Talk:Juris Doctor/Archive 5

Result of Mediation and Moving Forward
Four editors who have been discussing major changes to this article are completing a mediation (see ). The mediation has concluded with three of the four seeking change and the fourth not. Typically, this should be adequate for instituting the change, but given the magnitude of the changes, I'm going to put the proposal up for one last round of comments.

The issue, in brief, is (1) there are reliable citations indicating that the JD is a doctoral degree; (2) there are reliable citations indicating that the JD is not a doctoral degree. To preserve NPOV, all arguments that the JD is and is not a doctorate are removed save in a single section. In that single section, both sides of the argument are presented in bulleted form.

You can see the new version | here.

A request: Please refrain from falling back into arguments as to whether the JD is or is not a doctorate -- all of that is already very well documented. The question under consideration is whether the presence of well-documented arguments on both sides requires a change like the one I propose.

Wikiant (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the mediation has not closed yet. I think we should hold off on a discussion like this until it has. JJL (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * agreed that we should wait until mediation and or other avenues are exhausted. And saying there are citations that say that theJD is not a doctorate is incorrect.  There are only citations that say two institutions in Austalia don't award it as a doctorate. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't rush things. There shouln't be made any major changes unless the mediation is closed, be it successfully or not.Fred Plotz (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the new version referenced by Wikiant acceptable. Please note however that similar changes must be made to several other Wikipedia articles where the American J.D. is unequivocally referred to as a "professional doctorate". 161.24.19.112 (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of those edits were made as the disagreements here were propagated to other articles, unfortunately. JJL (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am strongly in favor of the new version of the article. Even if this version is not published I will always go to that link for information about the J.D. Dumaka (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the debate headings in the new article. They are stating the positions that the J.D. is equivalent or is not equivalent to a doctorate.  I think a better description of the debate here is whether the J.D. *is* a doctorate or not a doctorate, as opposed to whether it is equivalent to a doctorate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.196.168 (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What is taking so long with this mediation? Dumaka (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We appear to have agreement on four guiding principles for the article. There is also a proposed revision. We're waiting for one of the parties to respond. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Juris_Doctor and scroll down to the end of the conversation. Wikiant (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Dumaka (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion has restarted at the mediation page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Juris Doctor. JJL (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Major Changes
For at least three years now, there has been significant disagreement on this page as to the academic status of the J.D. degree. That disagreement has resulted in significant instability in the article. Following lengthy discussion among editors (see this mediation), we appear to have achieved consensus on a major revision to the page and the adoption of three principles that will help to avoid future instability. Those principles are:

1. The JD in the U.S. will only and everywhere be referred to as a "professional doctorate" with no other modifiers or qualifications. The lead will state that the JD is not a professional doctorate in certain foreign juristictions.

2. Indirect references to the JD being or not being a doctorate will be avoided as will passages that, regardless of their intended purpose, have the de facto effect of advancing arguments for or against the JD's status vis-a-vis a doctoral degree.

3. All evidence for and against the JD's academic status will appear in a "debate" section. This section will be kept as short as possible so as to present the most important pros and cons, and to avoid a preponderance of any side as far as the amount of text is concerned. The section will only present the arguments of each side, and not argue against other points.

It is WP policy that editors not bind the editorial hands of future editors. Therefore, these points serve merely as suggestions to future editors for avoiding major instabilities. Wikiant (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

6-16 edits to debate section
The claim is being made that more than one dictionary defines a doctorate as the highest degree in a field, but I have found only one, and no citations other than that one have been offered. More citatations need to be added to support the claim. Some have written content that is over-expansive saying that "Non-U.S. institutions" say that the J.D. is not a doctorate, but have only provided citations to three institutions from two countries (one of which was added by myself). The citations do not support the proposed content. The proposed content for the third point against the J.D. being a doctorate is in gross error. Austin Peay State is a small school in Tennessee without a law school, NOT a law school in Australia. The statement made was by a single individual in that institution, and not by the institution itself. The statement is also brief and in minutes to a meeting and is not a formal statement in a document intended for the public. The commercial website is NOT an online law school, but is merely an informational website on the topic of online schools. Please read the citations--it's not like you have to go down to the library to find them--just hit the links! Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Titles edits
I am re-introducing useful content to the titles section that fully complies with wiki-policies. I am also in the process of editing the content in a way that addresses some of the issues raised in recent mediation. Comments are welcome. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

To try and avoid protests, I've decided to move discussion of the use of the title of Dr. by JD holders to the debate section. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of detailed information about the use of the title of Dr. by JD holders which I believe contributes to the article in an informative way, and which I believe does not violate any wiki policy, thus contributing to the wikipedia mission. However there are concerns by some editors that the information might be seen to further a POV (I don't know if that is the only objection and don't want to "straw man" the argument). I moved the information to the debate section, but I believe some editors are concerned that this contributes to a POV that the JD is a Dr., and that the volume of text supporting that alleged POV overshadows the text supporting the view that the JD is not a Dr. But I believe that the information adds no bias, that it is valuable to the article, and that placing it in the debate section is an acceptable compromise. It appears that some editors want the text removed entirely, and I am not sure how to resolve the issue. I hope that those editors will add their thoughts here. Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest we roll back the article to its mediation-produced version and then discuss edits here first, then add them when consensus has been achieved. I think we're at that stage of WP:BRD. Please propose your changes here and wait until consensus has been reached before enacting them. JJL (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Given that we had consensus up until a few days ago and that all the edits since then have been disputed by at least one editor, I'm going to go ahead and roll back now. Wikiant (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion accompanied all edits made by me. Check the history. No editor has addressed any of the points made, but the edits were un-done anyways demanding discussion first. Consensus before changes is not wiki policy under normal circumstances, and no editor has changed that. No wiki policy justifies such an additional requirement. Silence is consensus, anyways, so I'm not sure what you think you are accomplishing by requiring discussion first, and then refusing to engage in discussion to try and block any additional content. You guys (or gals) are morons who will have to deal with innumerable editors in the future making the changs you protest. Have fun. Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Every time you say something like this (it's not ok for you to call us morons, by the way, and I for one would appreciate an apology) I'm less inclined to listen seriously to anything you say. I got drawn into this dispute not because I have any particularly strong views or any expert knowledge about the points under discussion (indeed, for what it's worth, you've changed my mind on a couple of issues) but through a desire to see some sort of consensus attained by civilised discussion.  If you want to throw your toys out of the pram and turn your back on the discussion then that's your choice, but personally I think that would be a shame - clearly you're very knowledgeable about this topic and have studied it deeply, and if you're willing to discuss it all in a civilised manner (without insulting or blaming people who happen to disagree with you) then we'll end up with a well-written, correct and informative article.  You say that "silence is consensus" - it was precisely your long silence in the mediation process that led us to assume (reasonably, to my mind) that we'd reached a mutually acceptable compromise on what the article should look like. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm reluctantly responding, but it's not to apologize. Your characterization of my behavior as immature is accurate.  But my description of the events is accurate--every edit I have made to the article this month, no matter it be grammar or content related, has been un-done with no real justification given.  What has frustrated me the most over the past year with this process is not the actual content, but the lack of regard for logic and wiki policies on the part of those that oppose clearly cited and well-supported content.  I have already made substantial contributions to this article, and if those contributions have any value at all, then they will be added to and defended by objective and clear minded editors--such as yourself, the only editor other than me that has actually read the stupid citations.  Unfortunately, most of the educated and competent people in this world have things better to do with their time than engage in editing wars on wikipedia, so the morons outnumber us. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What's more, consensus can change, sometimes our real life takes priority over this medium, and even if I were acting in bad faith, mediation is non-binding. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving Forward
The article is now set to the version on which we had consensus. In the interest of keeping the article as stable as possible and to avoid a repeat of the edit wars, please discuss proposed changes and achieve consensus *before* making the changes. Wikiant (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Should another pro-doctorate bullet point be added to maintain the veneer of fairness in the debate section? There are now 3 for, 4 against. JJL (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop pretending like you haven't stopped me from adding another point already. Not in addition to the 3 that are there, but in place of the one horrible one which has been dictated must remain. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I haven't really been following the details very closely for the last few weeks. What was the point you added that got deleted? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

edit blocking
Some users have undone every single edit completed since early June, no matter who submits the edits, or whether the edits are content-based or simply a correction of formatting or grammar. This has essentially enacted an editing lock on this article. The justification given is that there was a consensus reached in early June on the content of the article, and that no further edits can be made. JJL has also requested discussion on some of the edits in the summary when he has un-done edits, but discussion on those changes was added, and that user has not engaged in discussing those topics, and continues to un-do edits.

I have a life, which includes things other than toying with you monkeys. Have fun with your life! Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you ok? Maybe you should take a break, it seems as though this is starting to get to you. Dumaka (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Zoticogrillo is frustrated that he can't get anything done on Wikipedia because he doesn't understand how to work within the boundaries of Wikipedia's policies. I've had my share of frustration with those policies over the years but eventually I got used to it, and I've been able to produce articles that have become remarkably stable, like Roger J. Traynor.
 * Right now Zoticogrillo and I are in a standoff over Lawyer (see Talk:Lawyer) which I will have to take to arbitration when I have the time. The main problem we have is that he doesn't understand the difference between original research and secondary research, which is not that hard.  It's like the difference between hearsay and double hearsay.  Plus he doesn't seem to have the ability to go to a library and look up real sources (or at least pull them from Google Books), which I have done a lot for Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clearing that up for everyone, Coolcaesar. I don't know what I would do without you, since I can't speak for myself.  Yes, I am dumb and lazy... and you are awesome, as you continually remind us.  Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I finally brought myself to to view the article again after several years. It is better. But I strongly object to the final paragraphs, where there are arguments supposedly presented as to whether the JD is a doctorate. First, the reference to Bond university ... does not support the statement that that foreign institution does not recognize the JD. Also, whilst there is an SJD, it is viewed as a failure, mainly taken by foreign students, and there are very few of them granted (under 30 a year). Whereas there are many presidents of universities with JD degrees. So unless presidents of universities are fakers or don't have the academic credentials, there really is no debate. Not in any fair view. A JD is a doctoral degree. Think about what is being advanced: a doctoral degree is not a doctoral degree. All those law schools with those law deans, none of whom have doctorates? What a fraud that would be! I would n't write at all, but the worth of the article is wrecked by this weird ending. Where is there an academic debate? Where is there debate but here, with people who erase anything to the contrary (and yes I had many things immediately erased, which were backed up by research). Lawman15 (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Terminal degrees aren't always doctoral degrees; e.g., the M.F.A. and M.Arch. (and in both of these areas there's now a push for a higher degree), and until relatively recently, the M.S.W. and M.P.T. The Doctor of Chiropractic degree has often been viewed as more M.S.-level too, as was the previous incarnation of the PharmD. It's not quite as simple as it seems. Why don't lawyers enter the armed services as O-3's (like physicians, dentists, PhDs) rather than O-2's? There are two sides to this matter, and the article presents them--in a version that came out of formal mediation, because it is contentious. If the presentation can be improved, please suggest something here in that regard. JJL (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ... as if his "suggestion" would even be respected... Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Bond cite must have changed (I saw the original and it did support what is stated). I'm removing the Bond footnote for the time being. Wikiant (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just in case you forgot to try the internet archive... citing to the archived pages is acceptable by wiki policies. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Lawman15..the fact that you and others are trying to convince us that that JD is a doctorate degree is a sign that the JD degree has something wonky about it. I do not see any other sites or pages debating about the doctoral level legitimacy of the PhD, DBA, DM and even the SJD ?. If you put lipstick on a pig it is still a pig. They can call the JD anything they want and people will still not consider it a doctorate or call the holders on JD doctors. If you hold a JD and you think that I am joking.. go ahead and put Dr. in front of your name and see how fast people laugh at you. 12.09, July 10 (EST) Viscount —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.228.210 (talk)


 * Speaking as a veteran of the "debate" (I've decided to withdraw from it here), it appears that the main reasons why there is a so-called debate is 1) misunderstanding of individuals living outside of the U.S., where the JD is either completely foreign or novel and 2) many law graduates outside of the U.S. are frustrated that their law degree is a bachelor's while their peers in the U.S. are awarded (after the requisite work) a higher degree. There appear to be other reasons why some individuals have decided to weigh in heavily (such as concern about the degree being confused with the holy and infallible Ph.D.), but their reasons are usually personal.
 * I believe that Lawman15's comments are representative of the thoughts and feelings of many U.S. J.D. recipients. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that the American J.D is not considered a "higher degree" anywhere in the world, there is no reason for foreign law graduates to be "frustrated" as Zoticogrillo claims they are. In fact, as we have shown several times throughout this debate, universities in the UK and, incidentally, in the US as well, consider the American J.D. and a foreign LL.B as equivalent qualifications for the purpose of admission for example into a course of study leading to true postgraduate degrees in Law, e.g. LL.M, S.J.D, or Ph.D.


 * The truth is the only reason why there is still a debate here is that some American law graduates (students ?) like Zotocogrillo insist on claiming that the JD is a doctorate (hence, of "higher" academic standing than an LL.B), when that is clearly not the case. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oddly, on this point I have to find myself agreeing somewhat with Zoticogrillo and Lawman15. There is definitely an inferiority complex among foreign lawyers who are obviously aware that the quality of the curriculum leading up to the LL.B. in most countries is inferior to the highly specialized Juris Doctor curriculum.  A few law-related lectures, taught by third-rate lawyers assigning poor-quality textbooks to immature 19-year-old undergraduates who are also taking a general bachelor's degree curriculum cannot compare to the tightly focused first-year American law school experience, where nearly every class is a Socratic pressure cooker, every class is about some aspect of the law, the majority of one's classmates are age 25 and up, and the assigned reading consists of carefully edited casebooks assembled by some of the smartest legal minds on the planet.  The U.S. is unique in being one of the few countries where law professors actually make enough money to do it full-time and can go directly to high-level judicial positions if they're really good.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel I should note that UK bachelor degrees (including the LLB) aren't like the US ones where you study a general curriculum for the first year or two and then specialise ("major") in one or two chosen subjects. In the UK, you start studying your chosen subject, usually exclusively, right from day one.  Some programmes might allow the student some leeway to take relevant optional modules from other departments (so for example mathematics students might be allowed to take, say, a fluid dynamics module taught by the physics department, or a mathematical economics module taught by the economics department) but in general you go to university at 18 to study a specific subject, and that's what you do for three or four years.  The list of modules on the University of Warwick LLB course, for example, can be found here, Oxford's here and Cambridge's here.  I don't know how that compares with a typical US JD syllabus, but it's certainly not just a general bachelor degree curriculum with a few introductory law modules as you seem to be claiming.  I've also never heard any of my lawyer friends grumbling that they should have a doctoral degree, so I'm not convinced by your claim of inferiority complexes either. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement that the American JD is not considered a doctorate anywhere in the world is, frankly, preposterous. It is even more preposterous given that Japan and now Korea have gone the JD route. I suppose one could argue that it is somewhat like a British LLB in that both are necessary to the practice of law in the respective jurisdictions, and that in both cases one would 'get' them first. Thus a person with an LLB and a person with a JD both have only one law degree. This is true. But the JD is a doctorate. In regards to academia, how can a question arise as to its being a doctorate? Besides the law schools, there are plenty of university presidents whose sole doctorate is the JD. Can a JD NOT receive tenure? Can a JD NOT be a university president? A JD has a JD. It is a doctorate. It is not a PhD, which is also a doctorate. It is also not an MD, which is also a doctorate. A JD is not a research degree; it is not earned in the same manner as a PhD. So? They are all doctorates of various types. Additionally, whilst I have still not seen any statements in non-American sources making what nevertheless is the absurd claim that an American juris doctor degree is not a doctorate, I wonder if it matters; that is, I wonder if it would be on point. There is no JD in England. Ok. Perhaps they would not wish to establish such a degree. Until recently, there was none in Korea, either. Some in those countries might not wish to have a JD program there. Perhaps they have something against all professional doctorates. OK. So what? Doesn't mean there aren't any--in the United States. In regard to the cite to RMIT university, one must bear in mind that it appears they are speaking of their opinion of what the effect would be in Australia. What they are basing their conclusion on beats me, however. There does not seem to be a law stating that a JD holder in Australia cannot use the term 'doctor.' Nicholas Jackson, you are correct in your statements regarding the LLB not being, in essence, a BA. It is also not a JD; there are few possibilities to take any specialized courses there (such as ... international law, or international law of the sea, or suchlike).Lawman15 (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As a neutral observer who is familiar with the subject matter--there are citations in the article which address all of the issues raised in the last few posts, either directly or indirectly. I recommend them to you.  Please also see the archived discussions. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Lawman15: you are probably new to this discussion page, but if you look at the archived discussions, you will find abundant evidence that, from an academic point of view, bachelor's and JD degrees are considered equivalent for the purpose of admission to postgraduate programs in Law (LL.M or similar master's courses).


 * For example, the graduate admissions site at the London School of Economics states and I quote:


 * "General entry requirements (USA): BS, BA or JD with a GPA of 3.5" 


 * Moving to the other side of the Atlantic, the graduate admissions page at the Harvard Law School says and I quote:


 * "Eligibility requirements: To be considered for the LL.M. Program, an applicant must have a J.D. (Juris Doctor) from an accredited U.S. law school or a first law degree (J.D., LL.B. or the equivalent) from a foreign law school." 


 * Again, the only "preposterous" statement in this discussion is to pretend that the J.D is a doctoral qualification. In fact, if that were the case, it would be the only case I know of in the world where a doctor's degree (J.D) is required for admission into a master's program (e.g. LL.M) ! That is so patently absurd that it is shocking to see this kind of disinformation disseminated in several Wikipedia articles. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In this respect, law resembles dentistry, in which a D.D.S. or D.M.D is required for admission into a master's program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.118.226 (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor Change to "Evidence That a Juris Doctor is not a "Doctorate"
The article previously stated that and LL.M. is a prequisite to obtaining a SJD or JSD. This is not true. For example, see Columnia University School of Law - http://www.law.columbia.edu/llm_jsd/jsd, under the section LL.M. for J.S.D. candidates. See also Yale University Law School - http://www.law.yale.edu/academics/jsdrequirements.asp, which states that an LL.M. from Yale would satisfy their residency requirements, but it is not a "prerequisite." I do not think that my edit affects the strength of the argument at all (either for or against), but it does correct the previously inaccurate statement. I changed it to state that an LL.M. may be a prerequisite (although, I am not entirely sure that it is actually a prerequisite anywhere). Certainly a Juris Doctor is a prerequisite to getting a SJD or JSD - and thus the argument remains the same - stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.117.10 (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

what on earth happened
When I referenced this site about a year ago, I was impressed by the quality of the citations and it's fair and thorough dealing of the subject matter. But now it is full of biased language and lacks fundamental citations in the beginning sections. Many of the changes don't make any sense at all. It's sad to see how many arguments have occured over this topic, particularly over well cited content. I hope that more sound minded editors will clean this article up. How about just reverting to the article as it existed a year ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.244.30 (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits to academic debate section
Given the recent mediation, I'd certainly encourage those seeking to change that section to discuss such edits here first. JJL (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mediation failed. There was talk about arbitration. Zoticogrillo (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact the mediation was closed as Successful; see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Juris_Doctor. Please respect the consensus and discuss changes here first. JJL (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mediation is a voluntary process, and not a binding process like arbitration. I never agreed to the terms, and stated so with specificity.  Mediation is a process to try and bring the parties into voluntary consensus, which you failed to do.  Therefore, mediation failed.  Arbitration is required for the kind of binding decision you are hoping for, and are trying to enforce, and I again suggest that you initiate that process.

