Talk:Juris Doctor/Archive 9

Original Research
The debate over the status of the J.D. assesses not whether the J.D. is a doctoral degree, but whether it ought to be. As we can clearly see, there's no consensus on this point. Therefore, the article should not present a full debate on the matter, but briefly mention the controversy--anything else is prohibited as original and unverifiable research.

J.D. stands for Juris Doctor, the English translation for which is Doctor of Jurisprudence. A person upon whom a J.D. is conferred is a Doctor of Jurisprudence--that person is a doctor and holds a doctorate, end of discussion. aigiqinf (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * True, and I agree with the recommendation. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah right. If you have a JD, I dare you to refer to yourself in public. See how fast you are laughed at :)--Viscountrapier (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Relatively few people know that lawyers are awarded a doctor' s degree.

Lose the Re-write
I'm of the opinion that the rewrite isn't a rewrite but a replacement. We had a section that clearly laid out the real difference of opinion as to whether or not the JD is a doctoral level degree. We now have a section that is about the history of the JD. If we want a history of the JD section in addition to the debate section, that's fine. But I see no benefit to removing the debate section. Wikiant (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. A section could be written that covers this without bullet points, but it would have to be honestly titled and would need to lay out very early that there is a difference of opinion on the matter. There's a reason the bullet point form came out of mediation and has lasted this long--other attempts have, like this one, amounted to a burial of the issue--wishing it away. JJL (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold on, I think Purple's rewrite has merit. I would support retitling it and work in some evidence closer to the beginning that shows the debate over the academic rank of the JD, but otherwise I feel that the current rewrite was done fairly and gives plenty of voice to both sides. Mavirikk (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bullet-pointing the section is kind of rediculous, so I don't disagree with the re-write. I certainly commend the effort.  But the section should be re-titled. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Now having both the paragraphs and the bullet points is just silly. For God's sake, Purple simply condensed the bullet points into paragraphs. We should be able to come to some agreement. Mavirikk (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The misleading section heading he used remains the initial point of contention. I've already suggested it be changed back to what it was. Thoughts? JJL (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was changed back, would you agree to drop the bullet points? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you had read what I had written, would I even need to answer? JJL (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, no need to get snippy about it... Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Haven't any of you figured out that JLL and Wikiant are not ever going to give it up? This is an example of something in which you're never ever going to agree. But despite having DOZENS of editors try to dissuade them, those two have the tenacity to stick it out to make sure their personal views are reflected; and because they've been here the longest (save for perhaps one other - Z), and have the patience to keep this up, they claim that their view is "consensus" when any moron with a 5th grade reading level could see that dozens of editors, all representing pretty much the same opposing viewpoint (which, guys, is the definition of consensus) have tried and failed to get through or to them or clean this mess of a section up. I can't speak to the quality of their doctorates, but I'll bet my bottom dollar those guys (or girls) were the kids in class who never gave up. Good luck to you all. You need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.245.56 (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Because those editors have been interfering with the development of the article, have been selective about the sources they use, and have contributed little substance to the article, they should be removed from participating in the editing of this article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the current academic status section is fairly good. It's far better than those bullet points we used to have, at least. Now it actually reads like an encyclopedia. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

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


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


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

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

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


 * These sources do not support the existence of the debate or disagreement in the section DPD is discussing. They reflect debate, respectively, about (1) whether a JD is an adequate credential for teaching in a criminal justice faculty position and (2) whether a Canadian law school should award the law degree as an LLB or JD. Sk75 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * These sources are so off-point I am alarmed that Wikiant is citing to them for support. In fact, a reasonable interpretation of the Journal article is that it actually supports the JD as a doctorate. While the author of that article does not think so, he is responding to apparently wide-spread assertions that the JD qualifies one to teach in a field outside law. Clearly if some believe the JD is equivalent to a Ph.D in Criminology, it is at least a professional doctorate in its primary field: the law. Mavirikk (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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


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


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

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


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

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


 * The typical J.D. holder completes 90 hours of course work. But the question is not whether the J.D. is equal to the Ph.D. The question is whether the J.D. is a doctor's degree.

