Talk:Juris Doctor/Archive 6

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

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

Added New Zealand
New Zealand's case with respect to the Juris Doctor is interesting. It is far easier to teach law at a NZ university with a J.D. than it is to get licensed to practice there. It is even conceivable that you could get hired at a university to teach Laws 101 and Property Law, then get required by the NZLS and the university to take those courses in order to get licensed. Does this make any sense at all? On a slightly different subject, are there other countries where a bar association gets to administer law licenses?--122.57.253.99 (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See Admission to the bar in the United States, and State Bar of California. Note that the State Bar of California even operates a State Bar Court.  Membership is mandatory under the California Constitution, though; lawyers can be suspended and eventually disbarred for failing to pay membership fees.  The fees mostly go to pay for the disciplinary system---that is, the State Bar's investigators and prosecutors, as well as the State Bar Court, and partially subsidize the Office of Admissions, which is also paid for through application fees charged to applicants.  For example, every time we have a large-scale mass-casualty incident involving hundreds of "walking wounded" victims, the State Bar sends out an investigator to watch out for ambulance chasers and their agents, known as runners or cappers.  Plus the State Bar publishes the State Bar Journal.  The only lawyers who don't have to join the State Bar are J.D. holders who don't practice law in the state, either because they're merely law professors or simply not working as lawyers.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Debate section may be merited, but needs work

Keep the Debate Section

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


 * Given WP's position on polls, I'd like to know what is the point of the straw poll before answering. There has been a tremendous amount of discussion on this topic. How is the outcome of a straw poll going to add to what has already been (and continues to be) discussed? Wikiant (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, consensus is a standard but a straw poll isn't. JJL (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted to take this to arbitration, so I'd like to get a list of people who might be interested in participating. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fair, though it would be more straightforward to simply ask, "Who would like to be on the list for arbitration?" Go ahead and put me on the "Keep the debate" list. Wikiant (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also be interested in participating, though I would need the protocol explained to me as this would be my first wikipedia arbitration. Put me in the "Debate section may be merited, but needs work" camp. Mavirikk (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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


 * What distinguishes a thesis from other papers is not the rigor (though theses tend to require more effort and be subject to more faculty scrutiny than other papers), but the topic. A thesis is an original piece of research work. -- i.e., the author discovers and writes on something that no one has written on before. In the US, the term "thesis" usually refers to the research work that culminates in a masters degree, while the term "dissertation" refers to the research work that culminates in a doctorate. While both represent novel contributions, the dissertation requires a major contribution to the body of knowledge while a thesis is typically a minor contribution. (How "major" and "minor" are distinguished varies by discipline.) Wikiant (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe your formulation of what differentiates a thesis from a paper works for law. One does not "discover" law. I'm not trying to quibble over semantics, but I believe law is a unique discipline. What constitutes a contribution to "knowledge" in the legal field is hard to define. Furthermore, your formulation could be used to support the argument that JD students actually do write theses. A typical JD paper often is structured as follows: the author identifies a troubling legal problem, describes the problem and its history, proposes a legal solution and uses facts, statutes, legal doctrine, precedent, and reasoning to support that solution, and predicts the consequences of such a solution. In another typical paper structure, the author identifies a recent or famous case, describes the case and the point of law that was decided by the court, and either defends the rule from critics or proposes a "better" rule. Finally, in a third category of paper the author describes and explains an area of law or trend in law, without advancing a particular argument. This type of paper provides a kind of taxonomy function, which can be quite useful. All three types of JD paper, if written well, could very well advance novel ideas and/or contribute to the development and understanding of law. However, I don't think JD students write theses. In my opinion, what distinguishes a master's thesis from a J.D. paper is a thesis's far greater length, scope, complexity, and faculty attention. Also, as an aside, with the large number of master degrees awarded annually in the United States, I am skeptical that all of these theses make novel contributions to knowledge - even in minor ways. Mavirikk (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