The changes made have already been discussed on this talk page, and that of the mediation page, and you participated fully in those discussions. Feel free to comment on them here if you like. I suppose that I could merely remind you that the core of my position is that the content meets all of the wiki criteria for inclusion, particularly since the content is well-cited and valuable to enriching the usefulness of the article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, your content fails to meet at least one important criterion: WP:CONSENSUS. That's what you seem unable or unwilling to accept--that you do not WP:OWN the article. See also WP:TRUTH. JJL (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * After a trial, I saw with what kind of article you were comfortable, and per an editor's indirect invitation, I rejoined editing this article to clean it up and make sure that withstood the tests of logic. True, tyranny of the majority is one of the wiki policies, but if it leads to incomprehensible and illogical content, I'm of the position that logic should prevail. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Disingenous use of cites
Zoticogrillo, in the set of arguments "for" the JD as a doctoral level degree, you cite only four universities for which the President holds a JD. But in the text you use the word, "typically." Unto itself, this is a bit of a stretch but perhaps a lot of editors would let it slide (as would I in most cases). Where it becomes disingenuous is when one notes that, in the set of arguments "against" the JD as a doctoral level degree, you repeatedly edited the sentence, "Some academic institutions have stated..." to read, "An Australian institution stated..." The point of your edit was to diminish the strength of the argument by emphasizing that there was only one cite. Now, while it is a stretch to use "typically" to describe only four institutions, it is quite correct to use "some" to describe one institution. Yet, you insist on the former and refuse the latter. This is a prime and clear example of why you have caused such contention on this page. Wikiant (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between the fact that universities DO typically require a PhD or other terminal degree for their presidents and a single cite to a foreign university regarding what was up until recently, an American degree. To pretend otherwise to to use logical fallacy to cloud the issue. I would conclude that YOU, Wikiant, are the one clouding this particular issue here. Find me a SINGLE instance where a reputable university seeking a president (or differently titled but similar position) has sought a candidate without requiring a PhD, terminal or equivalent degree, and I will accept your argument. Otherwise, let the term "typically" stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.4.94 (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, the article says, "...university presidents--a position that typically requires a Ph.D...." The person making the claim (that's you) needs to find a citation backing up the claim. The citation given is footnote 146. But, footnote 146 lists 4 universities. So, "some" or "at least four" is supported by the cite, but "typically" is not. Please remember that the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, not the one refuting the claim. Wikiant (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you accept another wording that doesn't just point to the four cites? Your edit warring with zoticogrillo is what is tiring, and it is clear that you are interjecting a POV here. It is well known in academic circles what is expected of university presidents, and I am aware of Wikipedia's policy on refuting a claim. Nonetheless, my challenge stands because I believe you can't find a single instance. How many job postings for university presidents will you require to accept that it is expected they have a PhD, terminal degree, or equivalent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.4.94 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The anonymous editor echos my thoughts so closely and clearly that I'm wondering whether I have an alternate personality of which I am not aware! I'm sure you've already checked to see whether or not I'm ghosting ;)  I might have :)


 * Please don't use terms such as "disingenuous." There are more neutral terms which convey your meaning just as effectively, but without the emotional baiting.  Perhaps such behavior is why your recent critics have chosen to remain anonymous? Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I am the author of 99% of the article content, and not just a casual critic, perhaps I can provide insight. I have found it impossible to find any other job ads or descriptions of the position whatsoever.  I'm sure, since it is in the interest of upholding your POV, that you have looked and are aware of this fact.  It's not like institutions just post job ads for a position such as a university president in the newspaper, craigslist, or monster.com, for goodness sakes, so it should be no surprise.  So not only do we have a preponderance of the evidence, but in fact ALL of the available citations on the internet state that a Ph.D. or comparable degree is required.  And therefore also there are no citations which evidence your POV.
 * On the other hand, there are numerable citations from diverse sources, some of them of the highest quality desirable, which state in very clear terms that the J.D. is a doctorate and that holders may use the title of doctor.
 * And that is the difference.
 * We have been fighting over content for more than a year, and you have often accused me of dishonesty, but you have never found a clear instance in which I have misquoted a citation, or provided a false citation. One other editor (who usually agress with you) has checked the text citations not available on the internet and has found them to be sound.  Considering that there are more than fifty (I think) sources cited in this article, all from very reliable sources, I believe I have established my integrity.  Behavior such as calling me "disingenuous" (which has happened a number of times) is therefore a clear use of fallacious argumentation, namely Ad hominem and Appeal to emotion (spite) or judgmental language.  Again, I appeal to you: Let your evidence do the talking. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I might be the other editor that you refer to. To clarify, I tracked down and read some of one of the books you cited; it was pretty interesting and from what I remember it did seem to support the points you cited it in relation to.  I don't recall that I usually agreed with Wikiant (I'm sure there were occasions when I agreed with you instead) but you may be correct.  Certainly, I'm now satisfied that the JD is one of a class of non-research-based professional doctoral degrees which exist in the US (but not in all other countries - the UK has no corresponding class of degrees, all doctorates now being research-based).  On the other hand, it does seem that there is still something of a debate on this point (whether or not any of us may consider that debate to be a sensible one) and that where possible the contentious points should probably be restricted to a single section, rather than being allowed to sprawl throughout the rest of the article.  That seemed a reasonable suggestion, and I really don't understand what your problem was with it.
 * Anyway, please will you try to discuss all this in a less aggressive manner? It makes it really difficult to take your arguments seriously. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to do this piecemeal. My real life interferes (as it should). :)
 * My point about the citations about the J.D. being a doctorate, etc. was that the statement by the Australian university is truly exceptional (and bewildering, given that the degree is a juris DOCTOR).
 * And I've remembered that the word "typical" was originally inserted by another editor after the text originally appeared more than a year ago, and remained as a compromise. The original text did not have the word "typical" at all.  If we are to stick to the strictness of "verifiability" the claim could even be supported that it should be removed, since it appears from the available sources that there are no universities which allow presidents without a doctorate (Ph.D. or comparable).  But I'm fine with word "typical."  I'm certainly not going to fight over every scintilla. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if the word is "typical" either, but I find the reference to only the four universities cited to be "disingenuous." [Yes, I am making light here] Particularly in light of the four additional examples of universities that have/have had a JD as a president (four of the most notable schools in the world, no less). If Wikiant could even find one reputable (oh boy, I see where the debate will be on this one...) university with a president with a Masters degree, I might consider the edit reasonable. But I'm quite confident there is no such president to be found.

Quite Confident you say :) Dwight D. Eisenhower became President of Columbia University and he only had a Bachelor Degree. Now please do not come back with some lame excuse that this does not count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.104.66 (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't say that doesn't count at all. In fact, I'd say it's a great exception. But I'd point out two things - one, it's from a time when a college education was less common (for that matter, the PhD degree didn't exist in North America until the latter half of the 19th century and wasn't common until well into the 20th), so your example is of little relevance today, and two, Eisenhower had already been chief of staff of the U.S. Army. He was clearly an exceptional individual, who would likely have received numerous honorary doctorates were he alive today. While I appreciate your sarcasm, I don't believe you've met my challenge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.4.94 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, so you asked for and received a single instance. Here are two contemporary examples: George Philip (SUNY Albany), Frank Brogan (Florida Atlantic University). Wikiant (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, George Philip has a JD, so that example doesn't demonstrate anything. And at the risk of being called an academic snob, I'm a little dubious that Florida Atlantic qualifies as a "reputable" university. But I'm tired of this debate, and just don't care that much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.4.94 (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources that are required to settle the debate are actual rules of the universities, job postings being of secondary but sufficient value. Good research Wikiant and anonymous--those are great finds. I researched the topic as thoroughly as I could, and assumed it was exhaustive. I bet there is a library book that can clarify this issue. Please don't let Nicholas and I remain the only editors competent of library research ;) Or a conversation with an university administrator might point us in the right direction for some resources.  Unfortunately, I do not anticipate being able to do either in the near future. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Wikiant's research found an example from such an obscure institution, can we now assume that the research is exhaustive, as far as the internet is concerned? I appears then that ALL university presidents have a doctorate (with only one present exception), and that the only university rules published on the internet on the topic ALL say that a Ph.D. or comparable is required, isn't that so? Then appears that until some exceptional source is located in the physical world, the matter has been temporarily settled. The on FAU exception can be worked in somehow, mentioning that it is unique and contradictory. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please tell me you're joking. Are you saying that, in your mind, this discussion went from: (1) 4 examples implies "typically", to (2) "show me one counter-example and I'll reconsider 'typically'", to (3) "because you only provided one example, 'typically' should be changed to 'all but one'"? Wikiant (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So you're saying my contributions are laughable? Thanks, friend.
 * No, you're characterizations are incorrect. I have not, as you have implied, vastly changed my position in contradiction of myself.  I stated that all the available sources (which should be university rules or job postings) state that a doctorate is required, therefore even allowing "typically" is charitable.  Then you found an exceptional example, which I believe should be mentioned in the article in a footnote.  The fact that you only found one example (besides the one historical example), makes using "typically" all the more charitable.  And the fact that the example you found is so obscure should make us feel secure that your research was thorough. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And I know that I have often used challenging language in the past regarding finding sources, as I have done above. I am sorry for taking that tone.  But it has been a successful way to inspire other editors to do their own research, as it was here as well.  In fact, it has often been the only way to get some editors to do research.  Sources are the only things that matter, regardless of how well we think we phrase our rhetoric.  Thanks again for your contribution. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. You keep moving the goal post. You asked for an example and I gave you an example and now you have come up with an excuse LOL. See... we can all stay here and argue until pigs grow wings and fly. The fact of the matter is a JD is not equivalent to a PhD. Now that is the gold standard for a doctorate. The rest :- so called professional doctorates are just PhD wannabes. You can put lipstick and a tu-tu on a pig and it is still a pig. The fact that we are here arguing about the academic status of the Juris Doctor tells me that something stinks about the JD degree. I do not see anyone arguing about the academic status of the doctor of education ? If I ever meet a JD that calls himself a Doctor I will laugh his silly *** off the earth LOL. Come on...grown men arguing over a degree like children. I am still in college and I am not that stupid. I am not surprised that the people arguing for the JD doctor status are lawyers LOL. I mean are you that insecure ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.104.66 (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the last poster for obvious reasons, I'd like to propose that we just say that a doctorate, terminal degree, or equivalent is a COMMON requirement for a university president? For the last poster - nice work on recently figuring out what LOL means. I don't recall anyone saying a professional doctorate was the same thing as a research doctorate. The insecurities are certainly obvious here; but for some reason, I'm guessing YOU don't really get it, do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.4.94 (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And for the strangely vitriolic college student - no, the PhD is not the "gold standard" for a doctorate - the higher doctorates awarded in Europe are actually above a PhD in academic standing. But maybe I shouldn't expect someone who doesn't even have a degree to know that? Point being, there is more than one kind of doctorate. Know your material, kid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.4.94 (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliance on the wiki policy of verifiability allows us to comfortably avoid such arguments. The J.D. is not a doctorate because we say it is--it is because numerable citations say it is. Once again, let the evidence do the talking.

But you neglected to explain your suggestion of using the term "common." Why "common" and not "typical?" Isn't the existence of only one or two exceptions out of hundreds of institutions quite... exceptional? Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's not jump on the "one or two exceptions" too hard just yet. The fact is, an editor asked for "one" exception. 206 found one. I spent 10 minutes and found another. I stopped looking after (what I thought was) two examples. That doesn't qualify as an exhaustive search. Wikiant (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have done what I in good faith believed to be an exhaustive search on the internet, and therefore believe that the exception you discovered is the only one. That shall remain the case until you do more research.  You can wait for me to get around to it, but until then the edit warring will probably continue, nor is it fair to expect me to do everything, is it?  My burden of evidence has been met until you PROVE otherwise. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in pursuing this further as the difference in the article isn't overly large (for the moment). For the record, however, your statement, "I have done...an exhaustive search..." makes your argument that there is "only one exception" WP:OR. Wikiant (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's common for a university president to have a doctorate, but I don't know that it's a common requirement--it's one of many things you'd expect to see in the top candidate for the job. Rose-Hulman is ranked #1 in its category by USN&WR and its (interim) pres. has a B.S. as his only degree. Hank Riggs was president of two of the prestigious Claremont Colleges--Harvey Mudd College and Keck Grad. Institute--and his only two doctorates are honorary ones from those schools . A doctorate is usually a desideratum for this job, not a requirement. Professional schools are different--it's rare that a non-physician would head an independent med. school--but even there someone with a U.K. bachelor's level medical degree would surely be given full consideration. JJL (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds credible, and the Riggs example is interesting, but where's the real money? We need Sources, not opinions!  So far we only have sources to university regulations which state that the president must have a doctorate.  The additional example is interesting and useful, thanks. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pleased to see that Wikiant and I agree on something for once, which is that Zoticogrillo doesn't understand WP:OR very well (which is a point that I plan to take to ArbCom re the Titles section in Lawyer when I get my current caseload under control). --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you guys are going to gang up on me, it would at least help if you could decide why exactly I'm so evil :) Coolcaesar is referring to this discussion. Zoticogrillo (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

LL.B. and Canada edits
An anonymous editor has substantially changed the meaning of the entire section of LL.B. as a replacement, and the section on Canada. No citations were given to justify the change, and in one instance (Reed, LL.B. as replacement, first paragraph) a citation was inserted that did not support the content at all. These will be corrected, and additional support will be added to those sections. It is possible that the anonymous editor did not intend to insert the erroneous citation in bad faith, but future edits by that user should be examined more closely because of it. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Zoticogrillo: I made this edit. I did so because I looked over the links provided in support of stating, e.g., that University of Toronto's program somehow has more in common with the U.S. J.D. than those of other Canadian institutions, and noticed that they provided no support for that statement. Tbe University of Toronto publication cited did not purport to offer U.S.-style program. Further, a review of the curricula at the University of Toronto Law School and the Osgoode Hall Law School reveals them to be substantively identical (excepting the availabiltiy of more upper-year "specialty" courses at Osgoode Hall). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

SJD = postdoc?!
"The Doctor of the Science of Law (JSD) is the Law School's most advanced law degree. It is designed for those interested in becoming scholars and teachers of law. Study toward this postdoctoral degree is open only to exceptionally well-qualified students who hold a JD or its equivalent."

sauce: http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/degrees/advanced/jsd/ 88.66.8.163 (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Council of Graduate Schools in the United States. (1966). The doctor's degree in professional fields. A statement by the Association of Graduate Schools and the Council of Graduate Schools in the United States. Washington D.C. p. 3. Quoted in Forni, P. (1989). "Models for Doctoral Programs." Nursing and Health Care. v. 10, n.8. p. 432.:


 * "The professional Doctor's degree should be the highest university award given in a particular field in recognition of completion of academic preparation for professional practice, whereas the Doctor of Philosophy should be given in recognition of preparation for research whether the particular field of learning is pure or applied." (emphasis added)


 * Earlier in Forni's article, on p. 431, she explains that there is a difference between professional tract degrees and research tract degrees, and reminds us in the context of the whole article that a terminal professional degree is a degree which is the highest professional degree in that field.


 * These sources are obviously of a more reliable nature than a mere phrase on a website created by a webmaster and not a scholar or academic institutional authority. And through those more reliable sources, we understand what the website content really means: the JSD is the highest research degree in law.  Particularly when the website reads that "[i]t is designed for those interested in becoming scholars and teachers of law."


 * Therefore, the J.S.D. could only be considered post-doc if it is a professional degree. There are no institutions which offer a J.S.D. as a professional degree (as it contradicts the clear purpose of the degree).  This is different than the M.D. and D.D.S. degrees in the United States, where there are masters degrees after the professional doctorate which are professional degrees, and which might be considered post-doc degrees.  However, the term "post-doc" would have to be applied loosely, as the term normally applies only to academic work after the Ph.D. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Zoticogrillo
Once again he has gone off on his own, including edit summaries for edits running counter to the discussion here being falsely described as "per discussion". Per Disruptive editing, is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents the next step? JJL (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Per discussion," I reverted the content back to "typically," since there were no other outstanding proposals (the editor who suggested "commonly" didn't explain his proposal and disappeared). However, JJL's changes were not proposed in the discussion at all.  Please see section above. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been too busy to look at the page for several days. I proposed the word "commonly" because it does not so strongly denote "most of the time," as the word "typically" does; however, it still conveys the fact that it is within the norm to consider a candidate with a JD along with other PhD candidates. I would have thought that my reasoning was self evident. Furthermore, I think that being pedantic and dancing around the issue that we all know (but may not like, depending on our point of view) the fact that professional doctorates have been accepted in the U.S., and the JD in particular has been accepted as a terminal professional degree (please don't argue about the LLM and JSD - the LLM is both an advanced academic degree and an aberration equivalent to a first year of a JD as a professional degree, depending upon what kind of law student one might be, and the JSD is purely academic). As a result, the JD degree has been accepted as sufficient to be president of some of the most prestigious universities in the world (albeit in the U.S.). This cannot be argued. I understand that there are professional schools (or predominantly professional schools) with professionals as president (Rose Hulman and Harvey Mudd would both fall into this category, but I find the presidency of Keck to be notable indeed, although the honorary doctorates imply an exceptional circumstance).

I don't care if it says typically, commonly, or something else. I just want the article to reflect reality. If commonly satisfies JLL and Wikiant, let that stand. Or let them propose alternate wording. It's the word games that editors seem to like to play causing a reader to infer an editor's POV that is frustrating to deal with, even though everyone pretends to be being neutral. It's enough to cause an editor not to bother at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.4.94 (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A bit of history of which you might not be aware: JJL and Wikiant don't believe that the J.D. is a doctorate at all, and it took more than a year for them to reluctantly agree to the term "professional doctorate" through extensive mediation. Were another editor to change the article to read that the J.D. is not a doctorate of any kind, they would happily let it stand.  This despite the plethura of evidence, which they would sweep under the carpet.  And the article is so obscure, that few editors have come to contribute to it one way or the other.  Therefore, while I agree that it is really petty and stupid, it's the only way to prevent the article from completely falling apart. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * An important point here is that most of us agree that both sides of the issue must be presented fairly and even-handedly in the usual WP way. JJL (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry about the personal comment. It was inappropriate, and after fair thought, I admit, untrue.  I guess that sometimes I find it hard to distance myself from something I've spent so much time on, which is my own issue.  Another lesson in my humanity... Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, although I think it's a ridiculous argument. But it seems to me that both sides are being polemic and digging in; I understand that you may feel it necessary to beat back ridiculous positions (like the edit that says "at least four universities"? - I mean really, can ANYONE consider that a serious, neutral edit?). On the other hand, I have read the discussion, and I can see at least some source for their frustration in certain instances. I am inclined to agree with your side of the debate in general, but not always in the detail. I am simply trying to bridge the gap. Furthermore, I am also trying to draw out their argument and both prove their POV pushing and disprove their position. That can't happen by digging in, but rather by editing, tweaking, and slowly demonstrating the unreasonable (and to be pointed - wrong) nature of their position. To the extent that they cannot agree to reasonable, neutral edits that address their "stated" concerns, their neutrality is impugned. On the other hand, if edits can be used to make everyone happy, then everyone wins, right?

That all having been said, it's entirely possible you've been through all of this, and are watching me wade into a riptide of edit warring. I assure you, I'll tire quickly if that's the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.4.94 (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

EJD
The EJD is a program introduced by two businesses with tenuous reputations for the purpose of marketing their product. The fact that one of them claims trademark rights (unregistered of course) to the acronym is a big tip off. Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad someone finally said it. Dumaka (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Concur. For once Zoticogrillo and I can finally agree on something.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that the JD is not a doctoral degree
Something about the cite to Austin Peay State University[note 156 at the time this was written] reference that the JD is not being a terminal degree always bothered me. It's simply a opinion stated by a person of unknown qualification in a meeting that was noted (for reasons unknown), and made it to the internet and is used as a cite on WP. Nevermind that it's some small state school with no reputation to speak of, and no law school. So I decided to take a closer look. I'd like to note that their new president (hired AFTER the meeting in question) has a JD as his highest degree and is referred to in the minutes of the meeting in which his hiring was decided as Doctor. See notes of the candidates considered here (most held a PhD, one DMA, one Ed.D and the one hired, a JD) http://www.apsu.edu/inneraction/releases/show_news.asp?id=3269. See the notes of the Tennessee Board of Regents Special Session dated May 17, 2007 for the reference to Dr. Timothy Hall (I can't find a way to link the document, so google "austin peay state university president search 2007" and it should come up as the third hit - a pdf file called MINUTES TENNESSEE BOARD OF REGENTS...) This would be a further example of "common" requirements and also destroy the credibility of the cite used to demonstrate that it's not a doctoral degree. I don't care to get involved in the edits involved here, but I thought it worth demonstrating that the cite was worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.4.94 (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, good research! I had already raised issue with this citation for some of the reasons you stated, but your research on the topic is insightful.  I'll think about what impact this might have on the content, and whether it should be worked in.  Thank you. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope my comments have not made other editors anxious. I haven't really thought about it too much yet, but it's probably not a "worthless" cite, as it is a demonstration of a issue that is raised regarding the degree.
 * One thing that might raise anxiety, however, is whether much of the content in that whole section should be removed or modified because it is OR. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of candidate replacements for the general idea here. A similar debate is related here. The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences' standards for academic programs, delineating expectations for faculty credentials for certified programs, says : "The J.D. is not a terminal degree." From the U. of Alabama's style guide : "People who hold the JD, or juris doctor, are not called         "Dr." Those who hold the terminal degree in that field—the          doctor of juridical science or JSD—are." (The same language appears at Samford U.'s style guide .) Here's the abstract of "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy: The JD/PhD Debate in Criminal Justice Education" (Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Volume   19, Issue  1  March 2008, pages 19 - 29 ): "There is an ongoing debate in criminal justice departments as to whether a person with a JD degree has the education necessary to be a full-time faculty member. Recently, several authors have argued that a JD should be sufficient and that a PhD should not be required. In this essay I argue otherwise. JD training is not equivalent to PhD training. PhD training provides a background in social science methods, statistical analysis, and theory that JD training does not. The discipline of criminal justice needs to assert control over its credential standards lest others do it for us." From the NIH grants site : "For most Commons account holders, the terminal research degree will be a doctoral degree such as a Ph.D., M.D., or an M.D./Ph.D. [...] normally it would not be appropriate to enter a non-research degree such as an M.B.A., M.F.A. or J.D." JJL (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. All much better cites; here's what I see: 1. Several instances that say a JD is not a terminal degree. 2. JDs are not listed as Doctor in university publications, that is reserved for JSD holders. 3. A JD is not a terminal research degree. Note the inherent contradiction within the statement itself - the MD is not a research degree, either (although I do understand that research may be undertaken in MD programs). I agree that the cites all support the idea that there is disagreement over the status of the degree. But I'd also point out that none of them actually say that the JD is not a doctorate, nor do they address the idea that there is (or isn't?) a difference between a terminal professional and terminal academic degree.