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

The LLB is a bachelor's degree (Legum Baccalaureus (Latin: Bachelor of Law)), the LLM is a master's degree (Legum Magister (Latin: Master of Law)), and the JD is a doctoral degree (Juris Doctor (Latin: Doctor of Law)). Pretending that a Juris Doctor, or Doctor of Laws, is anything but a doctorate is absurd. Looking at this debate from the outside, I can't help but wonder if the editors who seem intent on diminishing the JD have some pride vested in this matter. (A hard earned LLB, perhaps?) While the LLB is indeed a meritorious degree, there is just no debating that the JD is anything but a doctoral degree. Common sense does not allow for multiple interpretations in this case. The JD is, without any doubt whatsoever, a self-styled doctorate. When a degree is so kind as to clearly define itself as a doctoral degree in the Latin, why would we even entertain tangential arguments about government pay grade, obsolete degrees that are seldom offered here in modern times or the hats that graduates wear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.124.84 (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As another author aptly put it, "calling the animal a killer whale does not make it a whale." I encourage you to read the many years' worth of good discussion and research on the point you make. The issue is not nearly so clear as you suggest. Wikiant (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The J.D. clearly is a doctorate. To have a section that has "evidence" to the contrary is misleading and inaccurate.  Take a look at Wikipedia's own doctorate page: it plainly says that doctorates include both research and professional doctorates.  Furthermore, much of the "evidence" doesn't really speak to whether the J.D. is a doctorate, but whether it is equivalent to a PhD.  Who cares about PhD's?  This is an article on the JD.  This entire section should be removed for <1> giving undue weight to a fringe argument, <2> constituting original research, <3> weasel words, <4> citations do not support the assertion being made, and <5> consensus that it should be removed.  Take a look at the history: it's basically JJL and Wikiant trying to force their position on editor after editor that disagrees with them, no matter what.  12.2.216.198 (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus to remove the section entirely has clearly been reached. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In whose mind(s)? Wikiant (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In pretty much everyone's, Wikiant. 76.173.171.94 (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits
I was just looking at the article, and I noticed two recent occurrences. First, it appears that DPD's rewrite of the section on the "academic status" of the JD has been taken out. Then, another anonymous editor deleted the whole section, and Wikipedia's automated agent reverted the change as possible vandalism. The anonymous editor cited "Removed per: relevance; undue weight/fringe theory; original research; consensus to remove" for the change.

Of course, we've been discussing whether that section merits inclusion, and to the extent that someone thinks that there is consensus to remove, I thought the automated revert was not warranted, so I undid it.