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

More sources on J.D. vs. Doctoral
One thing I note is how often one sees the J.D. listed separately, apart from all doctoral degrees which are lumped together. E.g., from the U. of Memphis : "The University offers 15 bachelor's degrees in more than 50 majors and 70 concentrations, master's degrees in over 45 subjects, doctoral degrees in 21 disciplines, the Juris Doctor degree and a specialist degree in education." The doctoral programs include tha AuD, EdD, DMA, and the PhD at the least but the J.D. gets separate treatment. Similarly for a Maryland school district's degree type codes :
 * 001 Bachelor’s (Baccalaureate) degree (e.g., B.A., A.B., B.S.)
 * 002 Specialist’s degree (e.g., Ed.S.)
 * 003 Master’s degree (e.g., M.A., M.S., M.Eng., M.Ed., M.S.W., M.B.A., M.L.S.)
 * 004 Doctoral (Doctors) degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D.)
 * 005 First-professional degree other than JD (e.g., D.C. or D.C.M., D.D.S. or D.M.D.,M.D., O.D., D.O., D.Phar., Pod.D. or D.P.M., D.V.M., L.L.B. or M.Div., M.H.L., B.D., or Ordination)
 * 006 Juris Doctor (J.D.)

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

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

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

You know, I don't necessarily disagree that this is evidence that some university administrations hold the Juris Doctor, and professional doctorates generally, in "lower" esteem than research doctorates and in higher then Magister and "specialist" degrees (whatever those are), to the point where they separate them. However, these are not statements that this is the case. Further, that misses the point of those who object to having a discrete section grouping together the order JDs stand in various universities' convocation processions, the robes they wear, their eligibility for science and engineering research funding, the titles they are authorized to use by the body which accredits their programs, the amount they get paid in a summer student program, the amount they make on average in various private sector companies, along some singular "high-low" vector. Each degree has distinct features, and it is possible that if you look at all professional doctorates, you'll find they're more likely to have certain features, while research degrees might be more likely to have certain other features. Depending on the context, and the values of the evaluating individual, certain features might be valued more highly. The J.D. might indeed be described colloquially "lower" than research doctorates on some "pecking orders". However it might be higher on other pecking orders (e.g., with respect to the salary one would earn with a corporation). It is simply subjective and contextual, and not a single coherent question. What I find most misleading is to artificially "clean up" what is IN FACT a very messy, subjective, multifaceted jumble of partially or non-overlapping facts and ideas without a clear focus, and which cannot have any single answer, into a single section, and thereby make it look like a debate among people who are talking about the same thing. UrbanisTO (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You see this sort of thing on all sorts of WP pages, like the DPT, MD, etc. For the most part I don't think it's helpful to the typical WP user accessing such a page...but my experience has been that not having a section on it is not stable. Pretty soon an editor will drop in and either disparage or promote the degree, and then someone will disagree...we've seen it happen repeatedly here. JJL (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * The Higher Learning Commission, North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Report of the Task Force on the Professional Doctorate (June 2006), http://www.ncacihe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=92&Itemid=86
 * “There is some confusion about who determines the appropriateness of the degree, particularly whether it is championed by practicing professionals, the academy, and/or the accrediting agency.”
 * “There is an effective argument for other doctoral degree designators to signify higher-level learning and competency related to but different from the research doctorate.”
 * “There is a significant need for clearer understandings about rigor and outcomes of degrees that carry the doctoral title and thereby allow the holders of degrees to use that title.”
 * “For decades higher education in the United States has produced would could be called ‘professional doctorates,’ but until recently many of these degrees have been classified as ‘1st Professional Degrees. […] The M.D., D.D.S., D.V.M., and J.D. are notable examples.”
 * “[T]he task at hand was to locate the professional doctorate within the existing hierarchy of degrees and to capture the fundamental differences within a given field between its professional doctorate and its other programs that lead to the master’s degree and the research doctorate (Ph.D.).”