I'm beginning to wonder if Zoticogrillo's point about OR might be right on the money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.4.94 (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's disagreement about the matter; a web search turns up lots of discussions and questions on it. Wikipedia should document the fact of that disagreement and let readers make up their own minds. I agree that the situation is unresolved, leading to apparent contradictions as one tries to merge sources. That's why we present both sides. Given the university style guides, for example, I don't understand the WP:OR accusation. Isn't the disagreement well documented? JJL (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that there seems to be some confusion as to whether a JD degree is terminal, or how exactly it fits into the academic hierarchy. Nor do I see any debate that it is equivalent (what does that mean?) to a PhD - it's not the same thing and I would never personally call them equivalent. Everything I've seen up for debate in the cites has to do with whether or not the degree is terminal, or if the degree holder is to be addressed as Doctor. And even within the "Dr." question, it can be divided between entitlement and tradition. I haven't seen anything that says a doctorate degree is not a doctorate. Furthermore, using the logic that I've seen to argue that it is not a doctorate, despite having the word doctor in the title of the degree, would then bring numerous other professional doctorates into question. Then falling back on "tradition" to justify the Dr. title in the medical professions doesn't address whether or not those degrees are actually doctorates - it only explains why professional tradition dictates whether or not an individual is referred to doctor, rather than their academic achievements. I think if you told all of the MDs in the United States that they didn't have doctorate degrees, they would beg to differ. But I doubt they would argue that they didn't hold PhDs.

Which brings us to the point that there are different kinds of doctorates. Period. Debating equivalencies is ridiculous. There are many universities, right? And different kinds? Right? But they're (quality aside - a PhD from Harvard isn't necessarily the same as a PhD from Florida Atlantic University) all universities, right? A JD from Harvard isn't the same thing as a JD from Florida Coastal School of Law, either. To put it another way, Harvard and Amherst are not the same thing, either. But they're both impressive and worthy in their own right. How hard is this to understand?

I can understand why one might argue that a JD should not qualify a candidate to be president of a research institution the same way a PhD does; I can see why a JD can't get tenure in any academic department other than a law school (just as a criminal justice PhD can't get tenure in a law school - leaving aside for a moment the fact that a JD with experience may have much more practical insight into the criminal justice system than an academic). I don't want JDs teaching neurosurgery, either.

So, what we have here is an argument over the honorific title of doctor (professional tradition vs. academic entitlement), and a debate over whether it is a terminal degree (which logically means that there must be a delineation between professional and academic in the case that it IS concluded to be terminal). Even the US government salary guidelines are simply placing a value on the education (be it right, wrong, or indifferent) within their hiring practices without passing any kind of judgement on what the degree is called.

First degrees in Scotland are master's degrees. All degrees in Italy are entitled to the honorific title of doctor. Arguing that one thing is not another will get no disagreement from me. But arguing against what IS? That is ridiculous. Other than POV pushing, what is the point of this section? Does every professional doctorate article have this debate section? Should there be an article devoted entirely to professional doctorates, and the debate over their standing in academia? Do we ignore the fact that many of the best universities in the world grant these degrees, with the word doctor on the degree, to graduates with doctoral robes? Once we've agreed that a professional doctorate is NOT a research doctorate, I fail to see the real cause for debate within this article about the JD degree.

I understand that some may dislike the idea that JDs have been accepted to the highest post at some of the most notable institutions in the world. I understand that some could take exception that someone who undertook fewer years of study/work/effort may be entitled to the same title (I'm not going to get into what law students go through, but trust me, every JD/PhD I know will quite frankly discuss the rigor of a legal education). I understand that JDs have not traditionally USED the title. But to argue that the degree is not a doctorate, while accepting that other non-research doctorates are in fact doctorates is ridiculous. And arguing that what IS should not be is...? Have I made my point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.4.94 (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Experience shows that, Wikipedia-wide, articles like this attract "comparison to the Ph.D." sections or similar. If it's removed it'll be put in by the next drive-by editor. Doctorate in Nursing and D.P.T. are some examples. Other than that, I see a lot of WP:SYNTH in what you wrote, but the fact of the debate existing outside of Wikipedia means it must be documented here. JJL (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No, what is WP:SYNTH is saying that a doctorate is not a doctorate and using the debate over the status of the degree as terminal and the honorific title to support the position. Otherwise, that's the reason it is on the discussion page. Since we clearly have people policing the article, what does it matter if "drive by editors" make PhD comparisons? Let's just revert them.

So no, it does not need to be documented here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.4.94 (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The result of the recent mediation was just the contrary of this. JJL (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No. The recent mediation accepted that there was a debate over the JD's status in academia, and left it to a debate section on the page. I think it was a mistake to let that debate be titled doctorate v. not a doctorate. Let's agree that any non-US university saying it is not a doctorate is not relevant since the degree originated in the US. Any institution that copies the same name but does not mirror the treatment cannot be considered authority until there is a global consensus on the matter.

I have only skimmed the mediation because it devolved into what seems to me to be and absolutely ridiculous debate. Sigh. It's not a research degree. Period. It may or may not be terminal (professional v. academic). The commonwealth equivalent is a bachelor degree (same as the MD - has anyone explained this yet?). The degree in the US evolved differently, and was created with the idea of an already university educated student. The education is quite rigorous. US universities have created a class of professional doctorates that are not research degrees. German universities created PhDs. Other European schools have awarded "higher" doctorates. There is no monopoly on the title of doctor. Not too hard to understand.

I personally have an undergraduate professional degree from a commonwealth university. I also have a JD from a US university. I can easily argue that my undergraduate degree contained much of the material taught at the graduate level in US universities (My professional bachelor's is not offered in the US). I can argue that my credential should be equivalent to theirs. Thats NOT the point. It may (or may not) be equivalent in terms of material presented, but it's not equivalent from an academic perspective. The title of the degree is different, and that is how it is-period. If I were to try to argue that here, it would be reverted immediately (and I'm not - I'm simply making a point-I realize that personal experience is irrelevant, but I'm talking about whole groups of people with differently named degrees).

So let's mediate this again, shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.4.94 (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand what you're after, but the current section seems to do the job well enough. You're making a lot of arguments in your comments, but the point here is not to resolve the issue for ourselves but rather to document the actual state of affairs, which includes disagreement over whether it's terminal and/or doctoral degree. Have you tried a web search on e.g. The J.D. is not a terminal degree or the like? JJL (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That's just it. I'm pointing out that the debate seems to me to be whether or not it's terminal. And then the fact that it may or may not be considered terminal causes a debate over whether it "should" be a doctorate. But this question should then be addressed in the context of multiple other professional doctorates offered in the US. Which then leads to a conclusion that there is now another "class" of doctorate degrees (or that none of these degrees are doctorates). Since many of the best universities in the world (albeit US universities) offer professional doctorates, I don't see how there is debate over whether or not they are doctorate degrees, but rather, I do see how there is question where they fit in the academic hierarchy. And we're back to professional degrees are NOT research degrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.4.94 (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with JJL that we should rely on sources. However, the article is missing the sources she/he cites (an invitation).

But, one must keep in mind that mediation is not arbitration, as mediation totally voluntary and has no authority on any non-consenting party. Therefore any non-participant can totally reverse anything discussed by other editors in mediation (not an invitation).

As an aside, since we are being candid, here's my subjective take (not that it matters): The J.D. program in the U.S. is famously one of the very most rigorous and difficult academic experiences offered by any institution (see the movie "Paper Chase"), and lawyers are very highly valued/esteemed in the U.S. (usually too much so), which has caused lawyers and their degree to be the target of much hostility by those that are jealous. Some educated in the U.K. or the commonwealth also disparage the degree because they egotistically think all things English must be the gold standard for the world, and their law students are also jealous because they are some of the least educated lawyers in Europe (where most countries require a master's degree, see the Admission to Practice Law wiki article). And to get even more personal: I've learned to competence a few languages (including Mandarin (including reading and writing the damned stuff)), I did graduate studies at a so-called "Ivy League," and I've studied law in a J.D. program. NOTHING compared to the rear-kicking I received in the J.D. program!! And no other course of study prepared my mind more effectively for future intellectual activity better than that program either. I have also heard from other students that their J.D. study was infinitely more difficult than their Ph.D. program. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not following your argument on mediation versus arbitration. My understanding is that arbitration is what you do when an editor refuses to accept the results of mediation -- i.e., you force the guy to behave in the manner in which he should have been behaving in the first place. Are you saying that, because you don't agree with the results of the mediation, you want to move on to arbitration? Wikiant (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mediation is people sitting around the kitchen table and talking through their issues. No one is forced to be there, everyone is free to leave at any time, the goal is cooperative problem-solving, and there is a mutual trust that eventually comes out of it that people will follow through with what they agree to.  A mutual agreement is the goal.
 * Arbitration is basically going to a judge, presenting a case, and getting a ruling that is binding on everyone.
 * Enforcement of mediation is because an editor doesn't do something they agreed to do. Enforcement of arbitration is penal and strict.
 * It seems like you intended to pursue arbitration and not mediation, so I'm sorry that you didn't understand the difference going into it. The fact that the mediator closed with a kind of, "good job guys," instead of a ruling should have been a big hint.  If you read the wiki articles, you will see that the concepts have the same common meaning that they do in the real world.
 * We made some good progress during mediation. It started out very polemic and litigious, and at least one editor expressed helplessness, but we found some great points of agreement.  For example, we defined what the J.D. is, which was huge, and we agreed on the existence and structure of the "debate" section.
 * But then you started trying to shove some other ideas down my throat, which I clearly rejected, such as removing the pictures, dictating the content of the "debate" section (both "for" and "against"), and having some vague rule about preventing any content which somehow tends to show the J.D. is a doctorate. When I was unable to post more messages on wikipedia because I was hospitalized, for some reason you thought that my silence meant that I changed my mind about it.  JJL thought that your proposals were some kind of judicial decree, and started reverting (even beyond 3R) any change I made to the "debate" section, no matter what the nature of them were, without any discussion or anything.  That's when I threw my hands up and resigned from editing for awhile.
 * According to the wiki article "increased tolerance and respect is an important aim of any mediation," but instead you guys were frankly jerks. But I think that's over now, or at least I hope it is.
 * So, if you want to twist my arm and shove things down my throat, arbitration is the road to go down. If you want to collaborate and negotiate more, mediation is the place for that.
 * I think that, besides the occasional editing war, we have been successful at negotiating here on this discussion page. Our disagreements have been heated, but the most heated ones have been productive, in that they have lead to some really great research.  Although the citations editors discover need to be worked into the article more. Zoticogrillo (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. After taking a breather, and realizing that this should not matter to me that much, I'm going to try a different way of making the point that I was trying to make yesterday.

I'm not suggesting that any of my comments, subjective thoughts, personal experiences or conclusions should be written into the article. Rather, what I am taking issue with is the structure of the debate into doctorate/not a doctorate. That is what I call WP:SYNTH. There is debate over status within academic hierarchy. Yes. There is debate over whether it is terminal. Yup. There is debate over the honorific title. Gotcha. Agree with ALL of this, and with the cites to support it. And any statements made to the effect that it is not a doctorate are invariably making the statement that it is not a RESEARCH degree. Agreed on that point, too.

But, to then make the statement that it is not a doctorate (when it is documented that there are a class of non research, professional doctorates awarded by universities in the US - this is an indisputable fact) is POV, SYNTH, OR, etc. I understand that there is a debate as to their standing in academia. It is the polarization of the argument and resulting POV pushing that I don't agree with; what if we just remove those two subtitles in the debate about academic status section, and leave (and add to) the evidence that there is both debate and confusion as to the status of not only the JD in particular, but the class of degrees as a whole.

To put it yet another way: what I am taking real issue with is the idea that since there is debate over standing in academia, this has somehow been synthesized to argue that a degree called a doctorate by Harvard (where it was created), and awarded to a candidate in doctoral robes isn't a doctoral degree. I just don't see how THAT is up for grabs. You can point out that it is treated differently that a PhD. You can show that many institutions debate over treatment of JDs in non-legal faculties. You can point to different traditions re: title. You can even point to other educational systems that treat legal education as an undergraduate degree. All of that is acceptable. But stretching it to say that a degree called a doctorate (and treated as a such by issuing institutions) is not a doctorate is extending the argument too far, particularly in light of the fact that the JD does not stand alone within the class of professional doctorates that have been created (many of which are fairly recent, unlike the JD - worth noting that the PhD isn't that old, either). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.4.94 (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

For later reference: From the Was. Times, "a juris doctor degree from University of Michigan Law School -- which is equivalent to a master's degree, not a doctorate." . From Arizona State: "Doctoral, Master's and J.D. Candidates" (three separate categories). Dalhousie Law School: "". "Is the J.D. a Graduate Degree?  No, the J.D. is considered a professional degree program". From the U. of Missouri: Note under the "Summary of Requirements" section how it says "In general, a maximum of 21 credits of the doctoral plan may be counted toward both degrees" for the Ph.D./J.D. program, since the term "doctoral" can refer only to one of those programs. From this site : "The JD is not considered "a master's level in general law." It  is a doctorate in all respects.  In academic circles there has been  confusion, and those with other doctorates (particular PhD's) have fought  against recognizing it as a doctorate, and want to consider it as a  master's level degree." (recognizing the disagreement over this issue, especially in academia). A web search turns up countless examples of people debating whether or not the J.D. is actually a doctorate. JJL (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Great stuff--now how does it fit into the article?! Forgive my discourteous tone, but I've asked three times now.  Since we are here to build an encyclopedia and NOT to argue, please behave that way.  Please improve the article with your new-found information.  Again, great research! Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the encouragement but thought it best to wait until the IP address came forward with a specific proposal. Also, it seems to me that these references mostly further reinforce that the current structure is basically appropriate, though I do agree that some of these might make better refs. than the current ones. JJL (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea. But, it doesn't matter which position you believe they may advocate.  As long as they are not forgotten. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

picture of diploma and dress
Why is a picture of a graduation robe in this article ok, and a picture of a diploma in this article ok, and yet such pictures in this J.D. article are not? The argument has been posed that such pictures are not relevant, and I have never understood why. Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think they can be relevant, especially when used in a historical context, or to illustrate current usage. Personally, I had (and have) no problem with the JD academic dress photograph, but one of the other editors felt it was being used to push a specific point of view.  I don't agree that it was (or at least, I think it can be included in a way that sidesteps that issue). -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Because in those articles there is not a lengthy history of differences of view as to whether or not (and what) POV the article is pushing. Wikiant (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In other words, you agree that those pictures are relevant to those articles, but such pictures should not be in the J.D. article because you disagree with including it. I understand that you don't want those pictures in the article.  Why? Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly, I said nothing about whether I find those pictures relevant or irrelevant. What I said was that the JD article has a long history of alleged POV and OR, and that in the JD article whatever value those pictures might bring (though I am not claiming that the value is non-zero) is overwhelmed by their contribution to alleged POV and/or OR. Wikiant (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not everything that's relevant can or should be included. The pictures had been used to promote a POV. Per the outcome of mediation we are presenting a balanced view of the issue. JJL (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But please explain why. And how is it that not everything that's relevant should be included in an article?  To which wiki policy article are you referring?  Are the pictures not of a J.D. diploma and J.D. robes?  Why then shouldn't all the citations that state that the J.D. is a professional doctorate be excluded?
 * As you know, mediation is a collaborative process. What I conceded to in mediation was that the pictures would be included only in the "debate" section.  Not because I understood the arguments for doing so, but because it was insisted upon, and I was trying to be conciliatory.  I didn't agree to anything else.  Didn't you understand that?  Did you participate in the process in order to reach a good faith agreement, or for some other reason?  Please refer back to the mediation discussion page re this article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Harvard, the creator of the JD and Columbia Law School does not consider the Juris Doctor to be a graduate level degree
Please do not try to spin this. Just accept the fact and move on. "Welcome to Columbia Law School’s Graduate Legal Studies Program. Our Graduate Legal Studies (GLS) Program consists of the Master of Laws (LL.M.) and the Doctor of the Science of Law (J.S.D.) degree programs, as well as the Special Student program for attorneys who wish to continue their legal education without pursuing a degree. These programs are administered by the Office of Graduate Legal Studies. The Office of Graduate Legal Studies also oversees the admissions process for the Associates-in-Law program." The Graduate Program is the division of Harvard Law School responsible for the Master of Laws (LL.M.) and the Doctor of Juridical Science (S.J.D.) degrees, and for various aspects of graduate legal studies, including the Visiting Scholar and Visiting Researcher program. --207.188.228.210 (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Harvard Law School also differenciates between initial law study (JD) and doctoral studies (PhD) "The Law School offers a coordinated degree program with the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS). Students in the program earn a JD and a PhD, allowing them to integrate the study of law with their doctoral studies". --207.188.228.210 (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed your assertions, as you fail to provide any sources demonstrating that it is possible to enter either Harvard or Columbia Law Schools without completing a bachelor's degree, which is the very definition of a graduate level degree. Both schools are members of the AALS, which does not permit students to enter law school without completing an undergraduate degree. It is possible to argue that the J.D. is the equivalent of a Master's degree rather than a doctorate, but no one rationally doubts that the law degree is a graduate degree. bd2412  T 16:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

@bd2412 LOL. I knew someone would find a spin despite the fact that the Harvard and Columbia website list in black and white it's graduate degree programs. I am sorry but your opinion about what a graduate degree is wrong. Your wrote and I quote " as you fail to provide any sources demonstrating that it is possible to enter either Harvard or Columbia Law Schools without completing a bachelor's degree, which is the very definition of a graduate level degree". Here is an instance where a student got into a Harvard graduate program without having a bachelor degree: Also here is another occassion in which Harvard clear differenciates between a JD (First Professional Degree and Graduate Degrees (Read the title in bold letters) Also Harvard clearly consider the JD to be a different class of degree: Not a graduate degree, or a doctorate degree but a first professional degree whatever that is suppoe to mean. "According to the 2002 Statistical Abstract of the United States, blacks secured 8.2% of master's de-grees granted in 2001, along with 4.9% of doctoral degrees and 6.8% of "first professional" degrees (includingdegrees in law, medicine, theology, and dentistry)" (Page 52) But I know I can spend years posting facts from the Harvard websites and some people will still spin it. By the way bd2412 are you a lawyer or do you have a JD ?:)Now that I have proven your reason for removing my posting can you please put it back...or are you going to try and spin this one ? --207.188.228.210 (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you mistrust other editors on wikipedia so much. I believe that all of us are here with good intentions, and that editors who engage in bad behavior are usually quickly corrected or removed. I assume that you are an editor with good intentions, and do not wish to personally attack other editors. The personal background of BD2412 is not relevant, as it leads to the ad hominem logical fallacy, and implying that BD2412's motives are questionable may be interpreted as a personal attack.

Let me first make it clear that I have no personal interest in the status of the J.D. I have taken an interest in this article purely as an academic pass-time, and have chosen it because of its contentiousness. My only agenda is to defend the wiki principle of verifiability.

It is a wiki principle, and a basic notion for all writing, that one provide adequate support for one's claim. And it is important that one provides citations that state what the content states, as wikipedia is not a place for original research. It is a basic principle that when there are multiple sources of equal authority which could be interpreted differently, but do not clearly contradict one another, that one assume that they do not contradict one another, but are to be read in context of the other sources.

It appears that you believe websites from Harvard to be more authoritative than other sources. Will you please explain why?

There are numerous citations in the article from very authoritative sources which state that the J.D. is a doctorate. It strains the mind to contemplate of a doctorate that is not considered a graduate program.