While I remain skeptical of the section, I am not sure how to judge consensus either, and to the extent that we haven't come to consensus on removal, I support the inclusion of DPD's rewrite. Sk75 (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've read the responses to the RFC above, and have counted the votes. I don't understand why you say consensus has not been reached.  The votes to retain the section are in a CLEAR minority, and the logic for the section's retention is unsound.  Therefore, it is easy to remove the section according to wiki policies and months of discussion. Zoticogrillo (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I was unclear. I am not saying consensus has not been reached. I'm only saying I didn't know whether it had. Sk75 (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus isn't a vote. Given recent edits, including from people who have not (recently, at least) commented here, make it seem to me that there is no consensus to remove the section. JJL (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Zoticogrillo, you have correctly chided editors in the past that a majority vote does not constitute consensus. You have editors (me among them) who have provided good arguments against removing the academic status section. Wikiant (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not exactly correct. The current state of the article is a product of your personalized definition of consensus which was used to strong-arm me into relenting.  What a circus!: My attempts to improve the article were reversed in spite of the 3R rule because you didn't understand the difference between meditation and arbitration, during which mediation you opined that my position should be ignored because I was the only one who took it (against only three others).  Your behavior is justification for overlooking your opinions. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Your behavior is justification for overlooking your opinions"? Really? Perhaps you should take your complaints up with the mediator who closed the mediation. JJL (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The version of the section that existed roughly prior to DPD's rewrite was once again restored. I am attempting to take it out again. I think DPD's rewrite improved the section considerably. It was well-sourced and presented the opposing viewpoints fairly, in my opinion. At the least, I think we should have some further discussion about what editors' particular issues with the section are. However, I am not restoring that version of the page pending the conclusion of our discussion of consensus. (I haven't personally attempted to assess whether we've arrived at consensus.) Sk75 (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus. The rewrite was full of "opinion" sourced material. Example: There was a paragraph that claimed the JD is equivalent to the PhD, and then sourced a deceleration by some legal group/ association as back up materials. As far as I know there is no university in the "world" that has ever stated that the JD is equivalent to the PhD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viscountrapier (talk • contribs) 16:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that every single outside author who commented on the RFC described the pre-rewrite version of the section as absurd and fit for removal. I think that either my re-write should stand or the section removed. Aside from a couple hold-outs, the pre-rewrite section had a clear consensus to be removed. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * When DPD first suggested the rewrite, I was cautiously optimistic. My concern was that the effort not devolve back into what we had before: a slippery slope wherein separate factual statements are woven together to imply that there is no disagreement as to the JD's status, or that the opposing side is a fringe opinion. Unfortunately, I saw this happen almost immediately. For example, the paragraph and heading were edited so as to suggest that there was no real disagreement. Also, I see that the gratuitous Japanese/Chinese translation is back again. If we can obtain a solution that (1) shows that there is a true disagreement, and (2) fairly represents both sides of the disagreement, then I'm not against a more "encyclopedic" format. Wikiant (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Some OR was removed, as well as the contention that, somehow, one authority equals many authorities. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I just removed a couple of unsupported statements from the article. One was about the starting military rank of JD holders relative to MDs and PhDs. The other was about the precedence of JDs relative to others at graduation. Perhaps these statements are correct, but I don't think they belong in this contentious section without any support. I also tried to reword the statement about how it is unclear which professional doctorates were "true" doctorates. I don't think we need to resort to the dubious term "true doctorate" to get the point across. I assume the point that the proponents of this assertion were trying to make is that (1) the professional doctorates are in some sense "lower ranking" than the PhD and (2) that the JD in particular is "lower ranking" than at least some of the other professional doctorates and the MD especially. For those editor(s) who support this assertion, please do re-word this statement if I failed to capture the essence of the assertion. Sk75 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Copious sources are in the archives. Why not try to use them to improve the sourcing? JJL (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Juris Doctor in Academia
Given all the attention of this section, why can't we even get the grammar right? I would change it myself, if I had the time (I am well aware of the condemning irony in these statements). ;) Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What you talkin' 'bout, Willis? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was talking about some serious grammar problems, Arnold. It's cool they were fixed. Zoticogrillo (talk)