 * University of California Task Force on Planning for Doctoral & Professional Education, Report of the Subcommittee on the Professional Doctorate (Aug. 2008), http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/underreview/MW2DivChairs_PDPE%20Report_Review.pdf
 * This task force was chartered to “develop a set of principles and recommendations to help guide decision-makers in determining which doctoral programs UC should offer, and for which doctoral titles UC should strive to retain its sole granting authority among California public higher education institutions.
 * The task force notes that the National Center for Educational Statistics has “recently proposed a new classification scheme for reporting doctoral degrees in their Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The NCES classification would eliminate the ‘first professional degree’ category, and establish three new and discrete categories of doctoral degrees: (1) Doctor’s degree – research/scholarship; (2) Doctor’s degree – professional practice; and (3) Doctor’s degree – other.” The second category “includes the original advanced professional degrees formerly classified as ‘first professional’ (M.D., D.V.M., D.D.S) as well as the J.D., O.D. (Doctor of Optometry), Pharm.D., and several others.”


 * The National Center for Education Statistics, part of the U.S. Department of Education, does include the J.D. in its glossary in the “Doctor’s degree – professional practice” category. https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/VisGlossary.aspx (search for doctor)
 * “A doctor’s degree that is conferred upon completion of a program providing the knowledge and skills for the recognition, credential, or license required for professional practice. The degree is awarded after a period of study such that the total time to the degree, including both pre-professional and professional preparation, equals at least six full-time equivalent academic years. Some of these degrees were formerly classified as “first-professional” and may include: Chiropractic (D.C. or D.C.M.); Dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.); Law (L.L.B. or J.D.); Medicine (M.D.); Optometry (O.D.); Osteopathic Medicine (D.O); Pharmacy (Pharm.D.); Podiatry (D.P.M., Pod.D., D.P.); or, Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.), and others, as designated by the awarding institution.”


 * The University of Wisconsin at Madison, Report of the Working Group on the Professional Doctorate (Apr. 2008), http://apa.wisc.edu/Program_Review/ProfDoc_Report_FF_April42008.pdf
 * The report also notes that “[o]ne sure signal that professional doctorates are here to stay is a recent introduction by the federal Department of Education (a slow-to-change organization) or a reporting category for professional doctorates.”
 * The report distinguishes professional doctorates from traditional “first-professional” programs “that either do not now or did not historically require a prior degree for admission (Law, Medicine, Veterinary Medicine, Pharmacy). And they are distinct from the research doctorates (Ph.D. programs), which have original scholarly work at the heart of the educational experience.”
 * Nevertheless, the report does list the JD degree as among “Some Examples of Non-Ph.D. Doctorates Awarded in the United States.”

Council of Graduate Schools, Communicator, Assessment and Strategic Planning in Graduate Programs: A View from Fordham University and The Ohio State University, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Apr. 2009), http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/comm_2009_03.pdf
 * The article notes that “Fordham offers the Ph.D. in 15 disciplines across four schools, the Doctor of Education in two areas, and the Doctor of Ministry. The largest doctoral program is the juris doctor, or J.D.”

Council of Graduate Schools, Communicator, Nuts and Bolts of Professional Doctorates: A Case Study from the University of Utah, Vol. 41, No. 8 (Oct. 2008), http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/comm_2008_10.pdf
 * “‘Professional doctoral degrees comprise an important and growing component of higher education.’ This truism introduces a 2007 CGS Task Force Report on the Professional Doctorate (CGS, 2007) that provides context for this degree in contrast to the research doctorate, the Ph.D. The CGS report describes three generations of professional doctorates. The first generation includes programs with a long history in graduate education: M.D. (doctor of medicine), D.D.S. (doctor of dental science or surgery), and D.V.M. (doctor of veterinary medicine). A second generation includes J.D. (doctor of jurisprudence), Ed.D. (doctor of education), Pharm.D. (doctor of pharmacy), D.Psych. (doctor of psychology), and D.P.H. (doctor of public health). A third generation includes the most recent additions in the professional doctorate field: Aud.D. (doctor of audiology), O.T.D. (doctor of occupational therapy), D.P.T. (doctor of physical therapy), and D.N.P. (doctor of nursing practice). In addition to the degrees listed in the CGS report we include the D.M.A. (doctor of music arts), and Arch.D. (doctor of architecture).”
 * “At the start of the 2007-08 academic year, the University of Utah had eight approved professional doctorates. In addition to the long standing M.D. and J.D degrees, which are administered by the School of Medicine and the College of Law, respectively, the following professional doctorates existed: Doctor of Audiology (Au.D.), Doctor of Education (Ed.D.), Doctor of Music Arts (D.M.A.), Doctor of Nursing Practice (D.N.P.), Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.), and Doctor of Physical Therapy (D.P.T.). A Doctor of Architecture (Arch.D.) was under consideration and therefore is included in this discussion.”


