaccurate reflection and demeaning of th UK's education system. 86.163.24.60 (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The text is a restatement of the citation. Yes, advanced practical courses are offered at those universities, but they are electives and are not part of the required curriculum. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Netherlands

In The Netherlands, a meester (master) university degree is required to become a judge, attorney or notary. 95% of lawyers only gets this agree. Historically, it is supposed to be some kind of professional doctorate, which is the reason why lawyers that write a PhD disseration (the other 5%) are not supposed to call themselves "Dr." but only "Mr.", as a tradition (they are allowed by law to use the "Dr." title though - which is a crime otherwise). I leave it to others to integrate this information into the lemma itself. Rbakels (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits to whether scholarly content is required

The following has been copied from my Talk page: –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|This refers to my reverting IP 173.51.131.223 on 7 December 2012.

Thanks for inviting me to comment on the changes I made to the Juris Doctor article, which you un-did because the changes "didn't appear constructive." My changes were made because the content was inaccurate.

The ABA writing requirement states: Law schools "shall require that each student receive substantial instruction in …legal analysis and reasoning, legal research, problem solving, and oral communication … [and] writing in a legal context, including at least … at least one additional rigorous writing experience after the first year.” ([quoted by one of the references in the J.D. article]

The chart in the JD article contains numerous citations which all say the same thing: the writing requirement is for the students to demonstrate professional legal skills in writing. Legal memoranda and briefs are typical of a paper fulfilling this requirement. Papers which fulfill the writing requirement may be scholarly, such as containing original research or academic analysis, but this is not a requirement. Law journal articles are typical of these kind of scholarly papers. Sometimes "research is required," by schools implementing the ABA writing requirement, but this means legal research, and is not the same as the primary source research required of scholarly papers. Indeed, legal research is a key professional skill. Even if the paper is scholarly, it must still show competence with the professional skills of legal analysis.

The Juris Doctor article clearly explains in many places that when the J.D. was created, it was the only professional degree in law and that other law degrees were academic degrees. The category of "scholarly content required" on the chart shows, as stated elsewhere in the article, that the original U.S. J.D. degree is still one of the only strictly professional degrees in law, and that the degree in other places, even though they are called a J.D., still include academic content traditionally required by the scholarly law degrees (LL.B., etc.)

It is not necessary for there to be so many citations. The citations all say the same thing. This stacking of citations is suspicious, as it is typical of POV-pushing. Indeed, as I have discussed, the inclusion of the citations was even a mistake, because they all state that the writing requirement is intended to fulfill the ABA requirement that students demonstrate professional legal skills in writing.

Therefore, the edits I proposed to the article are not only acceptable, but also demonstrate good housekeeping. That is, my edits were extremely constructive ;) 173.51.131.223 (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Gentlepersons: [acting as an officious page lurker intermeddler] I suggest that you both take this to the article talk page, as it involves a lot more than the two of you. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
As to whether scholarly content is required, I thank you for your erudite reply on my Talk page.
Others should read this so I shall copy it to Talk:Juris Doctor now –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 22:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) 173.51.131.223 (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

My request - made in an edit summary - to explain the rationale was targeted specifically at the word "therefore" in the sentence, "The program of study for the degree has remained substantially unchanged since its creation, and is an intensive study of the substantive law and its professional applications (and therefore requires no thesis...)." I wanted to know WHY it follows that since the JD program is "an intensive study of the substantive law and its professional applications" it "therefore" requires no thesis. I don't see that that follows at all. The decision to require a thesis is made on a school-by-school basis, influenced, I agree, by the requirements of ABA and other accrediting bodies. Perhaps a {{cn}] tag was inappropriate, but I do think the logical step of "since x then y" should be expanded. Or the sentence recast differently.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 21:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The professional application of law is a topic of a professional degree, not a research degree. A thesis or dissertation requiring original research is not required for the traditional JD degree because it is a professional degree. The ABA writing requirement is not a thesis, but merely a paper which demonstrates professional legal skills in writing. 204.126.64.99 (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps you can find a verifiable third party source which says that and edit the article.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 15:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The citations regarding the ABA writing requirement make it clear that the writing requirement is for the purpose of demonstrating professional skill and does not require any academic research. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Concur with Zoticogrillo on this one. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Note regarding JD/PhD equivalence

An unregistered editor has persistently deleted the section of the article addressing the equivalence of the JD to the PhD. Please note that this issue has been extensively discussed here (check the archives linked at the top of this Talk page). I'm sure that we're willing to reopen the discussion, especially if there is something new to add. But ignoring the discussion and other editors by simply deleting the section - over and over again - isn't acceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if there is some validity in the anon's complaint that the cited NSF system "is not an order system as you are implying"? I don't really see the implication, though, beyond the rather obvious point that a JD is not equivalent to a PhD, which seems to be exactly what the sources say. -- Visviva (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

ERC

The reference to the European Research Council is completely irrelevant. The ERC document specifically discusses their criteria for assigning grants; the ERC performs scientific research and has no connection whatsoever to law. Therefore, it is irrelevant to the JD article. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It expands on the preceding sentence which is about the U.S. and provides a more global perspective by simply stating that the policy is similar in Europe. I think it should remain. Also, your description of the work of the European Research Council is inaccurate. They are not science-only. Law would qualify under ERC Domain SH. JJL (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

copied from help desk

The following is copied from a section at Wikipedia:Help desk. I make no claims regarding its accuracy or value.