The materials you have cited do not state that the J.D. is not a graduate degree. We already have clear statements from UC Berkeley and the University of Melbourne that the J.D. is a graduate degree. The catalog of University of Southern California lists the J.D. with the other graduate and professional programs. However, sometimes "graduate" is used synonymously with "research" or "academic," in order to differentiate it from a "professional" program. This does not mean that professional programs are not on the same level as graduate programs. This is clearly explained by a few sources, such as: (1) Council of Graduate Schools in the United States. (1966). The doctor's degree in professional fields. A statement by the Association of Graduate Schools and the Council of Graduate Schools in the United States. Washington D.C. and (2) Forni, P. (1989). "Models for Doctoral Programs." Nursing and Health Care. v. 10, n.8. p. 432 Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The term 'graduate degree' is often used loosely to mean any degree with a baccalaureate prereq. but is also used more strictly for a graduate, as opposed to professional, degree. The law degree is strictly a professional rather than graduate degree (as is the M.D., for example). I'm not sure the difference is important here, but it is a real distinction. JJL (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That statement seems authoritative, but it's interesting that you make no attempt to explain the exceptions that have been raised to your assertion. It seems instead that the term is not used in a uniform manner. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The text that accompanies the citation misrepresents the citation. The cite does not say that the JD is *not* a graduate degree. It does, however, (1) not list the JD among graduate law degrees offered at the department, and (2) says that the JD is "a basic degree in law." I'd be willing to support inclusion of the cite if the accompanying text better reflected what the cite actually said. Note to Zoticorillo: WRT to this issue, you (correctly) claim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, just a few days ago, that is the argument you made wrt the question of university Presidents without PhDs. Because you did not find more than one example of a non-PhD president, you concluded that only one example existed. Wikiant (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple Solution to "Debate": Analogy with M.D.?
Perhaps it would be useful to refer to the M.D. article in deciding how this article should be formatted, and how the J.D. should be characterized.. The M.D. and the J.D. are analogous to one another. They are both first professional degrees, called _ "doctor" : "Juris doctor and Medicinae doctor. Both of them require some undergraduate study.  Both of them replaced "Bachelor" level degres that provided the same practice rights.  Canadian provinces require both MDs and JDs to undergo a period of supervised practice before they are licensed to practice independently.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Such an analogy will probably make the situation worse as the arguments "against" that are presented here also apply to the MD. The only difference is that the MD has the "inertia" of history behind it. Wikiant (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur, and the last time I counted (a couple of weeks ago) there were already six references to the M.D. in the article. In any event, comparisons to the M.D. risk a charge of WP:SYNTH. JJL (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with JJL and Wikiant on this one. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey folks - what is this business about the LLB still being the "standard law degre in Canada". As far as I can tell,

Juris Doctor is Now the Standard Law Degree in Canada, and the Curriculum was Changed in Advance of the Change in Designation
Hey folks - what is this business about the LLB still being the "standard law degre in Canada". As far as I can tell, every law school in Canada, with the exceptions of Windsor and McGill, now use the J.D. rather than the L.L.B.. This change is retroactive to the time when the curriculum and admissions policies of Canadian law schools were changed to reflect the north american post-graduate second-entry standard, rather than the English first-entry standard.

As for the point ("without any changes in the curriculum") - while it seems facially neutral, it is also vague and misleading. Changes relative to what? The LLB? Given the context of the discussion - i.e. the US JD, this implies that the LLB was different (ie. at a lowel level) than the the US JD. Nobody has provided any reliable citation to support such a claim. The relevant "changes in the curriculum" of Canadian law degrees (from the style of an english LLB to that of a US JD) were made in the late 1950s and early 1960s, but law schools simply opted to retain the traditional name of the degree (as with Yale in the US). There are very few (if any) Canadian-trained lawywers still practicing who were trained prior to the "changes in the curriculum".

The "without any changes in the curriculum" is irrelevant, except for the purposes of those who want to underline the "importance" or "graduate-ness" of the United States J.D., because the curriculum is itself described in the article. Accordingly, I propose to remove this reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We wouldn't phrase things that contradicted our research. We aren't just playing a guessing game here--we actually do research.  Thank you for stimulating us to examine this topic again, and please help us find sources to further our research.


 * Your question about the predominance of the J.D. in Canada has come up before. I have just done research on this again by looking at the websites of all the law schools in Canada, which are listed here.  There are 20 law schools in Canada, of which only five offer the J.D.  The following Canadian law schools do not offer a J.D.: Montréal, Québec, Sherbrooke, Laval, Ottawa, Dalhousie, Moncton, Alberta, Calgary, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Victoria, Windsor (although there is a joint program with Detroit Mercy in the US which awards the JD), and McGill.  The following Canadian law schools do offer the J.D.: Queens, Toronto, Western Ontario, British Columbia (which calls their program a "bachelors (JD)" or a "JD/LLB" program), and York.


 * According to Reed (Reed, A. (1928). Present-Day Law Schools in the United States and Canada, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bulletin 21, Boston: Merrymount Press, p. 390), the Canadian LL.B. has had some professional practice elements of a professional program, but has a tradition of the liberal education required of typical LL.B. programs. Although many of the liberal education element was greatly reduced when it became a second-entry program, this tradition can still be seen in many law degree requirements (such as the requirements for the JD/LLB program at UBC).  Among the requirements at UBC is a course in "Law and Society Studies," and a substantial academic research paper.  Although general social studies or theory courses such as "Law and Society" are not required by all schools, a research paper is (for another example, see the requirements at Toronto).


 * Apparently, you have some knowledge of the history of Canadian legal education which lacks in our sources. Would you please provide some sources, especially any accessible on the internet?  Particularly those about the reforms in the "1950's and early 1960's" which you mentioned. Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Zoticogrillo;

(1) Who is the "we"? (2) Why are you relying on a 1928 cite? That is more than 80 years old. At the time, Canada wasn't fully independant (e.g., our constitution was just a British statute), the Canadian legal system itself was dramatically different at that time (all of our court cases could be appealed to the UK Privy Council), and lawyers were trained directly by the law societies. (3)I don't disagree with you if your sole point is that our J.D. and LLB programs include a scholarly element. However, the way you phrased things obscured the fact that this scholarly requirement is over-and-above the professional component - which is the canadian equivalent of that at top-tier US schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that this process seems so adversarial to you. I was sincere when I asked that we work together to find better sources for content regarding legal education in Canada.  Unfortunately, issues of geography have made it difficult for me to access quality Canadian sources on this topic.  I look forward to learning more about the Canadian system from the sources you locate.  I hope that you will re-read my comments knowing that I am merely reporting on sources I have found, and trusting that I don't have any specific agenda regarding the content of the articles.  Until then, we are both bound by the norms of the community, including the policy of verifiability, to ensure the accuracy of the article contents. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Zoticogrillo; I've got no problem with telling you my sources: (1) The Law Society of Upper Canada and Ontario's lawyers, 1797-1997, Moore, Christopher. (2) The Law Society of Upper Canada : a short account of the history of the Law Society of Upper Canada Johnston, George A., 1892- (3) Melanie Pascale Brunet "Becoming Lawyers: Gender, Legal Education and Professional Identity Formation in Canada, 1920 - 1980"the JD as it exists in Canada, not a comparison of the JD with the LLB etc.. All the section requires is to say that it exists, what it entails, and what function it serves. While the sources that provide the details I'm speaking about are available only in hard-copy, they're alluded to on the website of the Law Society of Upper Canada: http://www.lsuc.on.ca/about/a/history/ and in this commission report: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ132819&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ132819 (while the articling requirement was never eliminated, the content of law programs in Canada was changed)

However, there's nothing positive I'm proposing to add to the article that might require citation. I'm simply asking remove some aspects of your edits (i.e., without any change to the curriculum) that may give rise to the false implication that Canadian JDs remain similar to the LLB as it exists in most of the world (exactly the false implication the LLB to JD name change is designed to correct). It doesn't make sense to insist upon asserting or implying a positive state affairs (i.e., that Canadian LLBs and JDs have curricula substantively different than the US JD ... or even that there were no changes to the curriculum) based simply on the fact that you haven't found evidence to prove a contrary state of affairs (i.e., that Canadian LLBs and JDs have curricula similar to US JDs... or that there were changes to the curriculum). The onus is on the person implying or asserting a state of affairs to provide references to prove it.

I anticipate that you'll respond by saying that "without any change to the curriculum" doesn't have the implication I'm attaching to it. Even if that were true, it would also be literally false. If you mean changes simultaneous with the degree change, there have in fact been many changes to the curriculum, regardless of whether they were made on the basis that they were regarded as neccessary for the change to J.D. ... the onus would be on you to provide citations to prove that. If you mean there have never been changes of the sort that would justify a change in name from LLB to JD, then again, I'm saying those changes were made years ago, and in any case the onus would be on you to to provide citations to prove that there have never been any changes that justify the change in name.

In case you're wondering why I'm interested ... I was one of the individuals involved in making the decision to change the designation, and we considered these factors in doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Great stuff. I've become interested in this topic after doing research on the development of legal education in the U.S. and the U.K., and I continue to engage in editing related articles as an intellectual pass-time.  Articles related to this topic are still under-developed and often the subject of much vandalism.  Therefore, my initial reaction to your edits was out of suspicion of vandalism or POV-pushing, since your edits were extensive, lacked citations, and removed cited materials.  But now I am excited to learn more about legal education in Canada, particularly since I've had such difficulty locating sources on the topic.  So, I want to be on your side on this.


 * It seems that the sources you have cited probably give a great deal of information about legal education in Canada which could enrich related articles beyond the scope of our discussion here. Therefore, I'm anxious to access them.  Unfortunately, it will take a great deal of effort for me to locate some of them, and nearly impossible to access others.  I searched WorldCat and can access citation 1, but I will not be able to access 2 or 3.  I might be able to find 3 if you tell me in which journal it was published.  Could you scan copies of the sections of those publications which you think might be relevant and email them to me?  When you access my wiki user page, the bar on the far left will have the option to email me (which might not work if you are not a registered user).  Thank you. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

evidence that JD is not a doctorate
I thought that we were going to have just three points per each section--is that no longer the case? It seems like the article has slipped back a little in a few other respects as well, just as it did a few months ago. It's disappointing to see what kind of editing you allow, and which ones you "undo." Is it in anyone's interest for this article to be so poorly presented? Zoticogrillo (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that there are three goals: (1) to include relevant information (of course), (2) to keep the presentation balanced (i.e., not a preponderance of bullets on either side), and (3) to keep the lists short (i.e., only highly relevant stuff). I believe that this additional bullet (currently the first bullet under the "against" side) hits strongly at (1) -- in my opinion, enough to justify its inclusion as a fourth bullet. I don't like the unbalance that it presents, but perceive that to be a lesser problem than excluding the bullet would be. I'd rather not split existing bullets on the "for" side just to keep the numbers the same on the two sides (unless there is a natural split to be made). Do you have a fourth bullet you can add? Wikiant (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit to "Replacement for the LLB"
Hi folks, I removed the discussion of Yale, because, while literally supported, it created an implication for which there was no citation (and which I know to be factually incorrect). In particular, by saying Yale is unlike the non-US LLBs, and that the Yale program actually made all the same changes as the U.S. JD programs before actually making the name change, the article created the impression that all the foreign schools had not also done the same thing. In fact, if you compare the curricula for any (non-Quebecois) Canadian program, for example, you'll find that the substance of the programs is the same (with the obvious exception that it is the law of a different country). Canadian law societies took note of the discussions going on in the U.S. re: legal education, and made the same sorts of changes. The only real difference was that Canadian law societies put a much lower cap on the number of places in law schools, so that it is harder to gain entry to law school in Canada.

I simply removed the Yale reference, but if anyone feels its important, I suggest it be placed in a different context somehow to avoid creating the wrong impression.

--UrbanisTO (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There's actually a great article from a highly esteemed academic publisher which is cited in this article that speaks directly to this point. And it explicates in detail why your analysis is wrong.  If that article was wrong, I assume there would be another article which addresses that.  I have not found such an article.  So while it could be that you are correct, the available sources contradict your observation.  Unfortunately we have to stick to verifiable information.  I hope you are able to find an article, or get one published, which supports your view (if it is in fact correct). Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that the J.D. is not a doctoral level degree
I just removed the first bullet point from this. The bullet point made a differentiation between the JD and the PhD, citing the lack of a research component, but this has nothing to do with whether the JD is a doctorate or not... only that's it's not a research doctorate. It's a well-established principle that, while there are differences between research doctorates and professional doctorates, they both are doctorates. Even the Wikipedia article on Doctorates says so, and we should be consistent.

This got me thinking about the rest of the bullet points. Is there really a genuine controversy here?

The next bullet point cites the existence of the LLM degree as proof that the JD is not a doctorate. There is nothing saying that a doctorate must be a terminal degree, although it often is.

The next bullet point cites one Australian university and the minutes from a Dean's Meeting in 2004. These seem like exceptionally weak points. Why is it important that some guy during a dean's meeting five years ago said that the JD is not a doctorate? Why is this person an authority?

The last bullet point seems somewhat misleading. Those figures are for 2005 Department of Labor summer employment. It certainly does not represent the US Government as a whole.

The European commission cited simply makes the distinction between research doctorates and prof. doctorates and puts MD on the same level as JD. There doesn't seem to be any debate on whether an MD is a doctorate or not. In fact, this point seems to support the idea that a JD is a doctorate.

In short, it seems like the bullet points are from very weak, cherry-picked sources that are not indicative of the general consensus about this. I'm not sure if a legitimate controversy is actually present here. 67.221.94.158 (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been a very contentious section, and the current version is the result of a mediation process. (See the first heading on this page, Talk:Juris_Doctor.) So, we can move forward but should do so carefully. The first bullet isn't meant to be a complete argument for the matter, but rather indicative of one reason why the debate over its status exists. We're trying to document the debate, not argue the matter ourselves. That it isn't a research degree is one argument that has been made--rightly or wrongly--as to why it isn't a "true" doctorate, and that's what we're showing here. I've returned the bullet while we discuss it here. JJL (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears to be a minority, fringe viewpoint that ONLY research doctorates are to be considered doctorates. Coincidentally, no source here says that professional doctorates are not doctorates. The cites here can be divided into two categories: (1) cites that distinguish research doctorates from professional doctorates and (2) cites that say the JD is not a doctorate at all.


 * Note carefully the distinction here. There is no category that says "research doctorates are the only kind of doctorate that's actually a doctorate", only that the JD is not a research doctorate OR that the JD is not a doctorate at all.


 * I would venture to say that no debate actually exists here. Perhaps someone wants it to exist, but there really isn't any.


 * As for category 1 cites (JD is not a research doctorate)... I don't think anyone contests that. The JD is a professional doctorate, and it seems that professional doctorates are considered to be doctorates by the vast majority of academia (and of laypersons as well.) After all, ask anyone on the street if House, MD is a doctor or not. :P


 * As for category 2 cites (JD is not a doctorate at all) (Dean's Meeting + University), these cites seem to be extreme fringe opinions. The Dean's Meeting seems like it shouldn't even be in Wikipedia at all. Why is this individual important? Is he an authority on this? Or can anyone show up to a meeting, say something, and have it create a "debate"? The University cite has similar problems. So this one university, out of thousands and thousands around the globe, posts on their website that they don't believe the JD is a doctorate. So what? That's not enough to constitute a debate.


 * I would also like to stress this point as best I can. The University in question adopted their JD in the context of their existing system of legal education. Australia had (and still has) a Master of Laws degree which is basically their doctorate in law, but co-opted the Juris Doctor degree for the degree below that. The Australian system is unique, and despite the similarity in name, the Australian system is so different from the American system that it cannot be used to judge it.


 * I'll put it this way. IF there really was a debate on this topic, why must Wikipedia editors try so hard to piece together various bits of circumstantial evidence? Surely, if this debate existed, you could find a news article on it or something. When an editor needs to cherry pick to generate a debate, you can be pretty sure there's no actual debate. This debate does not seem to exist outside of Wikipedia.


 * In short, the cites either don't address the alleged "debate" or they don't even say what they're citing. Take the Australian example for instance. 67.221.94.158 (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on my own observations you are precisely correct on every point. You are not alone in reaching such conclusions. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at the archives of this Talk page you'll find lots of citations that discuss this; many haven't made it into the article in part because of a desire to keep this section small. (Experience shows that it tends to grow as both sides add material.) A web search should be convincing that there is indeed disagreement and debate, but you'll find legitimate sources in the archives. JJL (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of sources that say it's not a research doctorate, but that's not what we're talking about here. Do you have any examples? 67.221.94.158 (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I would posit that the entire "debate" here is essentially cooked up and the evidence provided is grossly inadequate. There's reasons why every single piece of evidence against the JD being a doctorate is not applicable here.

Point 1: Department of Education Problem: This cite does NOT say it's not a doctorate, only that it's not a research doctorate like the PhD. Saying that only research doctorates are doctorates is an assumption not present in the cite, and is original research.

Point 2: Master of Laws Problem: This cite makes the assumption that a doctorate must be a terminal degree. There is nothing to indicate in this cite that all doctorates must be terminal degrees. Original research.

Point 3: Australian University Problem: Australia adopted the JD to act as an intermediary between the bachelor's program and their highest-level law degree. This cite is only applicable in Australia, not in other places in the world. The other cite comes from a "Dr. Sharp" of unknown qualifications. It's unclear why he's an expert on this, so it has no place on Wikipedia.

Point 4: DOJ and European Council Problem: The DOJ's 2005 summer program is not an authoritative source on this matter. It should also not be represented as indicative of the entire government's position on this. Keep in mind that there are very specialized roles within the government that may not keep with academic standards. Additionally, the European council only differentiates between research and prof. doctorates. In fact, the European council ADMITS that JD holders carry the title of Doctor.

In short, all these points should not be present because they contain some degree of original research. They're all flawed. 67.221.94.122 (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The debate, as reflected in the section title, is about the academic status of the JD. That is, it is unclear that the JD is a doctorate in the sense that the term is understood in academia (i.e., whence doctorates are awarded). Within academia, one typically does not refer to a "research" doctorate because the adjective is redundant. Similarly, "non-terminal doctorate" (within academia) is an oxymoron. Wikiant (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not the debate. The section title isn't "Evidence that the J.D. is not a research doctorate", it's "Evidence that the J.D. is not a doctoral level degree". Outside of academia, it's commonly held that professional doctorates are doctorates. That's why this section is so misleading. If anything, it should be one sentence with a footnote. "A J.D. differs from a PhD in that it contains no research component and therefore is not a research doctorate", or something. 67.221.94.122 (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether it is or is not true that "outside of academia, it is commonly held..." (a claim that would require citation) is irrelevant. The section is titled, "Debate about academic status". Academic status is determined inside, not outside, of academia. Wikiant (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is your evidence for that contention? Your personal experiences that other academics do not view the JD as a doctorate, which you implicitly seem to predicate much of your argument, are likewise irrelevant. Also, the phrase "academic status" conveys more to the reader than simply how other academics view the degree. If that is this debate, the title should be amended to more precisely describe the argument. If the debate is broader than simply other academics' views on the status of degree, is there evidence that academics' views on a degree are completely dispositive as to its academic status? I contend that such views are merely one item of evidence among others. Finally, if your argument is indeed true, then bullet points one and four should be removed. They are not from sources which are commonly understood to be part of the academy and only academics may render a relevant opinion as to the academic status of a degree. Mavirikk (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Very good points, Mav. Additionally, about a week ago, I described the fatal flaws behind each piece of evidence. In a week, nobody has come forward to defend it. I can assume that the evidence is indefensible or that nobody really cares. Does that mean it can be removed from the article? 67.221.94.87 (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Until you take a closer look at the archives of this Talk page and the mediation, you've jumped into the middle of a long conversation and are asking us to repeat everything that's already written there. JJL (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why that's a justification to have obviously flawed material in the article. If I wrote that Michael Jackson had the ability to fly and then we had a mediation over it, does that mean it stays in the article indefinitely? I actually read on the mediation page that this is NOT to bind the hands of future editors, although you seem to be using it to do just that. If the evidence is so good, my position should be easy to rebut. 67.221.94.104 (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said. Moreover, I have been following this discussion for quite some time and I am quite aware of the "issues" regarding this article. The mediation did not resolve this dispute satisfactorily. I wasn't going to get involved - I simply do not have the time - until I saw that this prior poster's very salient points were dismissed out-of-hand. As this prior poster demonstrated, the evidence against the Juris Doctor being a doctorate is quite weak. Morever, this weak evidence is presented as having equal weight as much stronger evidence to the contrary.