 * Julia Wrigley and William Ebenstein, Report on Options for Organizing Professional Doctorates at CUNY: A report prepared for Executive Vice Chancellor and University Provost Alexandra Logue (Jan. 2010), http://cuny.edu/about/administration/offices/aa/acr/profdoctorates/Professional_Doctorates.pdf
 * The article also discusses the changes in the IPEDS classification system.
 * “In 2005, the Carnegie Foundation also changed its system of classifying higher education institutions, a system built on IPEDS data. Its new system relies on multiple, parallel groupings rather than a single classification scheme. Carnegie has retained a Basic Classification, however, that updates its traditional classification system. In its Basic Classification, Carnegie follows IPEDS in distinguishing between research and professional doctorates. It categorizes a higher education institution as a ‘doctorate granting university’ if it awards at least twenty doctoral degrees a year—excluding professional doctorates, or as Carnegie describes them, ‘doctoral level degrees that qualify recipients for entry into professional practice, such as the JD, MD, PharmD, DPT, etc.) (‘Basic Classification Description,’ www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications).”
 * “Despite these ambiguities, the distinctions between the two main types of doctorates are growing clearer and the era when the word ‘doctorate’ was used as a synonym for ‘Ph.D.’is now over.”
 * “Degrees and systems for classifying them are in flux and there is as yet no consensus on a new taxonomy, but at least at the national level its outlines are becoming visible. There is also no uniformity in the way universities organize professional doctorates.”


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

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


 * Thanks! These are interesting and do contain points that go to both sides of the matter. The previously cited (in the archives here) "Crednetial Creep" article from the Chronicle of Higher Ed. is also on-point here although it primarily goes to the new D.P.T. JJL (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. These sources, which appear very authoritative, establish: (1) that there is a class of doctorates called "professional doctorates," and (2) that the JD is included within that class of professional doctorates. I recall a few months ago that JJL (or Wikiant), I believe, conceded that professional doctorates exist, but was not convinced that the JD was a professional doctorate. These articles expressly include the JD as one of the professional doctorates.


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


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

Review needed
Many sensible alternatives have been presented to the article as it now exists, and those changes have largely been dismissed to uphold the POV of only a few editors, who wish the article to remain unchanged despite all attempts at reason and logical persuasion. Therefore, this article continues to suffer from the biases of those few editors, who dominate this article without shame. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Many changes have been made to this article. The recent sweeping reorg. changed everything and no one should be surprised that WP:BRD applies. There were good things and bad things about it. The article is edited all the time--it's the handful who attempt to sweep out the copious sources indicating that there are questions about one aspect of the degree that find their edits to be found contentious. I'm certainly not opposed to a third-party review. JJL (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