This item is loaded with factual errors. For starters, Harvard did not award such a degree until the second half of the 20th century. Until then the standard degree was the LL.B., a term of English origins. The first JD was awarded at the University of Chicago in the 1890s.
The history of legal education is quite misleading. George Wythe at William and Mary retired the trophy for law teaching. Among his students were Jefferson, Marshall, Clay, and Monroe.
The most important law school pre-civil was Transylvania. Its faculty were in 1908 recognized as among the most important lawyers of the 19th century. Its students as Senators worked out the 1850 Compromise that saved the Union.
The JD became the standard degree for the purpose of promoting rookie military lawyers from 2d Lt to First Lt. because medical doctors were entering the service as captains.
Langdell did invent the three-year curriculum and the Socratic method. Many of his students quit after two years.
There are numerous other problems with the essay. I do not have the time or energy to correct them all. It should simply be deleted.
Paul D. Carrington

Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

ALSO

Somebody please correct this sentence: "Professionals who pass the required bar examination are known as lawyers or attorneys, and they are designated by the suffix esquire (Esq.) or J.D.". The bit about 'Esq' is wrong and only remotely close in the USA - see the linked page about Esq for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.234.45 (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


Singapore: JD at the Singapore Management University (SMU)

Under "Modern variants and curriculum", the table erroneously states that J.D. is sufficient education for license in Singapore. This is incorrect. The J.D. from the Singapore Management University (SMU) merely makes the graduate a "qualified person" under s.5A(2) of the Legal Profession (Qualified Persons) Rules. A "qualified person" is entitled to attend the preparatory course leading to Part B of the Singapore Bar Examinations, the satisfactory completion of which is necessary for admission as an Advocate and Solicitor (i.e. license to practice). Being a "qualified person" alone does not mean one is licensed to practice.

This misreading of the Rules is similarly reflected in (4.2 Descriptions of the J.D. outside the U.S.) --> (4.2.6 Singapore). Please allow for edits to correct inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.168.101 (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The above has been noted and corrections have been made. AurekBesh (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"[...] they are primarily concerned with ensuring that laws are upheld and followed in a variety of circumstances"

IMHO this is nonsense. In particular as attorneys, JDs primarily defend their clients, using the legal system, even if they are crminals or accused of other improper behavior. Law enforcement is the task of the judiciary, not of individuals who happen to have an education in law. Rbakels (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


I suggest that the confusing chart comparing J.D. degrees among several countries be eliminated or reworked. First, it lacks useful support. The footnote supporting it simply refers vaguely to subsequent paragraphs which do not support the chart. Second, it seems odd to say that the U.S. J.D. does not contain "scholarly" material. This is odd because the major criticism of U.S. J.D.'s is that they are too academic and insufficiently practical. Many J.D. students are members of academic journals that have an explicit scholarly component and require students to produce original scholarly work. So, the factual accuracy of this chart is suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D5D:E7D0:C1B:C686:7A3E:785A (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Juris Doctor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Rules on bar admission -- US Federal District Courts

I haven't looked at this article in ages.

The article incorrectly stated that to be admitted to the bar of a U.S. Federal district court, a person had to be admitted to the bar of the state in which the Federal district court is located. That is blatantly false. For example, for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas:

ELIGIBILITY FOR ADMISSION: A lawyer applying for admission to the bar of this court must be licensed to practice law by the licensing authority of one of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, or a territory of the United States, and if licensed by a licensing authority other than the State of Texas, then an attorney must also be a member in good standing of a United States district court. The attorney shall file an application on a form prescribed by the court, accompanied by payment of the fee set by order of the court. Local Rule 83.1.A,C, S.D. Texas.

---from [12]. Famspear (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

PS: Here is the erroneous language as it was found in the article before I corrected it:

"All federal district courts require as condition of admission to their bars that one have previously been admitted to the bar of the state in which the federal court is located...."

Some Federal district courts apparently do have that rule. Obviously that's not the rule in the Southern District of Texas. Famspear (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Another Federal district court that does not require that attorneys be members of the bar in which the court is located is the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado:

Attorneys seeking to practice before the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado must become members of the bar by completing an Application for Admission to the Bar of the Court (“Application”). The Court does not accept pro hac vice applications. Eligibility is limited to persons licensed by the highest court of a state, federal territory or the District of Columbia, who are on active status, and in good standing in all courts and jurisdictions where admitted. There are no yearly dues or continuing legal education requirements, and an attorney’s membership is valid unless and until terminated by the Court. An attorney need not be a member of the Colorado bar or associated with local counsel to practice here.