 * The name of the degree is Juris Doctor. It has been awarded for many years by well-established academic institutions, not suspect online diploma mills. Graduates wear doctorate academic regalia when they graduate as do their professors. And its length and content are very similar to other professional doctorates (and such Wikipedia articles about those degrees are not likewise plagued by this debate). Thus, despite Wikiant's view, it would seem that the academy has spoken and, in it's view, the JD is a doctorate. Therefore, I contend a prima facie case has been made that the Juris Doctor is a doctorate. It should be up to those who disagree to overcome that presumption with compelling evidence to the contrary. So far, after months of debate, all they can offer are a few random citations to non-relevant, non-authoritative sources. It is casts doubt on the integrity of the Wikipedia model that, despite the inability to prove the point with authoritative evidence, this unsubstantiated argument is still given credence in the article entry. Mavirikk (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not overly interested in repeating the whole discussion every time a new editor comes along just to save someone the time of reading the archives (in which virtually every argument that one might consider "new" has already been discussed in depth). The debate section contains referenced points on each side of the debate. If you find some of these points wanting, then include a rebuttal point. Wikiant (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Before making an unnecessarily snarky reply, actually read my prior post. I state that I am thoroughly aware of the prior history of this debate, and I am simply unpersuaded by your weak arguments and poor evidence. The name of the degree is Juris Doctor. That, combined with other factors, should create a strong presumption that it is indeed a doctorate. It should take more than a few non-authoritative sources taken out of context to overcome that strong presumption. Moreover, the unnamed poster went point by point demonstrating how the evidence against the JD as a doctorate is severely flawed. You never attempted to refute his points. Also, you never attempted to defend your argument-after I completely discredited it-that academics' views regarding a degree's academic status are controlling. You simply continue to rely on the same lame defense: "You all are not familiar with the prior debate." For a person purportedly of learning (since your profile indicates you hold a Ph.D), I expected more from you. This continued debate, despite no credible evidence to support the "anti-JD as a doctorate" camp, is the perfect illustration as to why Wikipedia is a joke. Any idiot without any expertise in the area can log on and push her POV. Too bad Citizendium never took off. Mavirikk (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll save the new editors the trouble of reading all of the archives. Quite simply, all of the points have been discussed in depth by past editors, and for the most part have been given up because of certain parties who insist the debate is "real," and essentially prove the point by debating anyone who argues with them. Even more frustrating for an editor who actually has a JD, and can recognize the logical fallacies and flaws those particular editors employ in their arguments. Unless you have a lot of time, patience, and tenacity, you would probably be well advised to better spend your time banging your head against a wall. At least then it feels good when you stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.245.79 (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I read through the archives and I'm thoroughly unimpressed. If it makes people happy, let's not even talk about the debate. Let's talk about why the mysterious "Dr. Sharp", a man of unknown qualifications, is somehow an authority on this subject and is given the same weight as the entire American Bar Association. Let's talk about why the Australian JD, which is entirely different than the American JD, is used to generalize about all JDs everywhere. Let's talk about why most of these sources don't even deal with whether or not the JD is a doctorate or not. I don't see anything in the archives about these issues in particular. 67.221.94.180 (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The comment "Master's or equivalent graduate degree(s) (such as LL.B. or J.D.)" seems to deal with the issue. From further up the page (my comments of 20:57, 28 August 2009...sigh...):, , , , . That's from this page alone. This is why this quickly gets tiring. There's plenty of evidence of debate; a web search asking whether the J.D. is a doctorate will quickly indicate that there is disagreement on the matter. I encourage you to do such a search to convince yourself that those who disagree are not doing so from the poor-faith reasons you ascribe to us. JJL (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Gimme a break. There is clearly an agenda in many of the edits. How the degree is handled in other countries isn't relevant in the country of origin. The fact that there is a whole class of professional doctorates in the U.S. (that are recognized as such) should be dispositive. That other countries don't have such a class of degrees is notable, perhaps this should be pointed out in every professional doctorate article in WP.

Despite protestations of neutrality and balance, certain editors from academia (self professed) clearly take issue with the degree. Perhaps someone lost out on a presidency (or otherwise resents) a senior administrator with a JD degree? I don't know, and I don't care. But please stop pretending your (and perhaps your professional colleagues/friends) personal feelings on the issue are not the driving force behind your positions. While there are certainly mis-informed people, and still others who disagree with a JD (or other professional doctorate) degree being considered adequate for certain senior academic positions, the academy itself has spoken - in terms of how the students and the graduates are treated (Doctoral robes and university presidencies). Get over it. The debate has been manufactured here on WP by people who don't like the current state of affairs, and who take the opinions of the misinformed or similarly dissatisfied members of the academy and use them as evidence that something that is, somehow isn't.

I don't take issue with anyone having those feelings about the degree. But to be sanctimonious and stating an interest in balance and neutrality is offensive. Let me guess - you think FOX News is balanced too, right? (For the record, I don't agree with the White House tactics with Fox, but I would never argue Fox is balanced, or even intelligent, for that matter - but that's a different issue). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.245.79 (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey - I agree with you. I just don't have the wherewithal to fight with those editors who clearly have a bone to pick with JD holders. If you're up for it, go to town. I'll monitor and help out as appropriate. Be prepared for massive frustration... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.245.79 (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with you; I'm not going to waste my time. Just a brief taste of this is more than enough. They are not interested in getting this article right, but pushing their view that the JD isn't a "true" doctorate. Whatever. I've got much more important things to do. I merely logged on to support a prior poster when I saw his or her solid arguments were being dismissed out-of-hand. Frankly, I don't think most lawyers care if they are called doctor or not. They are secure enough in their own accomplishments to not need their egos stroked by a silly title, which, to most Americans, means physician.Mavirikk (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'd encourage everyone to assume good faith. JJL (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My point was exactly that I don't believe the edits are in good faith. Was that not clear? How blatant do I have to be? A read through the archives and a modicum of intelligence supports my conclusions. The POV pushing is blatant (sometimes on both sides, admittedly). How many ways can I say this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.241.129 (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll rebut the new evidence provided without offering an opinion on POV.

- Not applicable. This article is about an individual with no school administration experience being nominated to a position at a college. The article says that experience is the factor, not the fact that he has a JD. "Prior university management" is the issue here, not the degree. Regardless, it does not say anywhere that the JD is not a doctorate and I would challenge you to provide a quote and prove me wrong.

- Not applicable. This document states that, for the purposes of this document, "all doctorates other than the PhD" are excluded. This document therefore acknowledges the existence of doctorates outside the PhD. This document does not reference the JD nor does it say that a PhD is the only type of doctorate in existence.

- Not applicable. This document of style from a Thailand university does not say that the JD is not a doctorate, only that they don't call people with a JD "Dr." I fail to see how the style guide of a Thailand university, written anonymously, is somehow a persuasive authority on this topic.

- Not applicable. The article is about whether a PhD or JD is qualified to teach criminal justice. The article states that "PhD training provides a background in social science methods, statistical analysis, and theory that JD training does not." The reasoning here is that statistics is important for the position. It's not that the JD isn't a doctorate. There's an inference being made in citing this that is not supported by the article.

- Not applicable. The article describes it as an "initial doctorate". Thus, it is a doctorate.

Once again, I'd like to state this: If you want to support this contention, you need sources that ACTUALLY SAY what you're trying to say. Most of these require quite an inference to be true. You need reliable sources that actually say, "The JD is not a doctorate."67.221.94.57 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the Thai connection you state for the University of Alabama but it does also address the terminal degree issue. The Inside Higher Ed. article is directly on-target: It indicates disagreement on the matter, which is what is claimed. JJL (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I must have clicked somewhere and got the University of Thailand. I don't know what happened there either. Anyway, like I've said earlier, the section is a debate on whether it is a doctorate, not a terminal degree. Therefore, it's inapplicable. It is admitted in the Wikipedia article that the JD is not a terminal degree. As for the Inside Higher Ed. article, it is not on target. The debate is whether the individual has the academic experience to teach, not whether the JD is a doctorate. Please, quote for me where it says that the JD is not a doctorate. 67.221.94.243 (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the long time contributors to this debate have often cited "consensus" and mentioned the mediation process in order to justify a conservative approach to editing the article (i.e. preserving their arguments in the article). However, those contributors forget that consensus changes, and the wiki policies favor changes to articles as much as possible. So, if you don't agree with something, and your position is reasonably justified and verifiable, just jump in and change it. You'll find the administrators and "powers that be" are generally very supportive of pro-active and aggressive changes (that follow basic wiki policies, like verifiability). Don't let other editors lead you to believe otherwise. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Debate about being a doctoral level degree section
Experience strongly suggests that removing this section creates an unstable situation. Proponents of both sides will make drive-by posts either stating it's exactly the same as a Ph.D. (you even have to do a research paper at some schools) or that it's merely a master's degree (comparable to a 3 year M.F.A. or M.Arch.). One of the reasons for defending the status quo is from having seen what happens when it's absent. It's been the same at the doctor of physical therapy, nursing practice, and education pages, for example. This approach keeps that material in one section near the bottom. So while I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the notion of just removing the whole thing in principle, in practice it doesn't work. JJL (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The simple truth is that I've refuted the facts alleged in this section. I did this almost a month ago and to date, there has been no attempt to rebut what I've stated. There is no basis for this section to stand. The notion that it's controversial to remove it should not be a factor: there's simply no factual basis for it to exist. I was under the impression that material included in Wikipedia had to be based on facts, not on upset feelings. 67.221.94.156 (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comments have been responded to; it's your judgment that the facts have been "refuted" and I for one do not agree. I don't see WP:CONSENSUS for your viewpoint or for mine. The debate section is appropriate in such a case. JJL (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that so? Can you please link me to the diff where anyone here addresses the points I made here: [] and here: []? 67.221.94.156 (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * JJL, simply saying that you do not agree that the evidence has been refuted is not sufficient. Either attempt to rebut the anonymous poster's arguments against the evidence with arguments of your own, or concede. Further, you saying, "do a Google search," is likewise insufficient. If the debate is as widespread as you claim, proponents of the argument against the JD as a professional doctorate should be able to do a Google search and find more authoritative sources than the ones currently in the article.


 * Addressing your earlier statements, I don't see many contending that the JD is the same as a PH.D., so I believe that concern is a red herring. Nonetheless, there could be a link to "professional doctorate" which would address your concerns in that regard. Also, I checked the talk pages of both DPT and DNP. While I didn't see any problem on the DPT page, I did see debating going on regarding the DNP. However, I contend that is more indicative of the turf war going on between nurses and physicians rather than a genuine debate about the DNP's academic status.Mavirikk (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is simply saying that the evidence has been refuted sufficient? JJL (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, s/he advanced arguments for each item of evidence which you apparently cannot trouble yourself to rebut with your own arguments. You simply stated that you do not believe the evidence has been refuted. If you are going to continue blocking the editing of this article, you must state why you believe the evidence has not been refuted. Is this your strategy? Continue to stonewall us until we lose interest and give up? Mavirikk (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't formal debate set to what you envision as appropriate rules for such. The goal is WP:CONSENSUS. A consensus was reached. It was a long, difficult process involving, in the end, mediation. Consensus can change. But I don't see evidence that the consensus has changed yet. I've indicated why I see things differently. The sources were those that came out of the formal mediation with an admin. so I presume they've met Wikipedia's standards. Declaring my points 'insufficient' doesn't change consensus. I'm still here reading and responding, but I'm not obliged to rebut every point until you concede--indeed, the site would come to a standstill in such a case. The position I'm taking is only that there's disagreement about this, and I believe that there's enough reason to indicate that this is so. JJL (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS states: "Discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons." I have provided reasons why each and every point of fact is incorrect. You, on the other hand, are relying on a mediation that specifically stated that it was not meant to bind the hands of future editors. I would say that it is you who are not following Wikipedia policy on this.

I'd also like to point out this statement in that very same document: "Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action." So far, this has been your only rationale. 67.221.94.110 (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We appear to see things differently. I don't consider the widely-used style guide I cited from the U. of Alabama (People who hold the JD, or juris doctor, are not called "Dr." Those who hold the terminal degree in that field—the doctor of juridical science or JSD—are.), the Inside Higher Ed. article on the mayor (skeptics wonder whether Sullivan's lack of higher education experience other than being a student makes him a viable candidate for the presidency. The mayor has an undergraduate degree from Bates College and a law degree from Western New England College, but lacks a Ph.D; "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[...]"), or the NIH site (normally it would not be appropriate to enter a non-research degree such as an M.B.A., M.F.A. or J.D) to have been rebutted. They clearly indicate the presence of disagreement on the matter of whether the J.D. is a doctorate in the sense that the term is usually understood (from teh section in dispute: "there has been debate as to whether or not the J.D. is a doctoral level degree as the classification is applied to research degrees, such as the Ph.D."). The Dept. of Labor link in the article is also indicative of a general trend to treat it as more similar to a M.S. than to a doctorate. JJL (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a very plain and simple reason that those cites are rebutted: none of them support the contention that the JD is not a doctorate. If you will, please quote for me where it explicitly says that the JD is not a doctoral-level degree.
 * The issue here is that without your editorial inferences, there simply is no support for the proposition that the JD is not a doctorate. There may be support that it is not a research degree, but that's not the name of the section. Perhaps it should be changed to reflect such?
 * I'll give you an example of the problem here. Look at the Inside Higher Ed. article. The only relevant point is that a PhD is required for this position. If the PhD is a prerequisite, does that mean that the JD is not a doctorate? If a M.B.A. was required for a position, does that mean that a M.S.W. is not a master's degree? The only way your argument can stand is if the editor has already decided that the JD is not a doctorate. 137.99.235.246 (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If we accept the claim that the JD is a doctorate but not a research degree, then the JD appears to look like an Ed.D., D.A., or M.D. (for example). What is different about the JD versus these other three degrees is that the JD is the only one that is itself a pre-requisite for another degree (actually, two -- the LL.M. and S.J.D.). That makes the JD look extremely different from other doctorates in that it is not a terminal degree. Wikiant (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it satisfying to observe that one position on this article is continually taken up by different editors who make nearly identical arguments, while the other position is generally only defended by the same two or three conservative editors. After the many years of this debate, this trend is becoming more and more apparent (as I suspected it would). Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Vigorous Debate No Surprise Given We're Talking About Lawyers
Hey all... I just thought I'd contribute that the vigorous (near-obsessive) debate on this topic is no surprise! The Juris Doctor is a law degree, and arguing, challenging evidence, questioning premises, and and quibbling over format are precisely the nuts and bolts of what lawyers do for a living.

I don't mean to say that lawyers are petty. Rather, lawyers are more apt than just about anyone else (save perhaps linguists?) to perceive the very substantial difference in meaning that may result from a very slight change in wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gotten into the thick of it with this debate in the past as well, and after having taken a step back, I agree with you--it is pretty entertaining in that respect. It's sometimes like watching chimps fight over fruit too!  Us humans are such funny little things. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Debate about status?
I am reading these comments and I would say there isn't any (notable) debate about academic status in the academic world. I mean it might exist but only in the heads of a few (fringe). Everyone knows it's not the same as a PhD. Big deal. The section should be deleted from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.222.231.2 (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, as has been said many times before over the past year or two, there is no real debate about the JD being a professional doctorate, and the section in this article about the so-called debate is full of original research and citations whose relevance is tenuous. Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. The entire section is patent synthesis and original research which has no place in this or any other article.  --ElKevbo (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a straw man argument and that will get us nowhere. No one is debating whether or not it's considered a professional doctorate, and the section isn't titled "Is the J.D. a professional doctorate?" That was settled and there isn't disagreement about how that should ba handled on this page--it's always referred to as such. The question refers to its academic status--is it considered equivalent to other doctorates. That is where there is disagreement. It's been well-established here that there exist people who do not feel that it is a "true" doctorate (,, , (see response #4)). Here's a published source: In "The Law School Bible" by Peter J. Loughlin it states (pg. 43) it says that "the Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree is the academic equivalent of the LL.B. In fact...the Academic Heritage Dictionary...defines the Juris Doctor as "An academic degree that is the equivalent of a bachelor of laws. [That is, a LL.B.] ". (The comment in brackets is directly from the book, and he is referring principally to a foreign LL.B. degree here.) On the next page he adds that there are higher degrees in law than the J.D. and states that the LL.D. is "the true "Doctor of Laws" degree". He reiterates these points in Appendix G (pg. 213). I don't think it's synthesis to point out that disagreement exists on the matter. JJL (talk)
 * That's fine but the vast majority of the content currently on the page is clearly synthesis. When Wikipedia editors are trawling through listings and documents to see if it lists such-and-such as X or Y and they then present that information in an article as if it's a cogent argument, that's synthesis.  It's one thing to note that there is disagreement and cite a few exemplars but it's another thing to write a significant section of text using those listings and documents.  As written, this section clearly crosses the line into original research.  --ElKevbo (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea was not to make an argument but to give examples of points that have been advanced in support of or against either position. Do we agree that there's disagreement about the status of the J.D. degree in the pantheon of doctorates but not as to whether there's a debate about it? JJL (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll get people here to agree that there are PhDs who disagree (and therefore want to debate) with the place of the JD withing the pantheon of doctorates, but that's about it. There's no institutional debate about their place, as evidenced by how US universities treat the degree and holders of the degree. You might even get some traction with the argument that criminology departments can't decide if a JD is sufficient for tenure or not, but that's a different matter entirely.

You see, a JD isn't just about the material covered, but rather introduces a whole different way of thinking. While there may be topical similarities between the English LLB, for instance, pedagogy is completely different. And so is the resulting education. I'm not saying one is superior to the other, nor am I suggesting that a practicing professional of several years is notably different because of their education. I'm just saying that they're not same thing. Furthermore, law has historically been a higher faculty, due to the necessity of critical thinking skills necessary to properly be able to grasp, apply and frame legal arguments and opinions. So to equate an LLB with BS or BA isn't accurate in the historic sense, either.

PhDs don't like the idea of a different form of education (that may or may not take less time - do they take issue with 7 yr PhD degrees under the Bologna process?) being equated with their own. This makes sense. I get that. And if you want to debate which is better, I can recruit a whole class of 8 year olds to argue over whose dad will win a fist fight, too. I mean, seriously. Of course everyone wants to believe they're the best. But this has turned into such an argument on wikipedia. It's ridiculous. I'll agree that PhD holders may resent JD holders. I'll agree that they're clearly not the same thing. I'll agree that many PhDs take more time. I think all the other editors will agree as well. But I won't agree that a PhD holder is more educated or intelligent or capable than I am, nor will I agree that their academic pedigree is indicative of any of those things. But I do know that there are PhD holders who would adamantly disagree with me, and that's their prerogative. That would be the "debate" you're talking about. But the fact of the matter is, the academy is on my side. In the United States, at least. And that really can't be argued. Whether it's right or wrong, you can't argue the actual state of affairs. But I'll give you props for doing a good job trying. But it's simply wrong. And it's been demonstrated over and over again.

I really don't know what else to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.241.5 (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But Wikipedia's policy is to present both sides of an issue where there is disagreement. If we agree there's disagreement, then that seems to settle the issue here--we cite the disagreement and let the reader draw his or her own conclusion. It doesn't matter which party, if any, is right. The intelligent design article doesn't say "this is wrong", it says "these groups think it's wrong". To say "I do know that there are PhD holders who [...] adamantly disagree with me" is tantamount to agreeing that the material should be in here. The exceptions are WP:FRINGE theories like the Face on Mars theory. I don't think it's a fringe theory to say that adding a year to a bachelor's degree program makes it more akin to a master's degree program than a doctoral program. Regarding the comparison you make in your comments here between the J.D. and the Ph.D....the fact that law is second-entry buys a little traction but it still isn't comparable to a Ph.D. in that regard--you don't get into a Ph.D. program in French language if you don't speak the language (presumably from undergraduate study), but the J.D. has no specific prerequisites. It can go faster and deeper because of the carefully selected students (smart and well-prepared) but must start on Day One w.r.t. law. Try entering a graduate program in Physics with no undergraduate training in physics or math., though. It's not comparable. Someone who has spent eight years studying physics (four undergrad. and an optimistic four in grad. school) has a different level of training in that area than a person who spent four years studying Geography and then three years studying law. In addition, a Ph.D. program trains specialists for research and a J.D. program trains generalists for a profession. The comparisons are silly...they're different things. But it's human nature to compare them and it happens and we should document that. JJL (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not an accurate statement about all Ph.Ds. Check out a lot of criminology Ph.Ds. They require no particular course of study in undergrad, do not require a prior masters in the field, and are technically fewer credits than the JD (although I recognize they typically take more than three years to complete because of the dissertation). Thus, at least in that example, the JD is at least equal to a Ph.D. in the context of academic requirements for graduation, and perhaps the JD is superior.Mavirikk (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but you're missing a key point here - the disagreement between myself and the hypothetical PhD holder is a matter of opinion between INDIVIDUALS. There is no INSTITUTIONAL debate within the ACADEMY. The universities that grant the degrees are the ultimate authority here (simply by virtue of the fact that they GRANT the degree). There may be some institutional debate as to the treatment of professional vs. research doctorates outside of academia (read: government salaries, administrative appointments, etc.), but that's not indicative of what the degree IS, but rather what it's worth. As you concede, it's a professional doctorate, and nobody is arguing that a professional doctorate IS a research doctorate. And furthermore, there are examples of research doctorates that don't require the topical undergrad - business being a good example. You don't need a BBA to do an MBA. So you can do an MBA and a DBA and be done. I have a BComm, yet I can gain entrance to a Master's program in Economics. For that matter, you can get a Master's in law without any prior topical education. You're elevating depth over breadth like that's the only path to a doctorate. It's not. And these are all different issues that people could argue forever.