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

J.D: Doctorate degree or not a Doctorate degree
This is an issue that will not go away because there are information out there that support both side of the argument. It is clear to see that the lawyers on Wikipedia are pushing very hard to present the J.D as a doctorate degree and the non-lawyers are pushing back on the idea. The fact of the matter is that the J.D is called a professional doctorate degree by some universities. Another fact of the matter is that the J.D is not a equivalent to the Ph.D. This is where the trouble begins; if the J.D is not equivalent to the undisputed doctorate degree (a Ph.D) then is it really a doctorate regardless of the fact that it has the word doctor in its name. Most universities simple call it a first professional degree and list it separate from their doctorate degrees. Put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig. I mean this is self evidence in the fact that even most of the lawyers pushing for the JD on Wikipedia do not use the title doctor in their names. If the JD is a doctorate then please go ahead and start address yourself as Dr. this or that. My own two cents in the matter is that the J.D is indeed called a professional doctorate but it is not regard as such by others. I hope you guys find a solution to this (I doubt this will ever happen) because this debate has been going on for almost 5 years now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viscountrapier (talk • contribs) 22:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I am a licensed attorney in the United States and I can assure you that neither me, nor any peers I know of, consider the JD degree to be a professional doctorate degree. Not even close. Our doctorate degree is the S.J.D. (and it’s damn tough to get).
 * Are there really lawyers out there claiming otherwise? — Satori Son 18:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on my recent research, and my understanding of the positions of the interested editors, I think the actual disagreement as to the status of the J.D. is rather narrow, and I hope that we might be able to arrive at a consensus. As you point out, and as my recent research confirms, the J.D. is listed by a number of universities and authoritative organizations as a member of the professional doctorates. My recent research also shows that the appellation "first professional" will likely be diminishing since the National Center for Education Statistics has recently abandoned its use of that term in favor of "Doctor's degree - Professional Practice." As you also point out, the J.D. is not a Ph.D. or in the research doctorates group. Because of this, it is quite natural that there are any number of contexts in which a J.D. holder is in an inferior position relative to the Ph.D. I think there is general consensus on those two points, and I think we can capitalize on this consensus to move forward.


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


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


 * Status of the JD in the United States


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


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


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


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


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


 * Status of the JD in Other Countries


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


 * Finally, the fact that MD holders are accorded the honorific title of "doctor" has nothing to do with its status as a "superior" or "true" professional doctorate. It arose by medical schools in the 18th century, jealous of the respect accorded to university scholars, claimed the title for their graduates who, by the time, had usually earned bachelor's degrees and thus they argued their graduates were entitled to the honorific. It did not occur because the academy made a conscious decision that the MD holders warranted the title "doctor." I suspect you are aware of this so your inaccurate recitation of the facts underscores your lack of objectivity. Thus, I respectfully ask you to reconsider your position in light of the overwhelming, authoritative evidence Sk75 has posted.
 * Mavirikk (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


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

I think that SK's proposed edits would finally bring some closure to an obviously troubled section. I think that it presents the various viewpoints neutrally instead of trying to convince the reader of a certain viewpoint. If people want to do battle about whether professional doctorates are "real" (whatever that means) doctorates, I think that's best done in the page about professional doctorates instead of here. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I, too, think SK75's proposal is a huge step in the right direction. The sources, presented by either side, show that the bachelor/master/doctorate paradigm in the USA is in flux. I think it is fair that the article reflects that the profession, government, and academia are not sure as to (a) what to call these degrees and (b) how these "professional doctorates" fit into the traditional degree model. Are they second, intensive bachelors degrees? Are they above the bachelors degree but below the masters? Are they equivalent to master's degrees? Are they above master's degrees but below research doctorates? My objection has been, however, that that discussion should largely take place in the professional doctorate article rather than in the individual degrees' articles (especially not in select professional doctorate articles). Mavirikk (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Where the JD falls on some kind of academic caste system is really an issue about professional doctorates as a whole, not with the JD itself. That's why I like SK's suggestions: it's much better for the article to have it streamlined like this, maybe with a see also at the top of the section that links to the professional doctorate article. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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