---from [13]. Famspear (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's another example: the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois:

Any attorney licensed to practice law in any state of the United States or the District of Columbia shall be admitted to practice generally in this Court upon payment of a $200.00 fee as required by law....

--from Rule 83.1, General Admission of Attorneys, Local Rules, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, at [14]. Famspear (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The nonsense was added by an anonymous editor on February 23, 2016, here: [15]. Famspear (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Juris Doctor. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Juris Doctor. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Juris Doctor. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Juris Doctor. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Juris Doctorem

User Law School Prof has added Juris Doctorem as an alternative name for the J.D., with the claim in the edit summary that this is used at Georgetown University. A Google site search on georgetown.edu for the text "juris doctorem" returns no results, while there is plenty of material there using "Juris Doctor". It should also be noted that Juris Doctorem is the Latin accusative of Juris Doctor, which is therefore used on some degree parchments - this is not a separate title from Juris Doctor, merely the form Juris Doctor takes when it is the subject of a sentence in Latin. I suspect this is the cause of Law School Prof's confusion. My revert on this edit was re-reverted without explanation; to avoid edit-warring I have therefore tagged it as needing a citation and opened this discussion. Robminchin (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I added Juris Doctorem as that is what is actually listed on the diploma. I contacted the Georgetown University Law School Registrar, the office responsible for diplomas, and they confirmed by email that both Juris Doctor and Juris Doctorem are appropriate designations for the Georgetown degree--one in Latin and the other it's English translation. I'm not sure how to cite to an email, but I am willing to scan into a PDF file. Any suggestions? Thank you. Law School Prof (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Juris Doctorem is listed on the diploma because the diploma uses the accusative form of Juris Doctor. It's not an alternative name, just a different declension of the same name, just like you'll see Julium Caesarem (or Iulium) in Latin texts instead of Julius Caesar (or Iulius) where the accusative is used. See wiktionary:doctor#Latin and wiktionary:doctorem#Latin.
The guidelines for sources are at WP:SOURCES and WP:RELIABLE. A source has to be published, and generally self-published sources are not considered reliable (with certain exceptions). To be a properly reliable source, they would probably have to place a statement about the degree name on their website.
What would you think of the following as a compromise text that mentions the use of Juris Doctorem?

In the United States, the professional doctorate in law may be conferred in Latin or English as Juris Doctor (sometimes shown on Latin diplomas in the accusative form Juris Doctorem) and at some law schools Doctor of Law (J.D. or JD), Doctor of Jurisprudence, (also abbreviated JD or J.D.).

Robminchin (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense, especially given the confusion amongst law school graduates. A google search for Juris Doctorem finds many graduates who list their degree with that designation, so this explanation will help clear up the issue.Law School Prof (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Great. I've changed the article to this. Robminchin (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Juris Doctor. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

"Executive Juris Doctor"

So Buzzfeed (which despite the stupid name is now a legit and reasonably reliable news organ) has this article about something called the Executive Juris Doctor degree

I don't know if it's important enough to include in this already dense and long article, so I didn't, but on the other hand probably some none-zero number of people are going to search on "Executive Juris Doctor" which is a redirect to "Juris Doctor#Executive Juris Doctor", which section doesn't exist, so they are just dumped at the top of this article, which contains no info at on Executive Juris Doctor.

So maybe we ought to ad a section something like this, probably in the "Types and characteristics" subsection:

====Executive Juris Doctor====

Some for-profit schools in the United States offer a legal education program resulting in an Executive Juris Doctor (EJD) degree. Despite the similarity in name to Juris Doctor (which is sometimes the source of confusion), this degree is not generally recognized in the legal profession and is not sufficient in any state to take a bar exam or practice law.

with Buzzfeed as the source. I don't know, what do you all think? Herostratus (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Having skimmed the long Buzzfeed article, I have to say this looks like a scam. NRPanikker (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Are there other sources discussing this phenomenon? If this is only described in one source and only offered at a few institutions then it doesn't seem like something we should mention at all. ElKevbo (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me after reading the article that the EJD is a different degree from the JD so should not be included here and should not redirect here. If it had its own page, then possibly a template:about link would be appropriate Robminchin (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah it is kind of a scam I guess, at least Buzzfeed thinks so. I'm a little reluctant to write that in the article tho because that's just one source, also I'm sure it works for some people, say you want to be a talent manager or business executive and want extensive legal knowledge without needing to practice law. As to a separeate article, maybe that's best, but I don't think there's enough for a stand-alone article, at least not yet. Herostratus (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Apparently there was some minor content in the article here about the EJD in the 2009-2010 time frame, but it was deleted in January 2011. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juris_Doctor/Archive_10&oldid=1217242177"