 * The inclusion of this section (comparing the JD to a PhD) should be removed entirely. Aside from the fact that it has no relevance to the article (this is an article on the JD, not the PhD or research doctorates generally), there also is a consensus to remove it.  To claim otherwise is simply caving into the demands of a couple of tyrannical editors who--against the will of myriad Wikipedians who have edited this article--have been pushing their POV positions for quite a while. 76.173.171.94 (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with this poster. Perhaps a new RFC is in order? I'll work on it this weekend. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's not even consensus about the consensus (or lack-thereof) for the last RFC, why would a new one be any different? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there was consensus. The last RFC was very specific though and only spoke to the format of the section. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The section is not comparing the JD to the PhD. We all get the argument that they are different degrees. The section is showing the real discussion that is going on as to the JD's status within academia. In an article on the JD, that seems pretty relevant to me. Wikiant (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Another RFC would not be helpful. Try mediation--but be aware that that's what produced the bullet version last time. JJL (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think mediation would be productive at all. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you try to go to arb. they'll likely ask whether mediation was tried first. Since the last mediation produced the the current section (with the info. in bullet form), if you're hoping it'll go a different way next time it might be wise to try that. JJL (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the lengthy, drawn out nature of this -- I started in December 09, for example -- I'm not sure that mediation would be necessary. But I'll give it a shot anyway. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I said some months ago I would lay off participating actively in discussions and editing, I am willing to help (in a limited manner) through the dispute resolution process. I am still anxious for the article to finally be "finished" (i.e. featured article quality). Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The section is full of weasel words. Such as the statement that the ABA does not prohibit use of title of doctor. What would be required otherwise? That the ABA opinion state that JD holders must use the title of doctor?! Come on. And what's up with the secondary citations? Why not just cite the ACTUAL opinion, which can be found in Collected Formal Opinions 1983-1998 at any US law library. I understand that this is a passtime for us, but let's at least pretend to be smart about it. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's nothing weaseling about this passage. Most certainly, the ABA does *not* say that JD holders must use the title. Here's what the citation says, "Nothing contained herein shall prohibit a lawyer from using or permitting the use of, in connection with his name, an earned degree or title derived therefrom indicating his training in the law." Wikiant (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You forgot to give a basis for your claim. I can't agree with you that there's nothing weaseling if you don't say why.  The comment about "must use the title of doctor?!" was sarcasm (hence the eggagerated puncuation, right?).  Why use an awkward negative (not prohibit) instead of the natural term "permit?"  Parlez-vous anglais? Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Failing to prohibit is not the same as granting permission. Pennsylvania does not prohibit me from driving in Virginia. This is not the same thing as saying that Pennsylvania permits me to drive in Virginia. Wikiant (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've been following this discussion and the many changes that this section has undergone over the course of time. I thought it was finally gone after the RFC, but for some reason, it's back, and the same old issues have pretty much surfaced (whether or not JD holders can/are allowed to/are permitted to/are not prohibited from the use of "doctor" as some sort of title, whether or not it's the equivalent of a doctorate, etc.). It's been observed here that a lot of this springs from some POV being pushed by some editors. I agree. The section seems riddled with original research, particularly the bits about the opinion of Mwenda and Muuka, the citations from the Washington Times, and so on. I understand there is some sort of desire to determine the standing of the JD in academia, but the citations don't really do much of this. I think the best approach should be to say: 1. That the JD, at least in America and certain jurisdictions, is a graduate degree, 2. that the JD is (usually) the first (and only) degree (a professional doctorate/first professional degree/whatever) required for training to obtain a license to practice law (at least in America and certain jurisdictions) akin to how the MD and DDS, 3. that the JD is the first of a sequence of academic degrees in the study of law, 4. that the JD has allowed certain individuals to hold positions ordinarily requiring a graduate degree usually the equivalent of the Ph.D. (and while we're at it, instead of going through an extended discussion of the provost that the current version talks about, it would be much simpler to make