"Treated differently" is quite broad and could mean a variety of things. It could mean "worse" treatment or "better" treatment, for example. I'm putting this in quotation marks because I don't know exactly how this would manifest in the real world. Perhaps you could have a statement regarding that? Like how people actually treat it differently? I would oppose the "paygrade" cite for this section because it doesn't explain why they are paid differently, but if there's some cite that explains it, I think it would probably be great for inclusion. Like I've stated before, I think the current approach -- that is, cobbling together various bits of "evidence" -- is unencyclopedic and really does nothing for the reader. Perhaps we can appease both the readers AND the editors with SK's edits... properly modified, of course. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What's there is still a list of points, but with the opposing views smoothed over. I don't find it an improvement; it tends to bury rather than explain the issue. If it isn't going to be reworked into a prose paragraph(s), I think the points for/points against format works better. It makes it easy for the reader to find the sources he may wish to check. It's been noted that there are few sources that address the disparate treatment itself as opposed to just taking one side or another, so sourcing these smoothed statements rather than phrases within them would be hard. Would three paragraphs--here's the bone of contention, here's arguments for one side, here's arguments for the other side--be an improvement? JJL (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, if you believe it smooths over opposing views, then please add your own opposing views into it somewhere. Condensing the points into paragraphs might be a solution, although that's really close to what SK was proposing. One thing I'd be interested in is how we describe the bone of contention, so to speak. What is the issue here, in your opinion? The section, in its current form, does not currently address this (although SK's proposals do.) Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The bone of contention? I'm not sure I follow you--the issue in the section is whether or not the J.D. is considered to be a doctorate or whether, despite its name, it's not considered to be such; within that is the issue of how it stacks up against the other professional doctorates. As to adding things in--again, I think the format is worse for this purpose, not better, and adding in other views would only make it less worse. There are two sides on this matter, and attempting to hide that fact is not a step forward for the reader. I see a big difference between five "well, it's complicated" points and three "issue/side one/side two" paragraphs. JJL (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the discussions of this section of the article back here on the talk page show that it IS complicated. The present section does not convey any of the nuance a reader would glean by reading this extensive (talk page) discussion. In that sense, I think the present section is not complete. Rather than do a good job of explaining the nuance, the section just makes the two opposing statements, supplies a small number (relative to those discussed here) of sources, and leaves the work to the reader. Sk75 (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The difficulty we keep hitting in trying to fix that is that there are many documents on both sides of the issue but not much that addresses the disagreement itself. So there are sources in conflict as to whether or not it's a doctorate, but we could use a solid one that says "There is disagreement on this matter and it isn't yet resolved" or whatever it might say. For now, opposing statements seems to be what's sourceable. JJL (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The very first line of WP:SYNTH reads: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." That's an apt summary of the entire "con" section. That's why SK's edits are superior. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The con section falls short of synthesizing those points into a statement that says "Therefore..." so WP:SYNTH is not violated. The statements are sourced--and sourced to reliable sources. We have, between the article and the archives, clear statements that the degree is not a doctorate. The second line of NPOV clearly states that all non-fringe views be addressed and disinterestedly. The bland presentation we have now is certainly in line with that, apart possibly from the subsection titles ("Evidence that..."), and we've been back-and-forth on those. Is there any doubt that there are legitimate sources from non-fringe groups that support the not-a-doctorate viewpoint? Because if one accepts that such sources exist, WP:NPOV kicks in and all sides must be addressed (if any are). Until someone finds a source that covers the disagreement, I don't see how to address both sides without giving each some space--and that might still be needed even if a source on the disagreement was adduced. JJL (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but it does synthesize those points. Gathering a bunch of individuals -- some who are anonymous, even (like the Washington Times article) and putting that up against the consensus of large professional groups violates WP:WEIGHT. Is a student association in Canada equal in authority to the ABA? Anyway, if a legitimate viewpoint actually exists, it should be capable of being summarized, right? I see you've found the American JD mentioned in a book about African higher education. It's certainly not a great citation for this section because I am unclear how they are experts on the matter, but wouldn't you agree that it now allows you to add a point to SK's edits? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it's a synthesis, and WP:DUE is a different matter. The fact that you are unclear about their expertise on the matter doesn't make it "not a great citation", esp. given, as I've said, that they cite within it several other authors, but feel free to dig deeper until you become more comfortable with it (or expose them as frauds). JJL (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like, "(The author) in (This book), however, does not consider the JD to be a doctorate because it is not the terminal degree in that field." (or whatever you'd like to put in) Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is the non-doctorate side the "however" side? This is part of the POV woven into the suggested approach. JJL (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't take my suggestion too literally. The "however" would be appropriate depending on the placement in the article. If it comes directly after a cite that claims the JD is a doctorate, then it would be appropriate. What would you like it to say? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)