The ultimate authority are the institutions that grant the degrees - everything else is a matter of personal opinion, even in the case that the personal opinions of a group are institutionalized outside of academia. We're talking about an academic DEGREE here. I'm a member of 3 separate and (although complementary) unrelated professions. I've watched as members of 2 of those professions have argued over their dominion, and who is or isn't equivalent or qualified to perform the same tasks (regarding other professional bodies). I've watched endless debate over the quantity and quality of education as people argue over credentials. And that's what I equate this to - certain members of the academy don't like the rights and privileges extended to others. But that doesn't change the fact that those rights (or that name) HAS been extended. To present personal or institutional (other than the ULTIMATE institutional) opinion as a debate WITHIN academia is improper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.241.5 (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what your source is for saying "The ultimate authority are the institutions that grant the degrees"--others have suggested it's the ABA. Biologists should be the ultimate authority for evolution, but I.D. gets its own article. The institutions don't fully agree, as evidenced by the U. of Alabama style guide (used at many other schools too), the schools that have vacillated about appointing a J.D. (only) holder to their presidency, etc. Even if the schools were a.) the sole authority, b.) of one mind on the matter, and c.) unambiguous about the status of the J.D., it doesn't change the fact that there's disagreement. JJL (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My source? Are you kidding? How does the source (of the degree) not constitute the authority? The academy created the degree, we're talking about the status within the academy. The academy in other parts of the world may (and quite authoritatively, in their respective geography) treat the degree differently, but if you're looking for a source beyond the original source, have fun with that... As for the style guide, we're back to a title/honorific convention, nothing more. The debate over whether a JD is sufficient for a presidency - that's exactly the difference we've already acknowledged here - each school that's considered the problem is essentially trying to determine if a professional doctorate is sufficient, or if they would prefer a research doctorate for an academic head. It may manifest itself in the "equivalence" debate, but that's not saying the JD isn't a doctorate, nor is it saying that any institution in the US has made such a statement. You're mixing up arguments here. You're equivocating between the use of the title and the status of the degree. That's not a proper argument. And the disagreement is here, between individuals, not in the institutions that grant the degree (which DO in fact constitute the primary authority). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.241.5 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There's not just a preponderance of evidence, or wide consensus from the most highly reputable institutions, or historical sources which clearly show that the J.D. is a true doctorate, the status of the degree is clear by its name. There are fringe theories out there in irrelevant or non-reputable sources, and disagreement in other jurisdictions, but it doesn't warrant an entire section of this article which is replete with original research and POV pushing. As I had often promised you would happen, JJL, consensus has changed. Let it go, already. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A new consensus must be reached, not just declared. JJL (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Curious to be on the other side of that argument now, isn't it? :)  One thing is certain: There is clearly no consensus, neither for the status quo NOR for completely removing the section.  Which is what I intended to say. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Name of "Debate" section
Would renaming this section to something without "debate" in the heading help assuage some of the concerns? JJL (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you must have been out of the room when we discussed... no wait... you participated in that discussion! Are you kidding me?  :P  I agree, your movement towards trying to find a suitable middle ground is appropriate.  I think that removing the term "debate" is a step towards recognizing some of the concerns, but it's a far mark from addressing the main points (OR among them). Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've edited the headings to what I think is fairly neutral language. Since each bullet point is referenced, perhaps this addresses some of what is being seen as synthesis or OR. JJL (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You can put whatever labels you'd like on it, it's still synthesis and original research and I remain adamantly opposed to its presence in this or any other article. :)
 * The crux of the issue is that if there is a debate or a disagreement, the right way to document it is to reference those who have already documented or described the issue, not independently gather and present evidence. The references in this section are largely being used as primary sources and that is usually a flag that we may be engaging in original research.  We need to rely primarily on secondary sources and that means citing those who have already described the issue.  There is a little bit of that in the current section but way, way too much synthesis of primary sources.
 * If there debate or disagreement (and I tend to concur with the editor above who expresses the opinion that there is little real debate or disagreement outside of petty squabbles; I, for one, have no problem with accepting the JD as a beast unto its own much like the MFA), the section could be salvaged but it would have little resemblance to the current section. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That is EXACTLY correct, and any other interpretation is inconsistent and illogical. I have said those exact words many times over the past year.  Therefore, let's act accordingly. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So why doesn't this article get changed? It appears that only two users are blocking changes, verses many different users, and those two users rarely attempt to advance substantive arguments. JJL, while behaving perfectly civil, is increasingly relying on wikipedia lawyering rather than defending his arguments with substantive points. Look, this isn't about ego on my part. I think most lawyers are pretty secure with the title "lawyer" rather than "doctor." Simply those sources are embarrassingly bad. If the debate is so credible and widespread, why is the anti-JD camp forced to rely on non-authoritative sources taken out of context? Furthermore, assuming this is a legitimate debate, it's with the academic status of professional doctorates as a whole not just the JD. Thus, the JD article should only state, as JJL has already admitted, that the JD is a professional doctorate with a link to the professional doctorate page. That is where this debate should be waged. However, if you do that, then other holders of professional doctorates will get involved which is why the anti-JD camp probably would oppose such a method. But that's the right way to go about doing this. Mavirikk (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

new research, notes
I'm sorry to use this as a sandbox for my research notes, but it's relevant and of interest to the community, and I need to take notes while hanging out at the library. Therefore, despite the disclaimer, please read these notes if you are at all interested in this J.D. article--they are very useful for elucidating and resolving some topics debated earlier on this discussion page.

Helland, P. "The Doctoral Degree," in Guthrie, J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Education. Macmillan, NY. 2003. vol. 2, pp. 595-596.

"Advanced education culminates with the awarding of the doctoral degree... [mentions Ph.D., Ed.D., D.Sc./Sc.D.] Professional doctoral degrees such as the doctor of jurisprudence (J.D.) and the doctor of medicine (M.D.) also indicate the ending of advanced education, but the requirements for these doctoral degrees differ from those of the Ph.D. and its equivalents." p. 595

Unger, H. Encyclopedia of American Education. Infobase Publishing, NY. 2007. vol. 1, p. 361.

"Two types of doctorates are awarded in the United States, research and professional, with the latter seldom requiring a master's degree or dissertation." p. 361

Valverde, G. "United States," in Postlethwaite, T. (ed.) International Encyclopedia of National Systems of Education. Pergamon/Elsevier Science, NY. 1995. pp. 1033-1041.

"A salient characteristic of education in the United States is that it is an extremely decentralized system... The federal government of the United States has no general mandate for the control or provision of public education." p. 1034 (p. 1035 has a structure chart which shows professional schools and graduate schools and degree attainment at the identical level)

Eckstein, M. "United States: System of Education," in Husen, T., et al. (ed.s) The International Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies. Pergamon, NY. 1988. vol. 9, pp. 5359-5366.

(chart on 5361 similar to chart in "International Encyclopedia of National Systems of Education," but including more explicitly the levels of the degrees, showing under "doctor's degree study" at the identical level the "Doctor of philosophy or professional degree[s]") "Historically, education has been considered a state and local responsibility... The 50 states discharge their administrative responsibilities for education along broadly similar lines. Generally, a board of education of elected and/or appointed members forms policy and determines the budget.  A state department of education, headed by a chief administrative officer has overall responsibility for providing education at all levels..." p. 5362

Eells, W. et al. Academic Degrees: Earned and Honorary Degrees Conferred by Institutions of Higher Education in the United States. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington D.C. 1960.

"The authority to grant degrees in the United States in the case of most of the privately controlled institutions of higher education derives from their formal charters; in the case of publicly controlled institutions, from the legislative enactments creating them, sometimes in the form of individual formal charters, but more often from general or special legislation creating or authorizing certain institutions or groups of institutions... Most of the college charters have been granted by State legislatures.. Institutions in the District of Columbia have been chartered by the Federal Government, as well as a few specialized institutions outside the District of Columbia, such as the service academies, the U.S. Military Academy in New York, the U.S. Naval Academy in Maryland, and others." pp. 8-9 "[I]t is evident that most charters gave institutions practically unlimited powers to confer degrees such "as are usually conferred in similar institutions," or "such as the trustees may deem appropriate," or, more broadly, "any and all degrees." p. 10 "Earned doctor's degrees... are of two quite distinct types, which may be designated as professional or practitioners degrees, and research degrees." p. 27

More sources (again)
From the Washington Times, a debate on whether the U. of D.C. provost qualifies for the job, as it requires a doctorate and she has only a J.D.:


 * 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.
 * A spokesman for Mrs. Reuben-Cooke's alma mater said her law degree is not equivalent to a doctorate.


 * "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.


 * The U.S. Network for Education Information draws a distinction between a professional degree, such as a J.D., and a research doctorate, or Ph.D.


 * "Several of the [professional degrees] incorporate the term 'doctor,' but they are not research doctorates and not equivalent to the Ph.D.," according to the Web site for the network, an information and referral service operated by the National Library of Education. The Web site is www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/international/USNEI/.

The University of Windsor (Canada) : "The change in designation from an LL.B. to a J.D. is a change in degree title only. The entrance requirements and the degree requirements will remain unchanged. A Windsor Law J.D. would not be a graduate degree. Rather, it will continue to be considered an undergraduate professional degree program.[...]Like the LL.B., the J.D. is considered an undergraduate degree and the first degree to be obtained in law." According to ABANet, "State bar opinions are split over whether a lawyer may refer to himself as “Dr.” or “Doctor”." E.g., Maine: "“Regular use of the title “doctor” is almost exclusively confined to certain health professionals” and “to some extent, academics with a Ph.D. degree and clergymen.” The lay person hearing an attorney referred to as doctor would assume the attorney were also qualified in one of these professions)". From the ABA Journal (Maher, K.; 92 ABA J. 24 (2006)): The ABA permitted holders of a J.D. or LL.M. to use the title 'doctor' (1970); there are states wheer J.D. holders are prohibited from calling themselves 'doctor'. A lawyer : "I personally believe that it is inappropriate for J.D.'s to use the term doctor. This is because there are further advanced legal degrees, to wit L.L.M's and S.J.D. degrees. Perhaps, the holder of S.J.D. degree should be able to refer to himself as a doctor since that is the terminal degree in law."

It seems clear to me. The assistant dean of students for the University of Michigan Law School, himself a J.D., has stated it plainly--and refers to it as a professional degree, not a professional doctorate. The use of the term "professional doctorate" was a compromise here. JJL (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is the JD the only professional degree you have targeted for this debate? Should this debate not being taking place on the "professional doctorate" page?Mavirikk (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The J.D. (and the new D.P.T.) is different in that there is a general perception that it is more akin to a 2-3 year master's (M.F.A., M.Arch., M.S.W., etc.) than to a doctorate. While many of the same criticisms could apply to, say, the M.D., it isn't as widely done (e.g., you probably won't find an assistant dean of medicine who is himself an M.D. denying that it is a doctorate). I'm not trying to make an argument but to document the existence of disagreement. The federal govt. pays J.D. holders less, commissions them as O-2's rather than O-3's as with physicians, etc. Medicine requires 1-1.5 years' worth of prerequisite courses in addition to a bachelor's for ordinary admission where as the J.D. requires only a bachelor's. Physician-presidents have not been questioned as university presidents but lawyer-presidents have. There is thus a perception that the J.D. is worth less money and lower military and academic rank. We're talking about citing those documented facts (and related ones). JJL (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that the MD only has two years of classwork (not counting the undergrad work). The finally two years are in the field doing rotations. Not saying that work is not rigorous, but those two years do not resemble the academy at all and are much more like an apprenticeship. And law school classes are much more difficult than most of the MD pre-req. classes.Mavirikk (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

1. We've established that non-US sources aren't relevant to the debate we're having here. We're talking about the US degree, created by US universities, and how it's treated in the US. The rest is notable as to the variants. Nothing more. Stop pointing to foreign jurisdictions, many of which have only recently adopted the degree, as authority as to what the degree is within its primary jurisdiction. Furthermore, the honorific and the degree itself are separate issues.

2. We've agreed that a professional doctorate is not a research doctorate. Why do you keep using this argument? And why do you apply it solely to the JD? Have or have not US universities issued numerous professional degrees with the name doctorate in the title? Yes or no? Simple question. Dispositive answer.

3. The ABA retracted their statement. That should tell you something.

4. How does saying something is a professional degree necessarily lead to the conclusion that it's not a doctorate?

5. Not equivalent to a doctorate - this is an inherently illogical statement (a doctorate degree is not equivalent to a doctorate). What does it mean? Leaving aside the meaning of "equivalent" for the time being (this would be the debate between individuals discussed earlier), I take that to say it's not a research doctorate. We've AGREED on that. Why do you keep using that as evidence? It's been demonstrated not to be a valid argument to the discussion at hand.

5. A Dean does not the academy make. The board of regents (or similar body) that administers a university and it's constituent schools have the ultimate authority over the degrees issued. What matters is what the institution does, not what a person says, when we're looking for base level evidence here. We're talking about the degree's position in the academy, here. We're not even talking about what members of the academy think individually. Until US schools STOP calling it a doctorate and treating their students as doctoral students, you can't logically say it's not a doctorate. As I've said, you can argue the merits, but you can't argue the reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.242.180 (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I've shown that there is disagreement over the matter. You seem to be referring to the WP:TRUTH. Are you disputing that there is disagreement about the status of the degree as a doctorate? JJL (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

In the academy, YES, I am disputing your claim. Between us, NO. I can't be any more clear on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.242.180 (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some foreign institutions which have transplanted the J.D. degree in name and incorporated it into their unique legal/educational systems, and a few of those institutions have made statements about the status of the J.D. degree of graduates of their particular institution.
 * There are some misguided and uninformed academics who are not experts on legal education who have made random statements regarding their perception of the status of the J.D.
 * There are some statements from government offices, which have no authority whatsoever on academic policy at the universities, that have made policies or statements which seem to reflect their perception of the status of the J.D. degree.
 * There are NOT any authoritative sources which clearly state that the J.D. is never a professional doctorate or a true doctorate.
 * There is NOT any source that has been offered which contains an actual debate among academic authorities about the status of the degree.
 * No claim is made by any source that the J.D. is the exact same as a Ph.D. and innumerable authoritative sources which clearly state that the two are doctorates of different categories, and cannot be equated.
 * Numerous sources from a number of jurisdictions and institutions have clearly stated that the J.D. is the terminal professional degree in law and that it is a true doctorate.
 * Based on the above true and fair statements, we should change the article accordingly.
 * This has all been said before, and never has a cogent logical argument been presented contrary. Only vague allusions to "consensus" and other such wiki policies have been made as justifications for the article as it now exists. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We seem to disagree as to whether a cogent argument has been presented to that effect. As to Wikipedia policies, I refer again to the mediation in hopes that it will help you to realize that a disinterested administrator agreed that such an argument had been made. This is an indication that perhaps you are too close to this issue to be able to see both sides of it. In any event, in continuing to argue about whether or not "the J.D. is the exact same as a Ph.D." and other matters that are not at issue, you seem to be avoiding the actual issue--is there disagreement about what the degree's academic status is. There is, and appeal to the authority of universities is unconvincing (and we have a WP:V WP:RS that, e.g, the U. of M. doesn't feel the same). Indeed, that's the point of WP:V--you can call them up and check this out. JJL (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Individual opinions at U. of M. is not something you can hang a hat on, although it is interesting. As for the mediation, please read the wiki article on mediation.  A mediator is not a decision-maker, only a facilitator of decisions made by all the participating parties.  Therefore, the mediator's opinion (which was never clearly expressed anyways) is irrelevant and non-authoritative.  There's a reason it's called "mediation" and not "arbitration."  But we've had this discussion already, and I can't argue with someone who reads into "mediation" a meaning absent in all dictionaries and wiki articles.  I mean, I'm not calling you dumb, but please give me another wall to bang my head against, 'cause I'm really bored of that one. Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You have minimized mediation before, but this is the first that I've seen you disparage the process ("irrelevant"??). That is perhaps disrespectful to those who volunteer their time to mediate. Nonetheless, mediation is what brought the article to its current form. I don't see a consensus to revert to the former form, so perhaps you should institute arbitration. Wikiant (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Now Wikiant, I have known you to be an intelligent and educated editor, and that's just unfair. You must know what I am saying and are deliberately trying to obfuscate the matter in an illegitimate way.  You can find all you want to know about what mediation is here  .  The wiki articles are also useful here Mediation and Mediation.
 * According to those sources, mediation as known to all educated humans who use the English language is, "a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), aims to assist two (or more) disputants in reaching an agreement. Whether an agreement results or not, and whatever the content of that agreement, if any, the parties themselves determine rather than accepting something imposed by a third party... all parties must view the mediator as impartial... The mediator can’t force the parties to resolve their differences. But the mediator can help the parties reach a solution agreeable to both of them... A neutral mediator assists in reaching a voluntary, negotiated agreement... Mediation is a voluntary and confidential way to resolve disputes without giving the decision-making power to someone else (like a judge). It involves sitting down with the other side in the dispute and a third-party who is neutral and impartial (the mediator). The mediator helps the parties identify the important issues in the dispute and decide how they can resolve it themselves. The mediator doesn't tell them what to do, or make a judgment about who's right and who's wrong. Control over the outcome of the case stays with the parties."
 * As is readily apparent on the page for the mediation that occurred earlier this year Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Juris_Doctor, there was no agreement reached by the participants, and the mediator expressed no opinion regarding the status of the J.D.
 * Therefore, as is clearly evident, mediation is entirely voluntary and non-binding absent a unanimous agreement, there was no resolution to the mediation attempt, and even if the neutral impartial non-judgmental mediator had expressed an opinion it would have been entirely inappropriate and irrelevant.
 * Hey, is it just me, or are we seeing a pattern in the contributions of some of the editors here? Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The mediator wrote "...I am closing this request as Successful. The original participants have worked up a version that is acceptable, and that is the point of mediation. Many thanks to all who participated.". That seems clear to me. JJL (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wonderful use of misleading the reader by only quoting part of the relevant context. The mediator made it clear that he made that statement only because he assumed I assented because I was absent from the discussion for a few weeks, but when I was able to contribute again, I made it clear that all my last statements were in opposition, and that my view had not changed.  Therefore the mediation was declared unsuccessful.  And the fact that you bring this up without even responding to the bulk of my above contributions is disappointing. Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

For full disclosure, JJL, do you hold a Ph.D or are you in a Ph.D program? Likewise, Zoticogrillo, do you hold a JD or are you in law school? This has been such a long, intense debate, I wonder if there are personal biases working in the background here. I know Wikiant claims to hold a Ph.D in his profile so I think that might explain part of his position. I hold a JD so I admit I am somewhat biased in favor of my degree.Mavirikk (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That question leads to ad hominem conclusions and only clouds the issue. If our statements are true, they would be true no matter what our background.  Biases, if they exist, might merely make us better advocates for the truth.  And these questions are being raised only because the truthfulness of many of the statements during the course of this debate have not been fully responded to, and you possibly perceive the discussion arriving at an impass.  Let's not muddy the water with irrelevant information about our background.  If you are really curious about me, you will do your research, but I don't think it will be helpful to you at all. Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I know you are a law student. In a squabble with another editor, I believe Coolcaesar, you told him you attend a top law school. I merely included you in the question to appear fair to the other editors. And I already know Wikiant holds a Ph.D, I am pretty sure the autonomous editor is a law student from the way s/he writes, and I admit I have a JD/LLM. So really, I just wanted to know JJL's background. Also, rules regarding conflict of interest and disclosure for our profession and other professions disagree with you about the importance of one's background. As such, ad hominem criticisms, if used judiciously, can be very relevant in a debate. I agree that bias does make one a good advocate, but editors here do not acknowledge they are advocates for a point of view. They are pretending to be neutral truth seekers. Since that is not the case, I am asking for them to acknowledge they are acting as advocates of their point of view and end this charade of just following the evidence wherever it leads. Those with Ph.Ds clearly view the JD as credential inflation and believe it is merely a glorified master's degree (and some even argue it is a second bachelor's degree). JD holders object to others minimizing the difficulty and importance of their degree and the notion that Ph.D holders somehow are entitled to judge the merit of all other academic and professional degrees. If an editor has a personal interest in how this debate is resolved, they ought to disclose it. Mavirikk (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See, you did your research on me (although incomplete), and now you've raised a non-issue that, if this were a court of law, would be inadmissible as irrelevant, and if I were being examined, would be stricken from the record. Unfortunately you still don't know much about me at all.  I am not a law student and haven't been one for awhile (although I'm not that old).  I have other graduate degrees from some of the most reputable institutions, one of which is completely unrelated to the law, which I earned concurrently with or after law school.  I have much experience doing survey research in Europe, West Africa and Hong Kong (for my own projects, not just as an assistant), and am familiar with the great stresses of a research degree, and the expertise that results.  There is absolutely no conflict of interest, as we are merely making observations, sharing citations, and presenting logical arguments based on the evidence presented by all parties.  That's like saying a lawyer cannot represent an immigration client if she is also an advocate for open boarders and human rights!  It's nothing like representing both the husband and wife, or the employer and employee. Come on, please don't make we get out Black's (again)!  :P  I am merely doing this as a passtime, and because some editors push a POV on this article which so obviously conflicts with high quality citations.  Like I have said before, how on earth would I benefit personally if I somehow raise the status of the J.D. in a freaking wikipedia article (if that were even possible).  I mean, my J.D. is not my only degree, so why the heck should I care personally?!  Given your opinions above and your education, I'm surprized you are raising these issues, Mavirikk. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! Who's resorting to ad homenim attacks now? I raised a perfectly legitimate issue: whether editors are being neutral truth seekers (as they claim) or whether they are allowing their educational background and personal biases influence the way they view/interpret the evidence. I am not saying that one would have to recuse herself from this discussion if she had either a Ph.D or a JD. Merely that it will affect the way they interpret the evidence and that ought to be disclosed. Also, this is not a court of law so the rules of evidence do not apply. But, if it were, this certainly would be admissible because it is relevant as it goes to the witness's credibility and potential bias. Anyway, there was no reason to insult me - not that it bothers me. I didn't say anything offensive; I merely disagreed with you. If you think my point is irrelevant, then just ignore me! Mavirikk (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This line of reasoning has become much more of a distraction than I intended. So, while I still think I am correct, I will drop it so we can get back to the main issue here. I have been following this discussion for a long time, and have been a silent supporter of you and your arguments. So I am dismayed that once I got involved in the discussion it is you that I am now arguing with, Zoticogrillo. Mavirikk (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wake Forest University : "Law schools throughout the United States have changed the nomenclature of this first degree from the long used LL.B. (Bachelor of Laws) to the J.D. (Juris Doctor)." Note: Changed the nomenclature (naming). Can this be verified : "I hold a US law degree (LLB/Juris Doctorate) from a school recognized on www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk. I do not have a Masters degree. I was informed that NARIC classifies US law degrees as first professional qualification equivalent to a Bachelors degree. Therefore, apparently no points can be earned for a law degree."