a reference to Derek Bok, who held a JD but became president of Harvard, an American university whose presidents more often than not had a Ph.D. of some sort). That's what some of the previous versions of this section have done. We can probably save a lot of time if we just highlight the JD's American origins (and thereby relegate the opinions of the non-Americans to footnotes that call for some sort of comparison). As for the usage of the title "doctor," we can actually just cut everything down and say something like: "While there is no consensus on the matter among academic and professional bodies, some holders of the J.D. use the title 'doctor.'" We can then footnote that sentence with all the citations on the matter of whether or not "doctor" is actually an appropriate title. We would have accomplished at least saying that some people use the title, but whether or not they can do it is still not settled. That would probably be the most encyclopedic way to do this. Rmcsamson (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The J.D. is a professional, not graduate, degree, if one wishes to be precise (it's not under control of the Dean of the Graduate School). In this regard also it's akin to an M.D. Referring to Derek Bok without also referring to the provost or similar case is misleading for several reasons. (There's a college ranked #1 in its category by USN&WR that has a president with only a baccalaureate. That doesn't make a B.S. a doctorate.) The repeated references to Mwenda and Muuka as "the non-Americans" or the like is bothersome to me--especially since both were working the U.S. (the latter at a U.S. university) at the time (and may still be), and also as they were explicitly studying the U.S. system and trying to explain it. Indeed, it's far from clear to me that the latter, at least, isn't an American citizen. I don't understand why sources from faculty at an American university would be deprecated and would like to hear a better explanation why this should be so. (Would it be preferable to have faculty from non-U.S. universities cited as sources?) I add, once again, that Mwenda and Muuka aren't the only sources on this issue--they just happen to be the only ones currently represented in the text of the article. JJL (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'll agree with you that the J.D. isn't under the control of the Dean of the Graduate School. However, the J.D. requires the possession of a bachelor's degree (or equivalent), which means it isn't an undergraduate degree. And if that's the definition of what a graduate degree is, then then J.D. is a graduate degree, although owing to the fact that it's taken up as preparation for a specific profession, universities will typically offer it under their roster of "professional" programs. Noting its academic nature as a graduate degree, however, is probably in consonance with the whole discussion on how it was intended to make the study of law more scientific and so on. As for the parenthetical comment, of course the B.S. isn't a doctorate, but that doesn't exactly address the fact that the J.D. has been noted as actually allowing certain individuals to hold upper-level academic posts. That's why in the wording I proposed below, I said it had merely been noted as such (and simply saying that it has also not been noted as such doesn't really address the fact that it has). We can footnote that sentence with the necessary comparative footnotes to illustrate the points you wanted to make about the J.D. not being sufficient, and account for the situation with the provost and the opinions of Mwenda and Muuka. That will probably be the most neutral way of presenting it. Finally, there was no intent to be deprecating the opinions of Mwenda and Muuka. It's just that the inclusion of their opinion in the manner that the text of the article currently does looks like it was the product of original research and POV-pushing. Rmcsamson (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm comfortable that points 1 through 3 capture the entirety of the discussion (to me, point 4 seems ancillary). As for the use of the title, I wouldn't make mention of the title at all. The reason we are where we are is because earlier editors inserted language about the title to bolster one side of the debate (see also the unnecessary Latin and Chinese/Japanese translations). The history of this article is that of an arms race. We pare down the article to your three points (or the equivalent), one side introduces material clearly intended to bolster one side of the debate but insists on claiming that the material is relevant and backed by myriad footnotes. The other side has no choice but to insert balancing material. The first side yells OR and demands myriad counter footnotes, etc. Fast forward 18 months and we're having this discussion all over again. Wikiant (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I agree that point 4 seems rather ancillary (it can be added to point 1, if ever it has to be brought up at all). On point 1, though, I'm not sure how we would characterize the J.D., especially if language becomes such a sensitive consideration. Do we say it's a "first professional degree," or it's a "professional doctorate?" We can probably skip saying these things at all, since they're mentioned in the lead anyway, so maybe just characterizing the JD as a graduate degree should suffice (any debates about the lead may require a separate discussion altogether). If we can agree on these things, given some sequencing of the points, this is what the section might look like:


 * = = The Juris Doctor in academia = =
 * In most jurisdictions, the Juris Doctor is a graduate degree that prepares the recipient to hold a job within a specific profession, as the D.D.S. and M.D. do for dentistry and medicine, respectively. While the J.D. is the last in the sequence of degrees necessary to obtain a license to practice law in jurisdictions such as the United States, it is not the last in the sequence of degrees that encompass the study of law. Advanced degrees in the study of law, which are not necessary for its practice, include the Master of Laws (LL.M.) and Doctor of the Science of Law (S.J.D./J.S.D.) degrees. Both the LL.M. and J.S.D. require a J.D. as a prerequisite, and the LL.M. itself is a prerequisite for the S.J.D., which is the terminal academic degree in law.


 * Or, if we want to add the point about it being an academic qualification to hold certain positions in academia, it might look like this:


 * = = The Juris Doctor in academia = =
 * In most jurisdictions, the Juris Doctor is a graduate degree that prepares the recipient to hold a job within a specific profession, as the D.D.S. and M.D. do for dentistry and medicine, respectively. It likewise has been noted as sufficient qualification to hold advanced posts in academic circles. However, while the J.D. is the last in the sequence of degrees necessary to obtain a license to practice law in jurisdictions such as the United States, it is not the last in the sequence of degrees that encompass the study of law. Advanced degrees in the study of law, which are not necessary for its practice, include the Master of Laws (LL.M.) and Doctor of the Science of Law (S.J.D./J.S.D.) degrees. Both the LL.M. and J.S.D. require the J.D. as a prerequisite, and the LL.M. itself is a prerequisite for the S.J.D., which is the terminal academic degree in law.


 * What do you think? Rmcsamson (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, just thought about this as a possible rephrasing:


 * ==The Juris Doctor in academia==
 * In most jurisdictions, the Juris Doctor is a first professional degree whose purpose is to prepare the recipient to hold a job within a specific profession, as the D.D.S. and M.D. do for dentistry and medicine, respectively. As a graduate degree, it likewise has been noted as sufficient qualification to hold advanced posts in academic circles. However, while the J.D. is the last in the sequence of degrees necessary to obtain a license to practice law in jurisdictions such as the United States, it is not the last in the sequence of degrees that encompass the study of law. Advanced degrees in the study of law, which are not necessary for its practice, include the Master of Laws (LL.M.) and Doctor of the Science of Law (S.J.D./J.S.D.) degrees. Both the LL.M. and J.S.D. require the J.D. as a prerequisite, and the LL.M. itself is a prerequisite for the S.J.D., which is the terminal academic degree in law. Rmcsamson (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This might be workable, but it has also been noted as not being a sufficient qualification to hold advanced posts in academic circles. This presents only one side of that issue.


 * ==The Juris Doctor in academia==
 * The Juris Doctor is a first professional degree whose purpose is to prepare the recipient to hold a job within a specific profession, just as the D.D.S. and M.D. do for dentistry and medicine, respectively. However, while the J.D. is the the sole degree necessary to obtain a license to practice law in the United States, it is not the highest degree in law and is not universally regarded as a doctoral-level degree. Advanced degrees in the study of law include the Master of Laws (LL.M.), requires the J.D. as a prerequisite, the and Doctor of the Science of Law (S.J.D./J.S.D.) degree, for which the LL.M. is a prerequisite and which is the terminal academic degree in law. JJL (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I like this version. I agree with Rmcsamson that, because the BS/BA is a pre-requisite, the JD is clearly a graduate degree. At one point, we had wording like, "The Juris Doctor is a first professional and graduate degree..." Note that the first professional degree article states that a first professional degree can be graduate or undergraduate, so we should probably include the word "graduate". Wikiant (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit skeptical of the pared down version, but if we were to go this direction, I suggest that we pare it down this way:


 * == The Juris Doctor in Academia in the United States ==
 * The Juris Doctor degree prepares the recipient to hold a job within the legal profession, just as the D.D.S. and M.D. do for dentistry and medicine, respectively. However, while the J.D. is the sole degree necessary to obtain a license to practice or teach law, it is not the final degree available in the study of law. Advanced degrees in the study of law include the Master of Laws (LL.M.), which requires the J.D. as a prerequisite, and the Doctor of the Science of Law (S.J.D./J.S.D.) degree, a dissertation-based research doctorate that ordinarily requires the LL.M. degree as a prerequisite.

Sk75 (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It may be hypersensitivity due to years of discussing this topic, but the last sentence and title strikes me as weasely. I suggest:


 * == The Juris Doctor in Academia ==
 * The Juris Doctor degree is a first professional degree that prepares the recipient to hold a job within the legal profession, as do the D.D.S. and M.D. in the dentistry and medical professions, respectively. While the J.D. is the sole degree necessary to teach law or to obtain a license to practice law, it is not the final degree available in the study of law. Advanced degrees in the study of law include the Master of Laws (LL.M.), which requires the J.D. as a prerequisite, and the Doctor of the Science of Law (S.J.D./J.S.D.) degree, which ordinarily requires the LL.M. as a prerequisite.