Maree Siansbury, JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALASIAN LAW TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, referring to the Australian J.D. : "The Juris Doctor is a Masters-level graduate-entry law program recognised for the purposes of admission to legal practice. The name was originally used in the United States in the 1960s as a label for a higher and professional degree in law. In Australian universities, the Juris Doctor is not a doctorate but either a Masters-level or graduate-entry program. The Juris Doctor degree is growing in popularity among Australian law schools as the way to teach graduate-entry law. In 2003 it was reported that four law schools had introduced a JD program, with another two introducing the program in all but name. As of April 2008, 12 Australian law schools offered a Juris Doctor degree." (JlALawTA 23; (2008) 1 Journal of the Australasian Law Teachers Association 247) Also from Australia : "THE University of Technology, Sydney has restructured its law degree offerings, relaunching its master of law and legal practice qualification as a juris doctor of law.

The move follows news of radical plans at the University of Melbourne, which has introduced a more American style of learning.[...]

The course would now be six months shorter, and with fewer credit points the cost would also be reduced. The name change was partly a reflection of the growing market in juris doctor degrees.

"The name juris doctor is something recognised more internationally," Ms Olliffe said."

JJL (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

full disclosure / conflict of interest
Actually, I am so sorry. I must now disclose that I am a paid wikipedia employee who receives $10,000 from the American Bar Association if I am able to successfully promote their schools and elevate the level of prestige of American legal education in wikipedia articles. You got me!

And if you believe that, I've got a brother-in-law with a bridge to sell. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this straw man you propose does make me look pretty ridiculous. But let's return to what I actually argued, shall we? Mavirikk (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see the need for all this sophistry.
I became quite busy and was unable to check on this page recently, and I really must say, I think the debate on this talk page is getting a bit broad.

I'm sure that everyone here can agree that the subject of the discussion is whether the JD is a "doctoral level degree", as per the section name.

I'm also sure that everyone can agree that Wikipedia requires sources that are on-point to a particular contention.

Simply put, the problem with this section are as follows:

(1) None of the sources actually state that the JD is not a doctorate. The sources provided require a bit of editorializing to fit properly. I'll give the "Inside Higher Ed" article as an example:

The article says: A JD is not a requirement for this job, but a PhD is.

This is used as an assertion that a JD is not a doctoral level degree.

There's a logical step missing here: Between these two statements, there's the implied statement that ONLY a PhD is a doctoral level degree. This is editorializing on the part of the editor because such a statement is not supported by the article.

(2) Most of these sources do not appear to be authoritative or indicative of a substantial debate. A great example of this is the "Dr. Sharp" cite. Just because one individual believes the JD is not a doctorate does not indicate the worthiness of this claim. Keep in mind the guidelines on reliable sources. (I looked this up!)

(3) Some of the sources are entirely not on point at all. For example, the Australian JD is much different than the United States JD. For that reason, it should be categorically excluded.

All the evidence provided fits into one of these three categories, and a long time ago, I went over why exactly this evidence fits into these categories. As far as I can tell, nobody has rebutted my statements.

I would assume that someone who wishes to keep something in an article has the burden of defending it.

So why am I making a new section? Well, my contention is that this section is not supported by the evidence required for inclusion in Wikipedia.

I'm trying something a little different with this section. In this talk page section, I would only like to discuss the sufficiency of the evidence. If you are up for it, let's discuss this topic. If not, there are other section headings for the other, side arguments.

I understand that a mediation was held on this topic. I understand that there are a variety of claims being slung back and forth. But at the end of the day, the question is: is there sufficient evidence for this section to stand? Let's cut through the confusion and just get straight to the heart of the matter.

This is my Rule 50! Let's roll.

NB: I see that more evidence has been introduced since I last looked at it. Particularly, there is a U of Michigan cite and a Canadian cite. I think the rebuttal to this is simple: Michigan's statement is, as much of the evidence provided, only a distinction between a research doctorate and a JD. As I mentioned earlier, there's a logical step that's being editorialized: namely, that only PhD's are doctorates.

As for the Canadian cite, it has the same problems as the Australian cite. Your mileage may vary in foreign jurisdictions.

If there was any evidence added since then, I must not have seen it, but if you bring it to my attention I will be glad to point out the flaws.

NB, Part 2: I hope to avoid allegations of bias with this section. Since it's only a discussion of evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence, it should be relatively easy to avoid bias if we stick to basic principles of logic.

67.221.94.178 (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You write: "If there was any evidence added since then, I must not have seen it, but if you bring it to my attention I will be glad to point out the flaws.[...]I hope to avoid allegations of bias with this section." If you've already determined that any evidence against your view is flawed, then there's no reason to have this 'unbiased' discussion. I would like to point out something, though, that I haven't bothered rebutting for some while now: The alleged inadequacy or irrelevancy of references to foreign J.D.s. The article is about the Juris Doctor and not just the Juris Doctor in America. Compare how Bachelor of Arts, Doctor of Medicine, Engineer's degree, Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery, etc., handle things--from a global point of view. This matters because in the U.K., for example, a bachelor's degree can easily be the equivalent of a master's degree (e.g., the B.Phil.), while a Scottish masters' degree can be more akin to a bachelor's degree. The Juris Doctor page remains more American-centric than similar degrees' pages (similar to how the Bachelor of Philosophy degree is handled, with an Anglo-centric viewpoint), but it still handles a degree that is awarded in a variety of countries. Hence, commentary on its status in other countries is relevant w.r.t. to those countries but may also be relevant w.r.t. any confusion or disagreement over the degree that may cause (or reflect) in general. In that regard I find the Canadian reference spot-on--it explicitly places the J.D. as a market-driven renaming of what is in essence a (second-entry) bachelor's degree, flowing from market and other pressures in the U.S. into Canada. If the subsection on the 'debate' were renamed to be about the debate about its status in the U.S., or if an article on the degree in the U.S. were to be spun out, it could conceivably change matters somewhat, but for now we are treating the degree in general, which is appropriate for Wikipedia. JJL (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The sophistry is only on one side of the argument. Your points are spot on, and have been made in every conceivable way, after which a new rebuttal emerges (that falls into one of your three categories and is almost inevitably in the same vein as a previously rebutted argument), which is then followed by a "yes, but as you can see, there is disagreement!!"

There is disagreement among members of the academy as to how different doctorates compare to each other - yes, that goes for ALL doctorates. I know personally members of the academy who disparage other's qualifications (including PhD holders in other fields). But that does not change thee fact that those others they disparage hold a PhD. We've stipulated that the JD is a professional doctorate, and that a professional doctorate is not a research doctorate. JLL intimated in an earlier post that even calling it a professional doctorate was a compromise, despite numerous professional degrees granted in the US with doctorate in the title? The sophistry is entirely one sided, and has been demonstrated to be faulty and incorrect in every possible way, yet we're still here? Moreover, I can only surmise that the conservative editors are feigning thickness to push POV; otherwise, they have no business editing an article pertaining to a degree and a profession that embodies the reverence that we in the West hold for reason and logic.

Maverrick, I understand what you were getting at, and have in no way attempted to hide the fact that I hold a JD degree. From a top US school. I also hold undergraduate and graduate degrees in other fields from top universities in Canada and the UK. I have more years of formal schooling than most PhDs. And if you factor in post graduate professional (i.e. academic and professional post grad requirements) education, I could have 2 PhDs by now. I'm not personally interested in the title, I'm secure enough that I don't personally feel the need to make a comparison or disparage someone else's education. But here we have an instance where opinions of individuals (or foreign institutions, or non academic institutions) are being presented as institutional academic fact/dispute, in an attempt to push a POV. It's insulting, and it's wrong. So while I may have a bias, it's not out of any kind of overwhelming need to be considered "equivalent" to anything, nor is it because I want a title. I do, however, have the utmost respect for reason and logic, and I don't like how this debate has moved beyond the boundaries of both.

JLL - The JD is a US degree, and has only recently been adopted in other jurisdictions. Most of those jurisdictions don't have a class of professional doctorates, and have therefore struggled with the name and where the degree fits in their academic hierarchy. This is notable as to foreign variants, and perhaps on the professional doctorate page itself, but has NOTHING to do with how the American academy views the degree. PERIOD. The article is US centric because the degree is an American invention. So is the whole class of professional doctorates. That can't be disputed, yet you continue to try? Other than POV, why do you continue with this debate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.246.208 (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Were I writing a paper to be published, I would love to have my core arguments clearly supported, as they are in this J.D. article, by publications and institutions such as the Association of American Universities Data Exchange, National Science Foundation, German Federal Ministry of Education, and Encyclopedia Britannica (among others, including those improperly removed, such as UC Berkeley). And I would love nothing more than the rebuttal argument, as here, to have absolutely no references clearly supporting its position (i.e. without requiring much logical leaping of the reader).  And yet, despite this ideal situation here...  I suppose my hypothetical assumed a fair forum.


 * As has been pointed out, the JD was created in the US, where it existed for more than 100 years in no other country. The JD in other countries is truly novel, and given the many conflicting policies in various institutions within the same country (e.g. Canada and Australia), there seems to remain much confusion about the JD outside of the US.  That degree of confusion does not exist in the U.S.  Statements about the status of other degrees of the same name in different jurisdictions is most appropriate in the section, "Modern variants and curriculum." Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't an article about the U.S. degree solely, though it focuses on that. I don't see what's ambiguous or unacceptable about the U.S. Dept. of Labor (, "Master's or equivalent 		graduate degree (such as LL.B. or J.D.)") or a public statement by a J.D.-holding asst. dean at a major law school speaking within his area of expertise as a spokesman in the Washington Times (, "law degree is not equivalent to a doctorate"; he and the National Library of Education clearly draw a distinction between the J.D. as a professional degree and the Ph.D. as a research doctorate). This isn't the one-sided issue that you'd like it to be. JJL (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We are discussing the US degree and the US academy here - the section is at the bottom of the article which implies it relates to all of the variants, and the American degree is the original and makes up the bulk of the information presented. As you admit it's a US focused article, and we're talking about the US, the foreign variants and their treatment cease to be relevant to the discussion at hand. That is quite clear cut and obvious. Moreover, I've tried to make clear the difference between what the degree is called, and what anyone outside of the American academy wants to equate it to; it is called a doctorate, therefore it IS a doctorate. As the other anonymous editor points out, it's flawed logic to say that because the Michigan dean calls it a professional degree, it's not a doctorate. All that can conclusively be inferred from what was said is that it's not a research doctorate, which is CLEARLY stipulated in the article already. This isn't about being one sided, it's about being clear, concise and making sense. How many different ways can it be stated, agreed, stipulated and otherwise put for it to be clear that a professional doctorate isn't a research doctorate, no one has said that it is, nobody is trying to equate the two, and the article in no way makes such a claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.240.30 (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Following your logic, I can reduce my commute by calling my car a starship. Wikiant (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If you actually believe that Wikiant, you have no business editing this article. I didn't name it a doctorate. Harvard did. Harvard, an institution that grants philosophical doctorates. Arguably the most prestigious institution of higher learning on the planet. I hope the other editors chime in here, as I will admit to having difficulty keeping my patience with certain editors who insist on feigning thickness to belabor a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.245.11 (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the ad hominem, there, but it was to make a point. Nice attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, but it's flawed. You fail first year legal methods class. Once again, flawed logical argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.245.11 (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be wise to qualify the section on the debate on academic status to refer to foreign (as in, non-US) jurisdictions? 67.221.94.65 (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It applies to the degree itself, and most of the current criticism is indeed U.S.-focused (like the whole article). The fact that it means different things to different people is exactly the point. JJL (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That line of reasoning can be applied to all doctorates. A DBA (applied knowledge, no topical undergrad necessary) is different from a DSW (applied knowledge, no topical undergrad necessary) is different from a PhD Physics is different from an MD. Nobody here is arguing that any of the aforementioned aren't doctorates, but you will certainly find disagreement amongst individual members of the academy who will debate the merits of each. And THAT is exactly the point. You're applying the logic of value that various individuals or non academic bodies ascribe to the degree to try to illogically conclude that it therefore isn't what the academy categorically says that it is (in the US). That is illogical, and precisely NOT the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.245.11 (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be at an impasse. This debate has been going on for, what, years? I really don't see either side budging. Mavirikk (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter because it's almost all original research which has no place in this or any other encyclopedia article. That's the core issue and why it doesn't belong here.  I wish they could address that very simple issue instead of...whatever else it is they are doing.  --ElKevbo (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay editors, how about it? Address the claim that this debate is supported largely by original research. Mavirikk (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't mind that there's a lot of original research here on the Talk page; that's to be expected and is perfectly okay. But it shouldn't bleed over into the article proper.  --ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what could possibly be more plain than the Washington Times article that states that the "law degree is not equivalent to a doctorate" or the DoL document stating that the Department of Labor marks it as equivalent to a master's. It's the attempts to argue away such a plain, unambiguous, in-context statement in a WP:RS that are problematic. Finding ways to reject such sources is the WP:OR that people would like to see reflected in the article. Unless the concern is that these are not verifiable or not reliable, I can't understand the counterargument based on Wikipedia policies--as opposed to on personal biases.


 * Perhaps we're at a stage where informal mediation would be of help. JJL (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that some sort of dispute resolution mechanism needs to be pursued. People here are basically making the same arguments over and over. Mavirikk (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what could possibly be more plain than the statement that a professional doctorate IS NOT a research doctorate. Or that nobody is saying they're equivalent. The article quite plainly makes (or does not make) these points. Anything above and beyond that is OR or SYNTH. Yet you continue to insist there is more. This is the overarching point that has been made by all of the editors here in pointing out the illogical or irrelevant points made about the supposed "debate." The US academy calls it a doctorate and treats the students in the same manner as all other doctoral students. That others have differing opinions on the value relative to other doctorates is fine, but to use that to synthesize that there is any institutional debate is OR or SYNTH. I don't know how to be any less ambiguous or more plain about this, and can't help but get frustrated at having to say it over and over again.

And in the event that you want to interpret the Washington Times (the ABSOLUTE authority on the US academy, this is BEYOND question) as saying that a JD is not equivalent to ANY doctorate (as opposed to inferring that they mean research doctorate), then you're referencing a statement that inherently doesn't make any sense at all (a doctorate that's not equivalent to a doctorate), and moreover, any interpretation to that effect would necessitate speculation and opinion as to the meaning. Does that mean it's not equivalent to other professional doctorates? Are other professional doctorates not equivalent to a doctorate? In other words, SYNTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.245.11 (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You're constructing a straw man here, as I assume you'll admit since you "inferred" things into the article that are nowhere stated there. . The article says the "law degree is not equivalent to a doctorate" and you rebut it as though it said the "law degree is not equivalent to a research doctorate". You're not addressing what it says. You're interpreting it, which is what's WP:OR. It says what it says: A U.S. law degree is not equivalent to a doctorate. It doesn't specify a particular type of doctorate--it says it isn't equivalent to doctorate, full stop. By inserting 'research' into statements in which it does not appear, you're setting yourself up to assume your desired conclusion. Until you're willing to address what the sources say rather than what you think they should say, progress is unlikely to be made. JJL (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that is complete and utter bullshit. The article states

"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.

The U.S. Network for Education Information draws a distinction between a professional degree, such as a J.D., and a research doctorate, or Ph.D."

How is my statement an interpretation? JLL, I'm gonna come right out and ask you if you can read. Because you seem to have a diminished facility with the english language. I know that I maay be pushing the boundaries here, but I'm tired of your density. How does saying A is NOT B not address your issue. Somebody, pick up on this string, please...


 * I encourage you to avoid personal attacks. The plain statement in the article is: the "law degree is not equivalent to a doctorate". JJL (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

JLL - I've entirely lost my patience, but I'll reply one last time to this - the quote you keep harping on was followed immediately by

"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.

The U.S. Network for Education Information draws a distinction between a professional degree, such as a J.D., and a research doctorate, or Ph.D."

Therefore, there is NO ambiguity about what that statement means. It does not support any contention that it's not a doctorate, only that it's not a research doctorate. Which we've already PLAINLY agreed. To take the quote alone to imply anything else is flawed logic and sophistry. There's no real way you can debate that the article explicitly states interpretation 1 (in reference to earlier discussion). Any attempt to argue otherwise is flawed. If you tried to take a quote like that and present it without full context in a legal brief, and were caught by opposing counsel, or worse, a judge, you would be eaten alive. Flawed logic and out of context in an attempt to cloud an issue. Furthermore, by accusing me of constructing a straw man argument, you've demonstrated a lack of understanding as to what a straw man is, and I'm tired of flawed logic, poor facility with language, and the general lack of comprehension displayed here.174.35.240.134 (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what is implied above, the US academy does NOT treat J.D students as doctoral students. The Harvard Law School for example doesn't even refer to the J.D program as a graduate course (according to the HLS website, the graduate degrees offered by the school are the LL.M and the S.J.D). Furthermore, as it has been shown "ad nauseam" throughout this debate, the US Department of Education clearly distinguishes "first professional degrees" (like the J.D., M.D., etc.) from "graduate degrees" (master's degrees and research doctorates). Anyone who is actually familiar with academic titles and degrees (e.g. a university professor holding a Ph.D) would have no trouble whatsoever understanding that the J.D is not a doctorate. It is unfortunate that a small minority of lawyers and/or law students, who are completely unfamiliar with academic styles, seem to have hijacked the J.D and other related Wikipedia articles and made them some of worst examples of Wikipedia disinformation. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, law schools provide professional, not graduate, degrees, in the strict sense--otehrwise they'd be under the Dean of the Graduate School rather than the Dean of Law. JJL (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? Then why do they graduate in doctoral robes? And why are they members of graduate school societies as opposed to undergraduate student societies? The distinction between professional doctorates and research doctorates is made clear in the article. I for one am not unfamiliar with academic styles, as I must assume the world class universities that I've attended have not been unfamiliar either. So you're the expert? And you say they all have it wrong? That's interesting. I'm glad we have you here to tell us how it is; thank you. Debate settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.245.11 (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What does Wikipedia normally do in cases like these? We have a situation where a somewhat dubious claim is being made in an article, and criticism of the evidence supporting it has been posted, but those in favor of inclusion aren't backing up their claims. We have pages of discussion on pretty much everything except the evidence at hand. Is there a way that we can get any outside opinions on this? Is there some administrative group that can simply look at the arguments and decide a solution? I've asked repeatedly to discuss the evidence here, but I just keep getting filibustered. 67.221.94.19 (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that some sort of dispute resolution mechanism needs to be triggered. I don't see either side budging and no new arguments/evidence are being brought forth. Mavirikk (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I for one believe that I have been discussing the evidence presented. Perhaps it is I who is thick. I (assuming you're the editor I think you are) agree with your analysis, and have been attempting to give applied examples to the evidence presented by the other side, and analogize old arguments to demonstrate OR or SYNTH. I certainly don't disagree that there is disagreement here, and I don't disagree that members of the academy of all stripes don't hold all doctorates to be equal (in terms of time required or difficulty - the same can be said of bachelors and masters degrees in different fields).

If I've interpreted you and other editors correctly, and in turn, applied the logic correctly (quite certain I've got that part down), I've been attempting to demonstrate, as you have discussed, the failure in either logic or relevance that has been put forth by the other side. And I feel like I (and you) are repeating ourselves, as we've quite conclusively demonstrated our points. Yet to my view, the other side just parrots back their original argument.

Let me give an example: "I don't know what could possibly be more plain than the Washington Times article that states that the "law degree is not equivalent to a doctorate". Now, there are two possible ways to interpret this statement (and therefore it's NOT that plain). 1. Not equivalent to a research doctorate. OR 2. It's not equivalent to ANY doctorate. So, in order: 1. The article plainly makes the distinction between professional and research, so what is the other side getting at? What else do they want? We've already stipulated that. What's the argument? OR 2. What the hell does that mean? Despite having the name, yada yada as the argument goes, does that mean it's not equal to a professional doctorate? Are professional doctorates not equivalent to any doctorates? Do professional doctorates not exist? Interpretation number 2 is ambiguous, and frankly, useless. Interpretation 1 has been addressed. So what is the debate? SYNTH? OR? Therefore, it shouldn't be included.

Yet here I am, saying it once again. I don't care to debate the merits of different degrees, I'm with you in arguing the logic of inclusion versus not, and don't believe that the logical leaps made by the other side have any place in the article. Am I addressing your request, or am I missing the mark, here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.240.134 (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you not see that in your point 2 it is your analysis of the simple statement the "law degree is not equivalent to a doctorate" that is WP:OR? You're making an argument, but WP says that if we have reliable sources that verify that both opinions are represented, we include them. It's precisely because of disagreements such as on this talk page that such a rule exists. JJL (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation 2 is totally ambiguous - neither I, nor any intelligent reader, can further interpret the statement without asking those questions; the lack of logic in simply saying a doctorate is not equivalent to a doctorate without elaboration - it absolutely requires further interpretation to have meaning, and none of us here can even say for certain the intended meaning. So you're suggesting a totally ambiguous statement, from a NEWSPAPER (and not a notable one), is adequate to support a point, despite the fact that we can't know what that statement means? No, I'm sorry, your point is lost on me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.240.134 (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Washington Times is notable in the sense used here. The comment is elaborated on in the referenced article. But if you find that the "law degree is not equivalent to a doctorate" is confusing, we are truly at an impasse. This is not an exercise in deconstruction, or an opportunity to 'lawyer' the clear meaning of a sentence to one's one benefit. It says what it says: The U.S. law degree is not a doctorate. The U.S. Dept. of Labor agrees. JJL (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I do think we are at an impasse and will need to resort to some sort of dispute resolution process. Aside from the logical problems with the evidence, which my compatriots so eloquently addressed, I just don't think that the evidence presented is sufficient to rebut the strong presumption that a doctor degree is not a doctorate. Mavirikk (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But that point is not being rebutted. The issue is whether there are two or more views on the matter. When there are, Wikipedia reports both. This isn't an all-or-nothing situation. Some people can view it one way and other people can view it another way. If J.D.'s tend to view it as a doctorate and Ph.D.'s don't, and that's verified in reliable sources, then it merits mention here. This happens all across this site. We're only at an impasse because on group maintains that views contrary to theirs must be excised. I'm not asking that the view that the J.D. can be considered a doctoral degree be removed--only that both sides be addressed. JJL (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're thinking of the Washington Post, if you're referring to a notable Washington daily. The Times is provincial, at best. The article explicitly states interpretation 1. And we've addressed that, so unless you're trying to introduce ambiguity to push POV, I'm a little uncertain what you're getting at here. And nobody is lawyering anything. It's being demanded that you be clear and concise, as well as logical. But instead, we're getting sophistic arguments regurgitated over and over again. It smacks of POV, so if your motivation is truly otherwise, I implore you to share it with us. My occasional lack of patience stems not only from the repetitive nature of this discussion, but the appearance of veiled POV that is disingenuous. I don't even care if you DO have a POV, but I'd rather feel like you're forthright, as opposed to surreptitious. 174.35.240.134 (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my point earlier about asking people to voluntarily disclose their educational backgrounds. I, too, do not care if someone is pushing a POV, but admit it. Mavirikk (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to apologize straight up here, because I'm quite certain it is I who is being thick. Are you saying that you want to use a statement (that I believe we've agreed to its meaning) in reference to a "debate" over something the article clearly and unequivocally states? That the JD is not a research doctorate? I really don't get it. If the article makes the point, where's the debate? And to the extent people want to insist on comparing apples to oranges, shouldn't that debate go on over on the professional doctorate page? I am genuinely a little confused.174.35.240.134 (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also made the point that shouldn't the debate regarding the merit of professional doctorates take place on the professional doctorates page, but that point as dismissed out-of-hand. Seems to me that JJL doesn't believe that the JD is even a professional doctorate, but s/he is wiling to admit degrees like the MD are (despite the fact the the MD actually requires less classroom time than the JD). Mavirikk (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. Can ANYONE answer my question? How does the statement that a JD is not a research doctorate not address the issue? To state it's not a doctorate of any kind is illogical, for all of the reasons pointed out, in addition to the fact that that statement can't be made without logically bringing all professional doctorates into the dispute, and going really far into into OR and SYNTH. I'm a little unclear as to how it can be disputed that the US academy has created a class of degree called professional doctorates. Or that they put the word on the degree, or that they graduate the students in doctoral robes? Getting into what the government equates them to, what the academy in other countries equates them to, and really trying to equate them to anything is inherently problematic. What's wrong with simply stating that one is not the other, and leave it at that? It's pretty much the only statement that nobody can debate, and moreover, it makes sense.

I believe the problem some editors are having has to do with a belief that a doctorate degree must fit within a certain construct. That is, that a topical undergrad, followed by a master's (maybe, but not in all cases) and then culminating in a topical research doctorate. This construct is all about depth of subject matter. But the academy issues so many degrees that don't follow this system, it's a flawed analysis.

Let me give some examples - I am by no means suggesting that any of what I'm going to say should be included in any article, but rather, I am trying to demonstrate how inconsistencies within the academy are a separate issue from how the academy treats certain degrees.

Example 1. A Bachelor of Commerce (which is not the same thing as a US BSBA, but rather in Canada is a full 4 years of business and business related subject matter - a professional undergrad, if you will). I have one. Many of my upper level courses were cross-listed MBA classes. We shared a classroom for lectures. I learned what they learned. I got a bachelors degree. They, a masters. They were, however, graded more harshly, and given additional readings.

The MBA. I have one of those, too. It requires no topical undergrad work. I got it as a concession to the fact that the business world views it more highly, despite the fact that I had to take a bunch of the same classes over again. I cakewalked through it, and was top of my class (also being a Chartered Accountant and Chartered Financial Analyst made much of the subject matter either redundant or remedial), and even had occasion to correct finance professors on both applied and theoretical subject matter. I took as many electives in new subject matter as I could to try to learn new skills. I know many businesspeople in Canada who see little value in the degree if you already possess a good undergrad business degree. Nevertheless, the MBA degree was invented in the US, and is the defacto price of admission to the upper echelons of business. Despite requiring no topical undergrad, and requiring a year to teach the fundamentals, it is accepted as a masters degree around the world. My opinion, which can be backed up by fact, that it's a glorified bachelors degree is all fine and well, but doesn't change the fact that it's called a masters and accepted as such within the academy. C'est la vie.

Furthermore, one could then go on after just 2 years of business school to work on a DBA.

Example 2 The exact same story I just told can be applied to the BSW and MSW degrees. These two examples are not the only exceptions to the the paradigm I started out with; my point here is that a doctorate is not a doctorate, is not a doctorate. The same can be said for masters degrees. But they're still masters degrees. Whether any of us like it or not. What something equates to is inherently subjective and problematic.

Now, in reference to the JD/LLM/SJD progression issue. The inconsistencies here get much worse. An international student who comes to the US for an LLM undertakes the same curriculum as a first year JD student. In this case, they're not subjected to the same curve the JD students face, but rather than being more harsh, it's actually less so. It's a dirty little secret that many LLMs would be destroyed if they faced the JD curve. You won't find reference to that ANYWHERE, but if you are friends with a professor, they'll admit it. Moreover, many LLM students then opt into the JD program to have a degree that will allow them to sit for the bar outside of NY or California. So we have a degree that is further up the academic hierarchy that consists of just taking the first year of the lower degree, but to be even more inconsistent, that students often then opt to take a further 2 years to obtain the ostensibly lower degree, and forgo the higher one. And to be even more confusing, the LLM that a US JD undertakes is completely different than that. For that student, it's going to be a year of specialized topical subject matter. Yet they're both LLMs.

OK. So what is my point, you're asking. It's that the model assumed by some editors in this debate is not an absolute. That the academy has evolved such that there are innumerable exceptions to said model. Once you accept THAT point, I don't understand why it's so hard to grasp that the US academy has moved towards a class of graduate level professional doctorates. Degrees that require a student already hold an undergraduate degree for entry. The term doctor traced to its root meaning is professor. And both JDs and MDs are eligible for full tenure in law and medical schools. In the United States, the holder of either has a MINIMUM of 7 or 8 years of schooling. Which is in PhD territory, just in terms of time spent, and presumably the reason the US academy created this class of degrees in the first place, to recognize the level of commitment it takes to make it through to the other side.

I'm trying to demonstrate that depth and breadth are different things. In addition to the degrees and post graduate professional nominals I've already mentioned, I also hold an undergraduate and graduate degree in economics and finance. The breadth of my education is enormous, and is useful to me every day. I'm not trying to equate it to someone who, say, is a PhD in Physics. What I'm trying to say is that trying to compare that person's level of knowledge with my own is entirely subjective, problematic, and an exercise in futility. But that's kind of what seems to be going on here.

Which brings me back to the beginning. One is not the other. That's the only thing that can be conclusively said. The rest is subjective, and should be left out of the article. I really hope this all made sense to someone reading here, otherwise I've wasted both the reader's and my own time. I am not suggesting any of the above opinion, OR, SYNTH, or analysis belongs in the article. I'm trying to bridge a gap of understanding.174.35.240.134 (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel that you and I are thinking on the same wavelength - you just express yourself much more eloquently than me. Earlier I pointed out another example of an academic degree not fitting into their degree paradigm: a Ph.D in criminology (or criminal justice or some other name). That is considered a research doctorate even though most programs do not require a particular course of undergraduate study or a prior masters in the field. It even requires substantially fewer credits than the JD (72 versus 90).  Those attributes (extensive prior coursework and a prior topical masters degree) are what most here seem to believe are required for a doctorate to be a "true" doctorate. But here you have a prime example of a doctorate degree - a Ph.D no less - that lacks those purportedly essential attributes, but the academy (and I'm sure the anti-JD POVers here) has no problem recognizing it as a "true" doctorate degree. Yet, despite the fact that this example demonstrates that the academy implicitly accepts variances within the degree paradigm, the anti-JD POVers persist.


 * Also, you are correct regarding foreign LLMs versus US LLMs. Foreign attorneys pursuing LLMs take almost all first year JD classes (and often struggle in them) versus US LLMs who take all upper level classes/externships specializing in one field and - at least in my case - write a thesis of substantial length and quality. They truly are two different degree programs. Mavirikk (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sophistry, or just prolixity?! jk Anyone who has read the archives from last year knows I have contributed innumerable prolix posts to this... very lengthy discussion.

Just to pick at it a bit: Harvard is trying to follow an Oxbridge use of terms (which is incongruent with their own practices in history) when it reserves the category of "graduate" degrees for their legal research degrees, and it makes sense that it would do so to clearly distinguish for their (often non-U.S.) readers the difference between their professional degree and their research degrees (I've seen many foreign law students at U.S. schools not understand the distinction and try to transfer to the J.D. program after beginning classes).

Another editor mentioned something about criticism of evidence and not backing up claims. We must stick to verifiable content, and nowhere have I seen another source state something like, "the National Science Foundation is wrong," "the San Diego County Bar Association is wrong," "the University of Utah is wrong," "the German Federal Ministry of Education is wrong," "the Encyclopedia Britannica," or anything like that. Although it is clear that the Department of Labor, or even any U.S. federal government department, is not an authority on academic policy or practice in the U.S. And it is easy to address/explain other such sources as well. Therefore, there is sound support for the content of the article, and discussion of the J.D. as not being a doctorate is tenuous.

And just to throw another pebble to stir up the waters: The Doctor of Dental Surgery or D.D.S. degree does not require a bachelors (which of course means that a previous degree in dentistry or any science is not required), although some lower-division undergraduate science courses are required. And holders of that degree use the title "Dr." in academic settings--not as a job description, but as a title. Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If there really were such doubt about the status of the J.D. degree, don't you think we would easily find numerous sources clearly debating or criticizing this issue? particularly when: U.C. Berkeley and University of Utah (among others) term their J.D. degree to be a graduate degree, J.D. graduates wear doctorate robes at formal academic events, holders of the J.D. use the title of doctor, the degree as awarded by all institutions who issue the degree clearly use the term doctor in it's name (in all translations of the latin degree, whether English or Chinese), J.D. holders are tenured professors and university presidents. Zoticogrillo (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an incredible amount of WP:OR and just plain philosophy here. The fact that the degree is treated differently by the U.S. govt. has been established--the DoL plainly calls it a master's-level degree rather than a doctorate; the military commissions Ph.D.'s, phsyicians, dentists, etc. at the O-3 level (e.g., an Army captain) but J.D.'s at the O-2 level (eg., Army first lieutenants). It's a lower-level degree than a doctorate to the federal govt., and comes with lower rank and less pay. There have been many cases of university presidents and provosts with a J.D. as their highest degree being criticized as lacking proper academic credentials. A U. of M. law school spokesperson asked to specifically address this issue went on record as saying it was not a doctoral-level degree. The Loughlin book is unambiguous on the matter. Wake Forest U. describes the LL.B.-->J.D. change as merely a change of name. The view that it is not considered a doctoral-level degree by many is well-supported. JJL (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the main issue here, when it's boiled down to its basic components, is that there are some editors who believe (as a matter of principle) that the PhD is the only real doctorate, and do not acknowledge the existence of a "professional doctorate." The problem is, this argument is lacking in substance. The evidence being used to support it usually just shoehorned in through editorial inferences or non-authoritative. 67.221.94.19 (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And that would explain all of the sophistry that is the title of this section. THAT is precisely what JLL accused me of in an earlier post; deconstruction and lawyering the meaning of a word to suit my own purposes. I'm really unclear how any words can reasonably dispute that the US academy issues the degrees to students in doctoral robes. Yet the other side just can't follow a logical argument through to conclusion, nor can they mount an adequate argument of their own. I'm more than willing to admit if there is an adequate counter point. Despite sounding immovable, it's simply due to the fact that I've lost patience with the inadequacy of the other side. I'm not sure mediation is the way to go here. Mediation is always conciliatory, and usually works towards splitting the difference. If the other side can't accept the existence of professional doctorates, despite this and other articles on wikipedia (and in the world), the difference winds up getting split much like we have here - the article says professional doctorate and makes it clear it's not a research doctorate, and then illogically goes on to outline a debate about not being a doctorate (at all? research?). That's not a proper solution, as we can all see here. If we all agree to stay on for arbitration, I can't possibly see how clearly having reason on our side results in anything other than the dispute being resolved to our satisfaction. Or alternatively, if there is proper research out there already discussing research v. professional doctorates and what they mean and how there is some kind of debate, why that can't be written up on the PD page and referenced into the article. Or something. But this is killing me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.240.134 (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is quite simple actually. Since the Middle Ages, the hierarchy of academic degrees has been determined by the entry requirements for admission into a degree course (i.e. which degree has to be earned first before one may be admitted to another). The J.D. and the LL.B are considered equivalent degrees for the purpose of admission into an LL.M or, more rarely, a S.J.D or Ph.D program in Law. That is true at Oxford/Cambridge, the LSE, Harvard, Yale or, for that matter, most if not all U.S. law schools. In terms of academic hierarchy then, the J.D. ranks as a bachelor's degree, i.e. a first degree in law, and not as doctorate, which, by definition, must be a terminal degree (i.e. the highest degree awarded in the field). The source of the confusion comes from the fact that, in the U.S specifically, a J.D. has to be preceded by a bachelor's degree in some other area, making the J.D. a graduate-entry bachelor's degree or a second bachelor's degree  (akin e.g. to the degrees of Bachelor of Surgery and Bachelor of Medicine in the UK), but, nonetheless, still a first degree in law specifically, and not a doctorate. Again, among people who are familiar with academic styles, there is no debate whatosever concerning this topic. The debate only exists among a smal minority of uninformed Wikipedia contributors. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The ad hominem attacks are completely unnecessary and unhelpful. Just because we do not agree with your position - or because we lack Ph.Ds - does not make us ignorant. Many of the lawyers on here have other degrees in addition to their bachelors and JD. Also, in addition to your personal experiences being irrelevant, the people of whom you speak probably all possess Ph.Ds and thus they all collectively massage their egos about the difficulty and impressiveness of their dissertations on inane topics like the "professionalization of cooking among domestic servants in eighteenth-century France." So their opinions are suspect because they are rather self-serving. Mavirikk (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. Aside from the fact that law has historically been a higher faculty (i.e. one was required to have a BA or MA for entry), the reality is that the academy has evolved differently throughout the world. Your definition of doctorate belies your bias of there being only one "true" doctorate. While your historical characterization may be largely accurate, it ignores the reality of the situation. And as I pointed out earlier, the "historic" meaning of doctor is professor. And those schools in the United States accept that one degree as sufficient for tenure. The rest of your reasoning completely ignores my (and another editor) post that demonstrates numerous inconsistencies within the academy which shows your assumption to be flawed. Bringing us back to debating the merits (which has no place here) as opposed to the actual state of being (which is all we're asking for).

As far as being uninformed, please teach me more, oh wise one. I have a class picture in doctoral robes. Are you telling me that picture doesn't exist? Or that some of the finest schools on the planet have it wrong? What is it you're appealing to, exactly? 174.35.240.134 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * According to available sources (see the article), the western university system was first established at the U of Bologna, where for hundreds of years the only degree offered was a doctorate in law (the B.A., a French invention to come much later, did not exist). Other subjects were later introduced, but the U of Bologna continued to offer these as doctorates up until about ten years ago.  That is, an individual three to five years out of high school would earn a doctorate, not a B.A., from the U of Bologna, and be called "doctor" (per Italian statute), right up until ten years ago.  All other doctorates are very modern in comparison.  And according to the available sources (see the article), it is this degree and the German J.U.D. that the innovators at Harvard had in mind to duplicate with the creation of the J.D.  Where are your sources?


 * 174.35.240.134, I'm sure you are aware that this article had a picture of J.D. robes for many months until during that so-called "mediation" some of the editors decided to edit war and block the inclusion of the picture. The reason given was simply that they didn't want it there, and they cited "consensus," and gave no other justification, logical or wiki rule, whatsoever.  The picture meets all of the wiki criteria for inclusion perfectly, and I still think the article suffers from a lack of pictures. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't there still some WP:SYNTH going on here in declaring certain robes doctoral in style and then inferring that that makes teh students doctoral students because of what they're wearing? All Italian laurea graduates are called dottore (doctor), but that's a degree somewhere in between a B.A. and a M.A. JJL (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite simply, NO, it's not SYNTH. I don't know if the Italian degree says doctorate on it or not, but assuming for the moment that it does, then it too, is in fact, a doctorate. But it's not a research doctorate, nor is it a professional doctorate, in the sense we're using here. It would be SYNTH to try to argue the merits of the Italian laurea and discuss it's non equivalence or inferiority to a research or professional doctorate beyond saying they're not the same thing, and noting the fact that it's a first degree and the amount of time that it takes, and perhaps a little more, if there were good sources that provided meaningful data or analysis. And it's unlikely that anyone will mistake it for such; certainly not within the academy.

Just like the Scottish Master's degree is a master's degree, but is considered to be an undergraduate masters degree. I don't know what kind of academic garb they wear, but it can be clearly be differentiated from other master's degrees (i.e. in that it's a first degree). But it's still a masters degree, if in name only. Be careful in analogizing the JD, here, dear editors, as the JD requires an undergrad, and is eligible for full tenure. So I'm heading any argument to that effect off at the pass.174.35.240.134 (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)