Wikiant (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's pretty good. I guess people who want to know more about the SJD could just read that degree's page. 130.253.171.106 (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest adding the word "graduate" before the words "first professional degree" in that proposed rewording? This should account for the fact that the JD requires a bachelor's degree as a prerequisite, and to distinguish it from other first professional degrees that are taken at the undergraduate level. Rmcsamson (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that should be in the very first paragraph of the article, and then this section would not need to say anything more about it. It could just say "The JD degree prepares the recipient..." Sk75 (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but saying that it's a graduate degree in this section makes the necessary distinction vis-a-vis undergraduate first professional degrees, which thereby clarifies the place of the JD in academia. The first paragraph of the article already has the more pointed "professional doctorate" description. Rmcsamson (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to that. Sk75 (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the current section has some serious WP:WEIGHT issues. We have two relatively unknown authors from outside the United States and two anonymous Washington Times articles which appear to be opinion pieces versus The Association of American Universities, The National Science Foundation, The University of Utah, The American Bar Association, The German Federal Ministry of Education, and the Encyclopedia Britannica. Even though the "JD is not a doctorate" position has barely any support, it's given the same amount of space as the "JD is a doctorate" position, which is backed up by numerous, reputable professional, academic and encyclopedic organizations. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Who are the authors from outside the United States? JJL (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Mwenda & Co. In fact, it seems that more space is given to the "not a doctorate" position even though the "is a doctorate" position is substantially better supported. Even if you happen to agree with Mwenda, you must admit, there's a landslide of support in favor of the "JD is a doctorate" position by many well-regarded academic institutions and the "not a doctorate" position lacks this support. I'll work on expanding the "pro-doctorate" citations: it looks like Mwenda & Co. have detailed discussion about their work but there's little more than just citations for the opposing majority position. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In what country do you suppose Kentucky State University is located? And no, I don't see the landslide that you do. I see lots of grey. JJL (talk) 04:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Deep Purple Dreams that the majority of opinion (at least as researched by Wikipedia editors) favors the notion that the "JD is a doctorate." And if you were referring to Muuka, he's not from Kentucky State. He's from Muuray State University in Kentucky. That said, here's the question about whether their opinion should be given the excessive weight it has been given in the current version of the text: How is a book on African higher education reform an appropriate source in discussing the position of a more or less American degree in academia, especially when none of the authors or contributors holds a law degree, and that the only real reference that they make to the J.D. is in the passages quoted here? Again, that looks like original research, and worse, original research given undue weight in order to push a particular POV. I'm not saying that the opinions of these authors be disregarded altogether. I think, however, that their opinions are better relegated to the footnotes and not the main passages of this article. And this comment is not based on their names or their ethnicity. This is based on my opinion of the appropriateness of this source. Rmcsamson (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've defended this source in the past--see the Archives where I've addressed your concerns previously. There's also Pappas and others who aren't quoted in the current version of the article. JJL (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've only looked as far back as Archive #7. That's what you may have been referring to. My problem is still this: How is this source, the book by Mwenda and Muuka, an appropriate one? We don't even have any idea what the context of their comments is (at least based on my view). Again, this source, together with the unused Pappas source, and even the source from the Washington Times (all of which were cited mainly by you, if I am not mistaken, but that should not detract from their own individual merits) seems to be deployed in the context of the article, given a huge amount of weight, in order to push a particular POV. So while we may not be engaging in original research, we may be failing the test of neutrality, mainly because of weight. And to say that this should establish that it has been noted as the J.D. not being a doctorate does not logically (or fairly) address the contention earlier raised that the J.D. has been regarded as a doctorate, at least by sources that are arguably as reliable as the ones you've cited. The only way to treat this fairly is to state the matter in as positive terms as possible (that the J.D. has been regarded by some as a doctorate, or at the very least, a graduate degree), and just make the necessary citations advancing the different possible positions. Without that, it really looks like that there's a particular POV being pushed, and since we can argue about whether that POV is correct or not, we will not be able to resolve how this section should be written, assuming this section must stand at all.Rmcsamson (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The source is viewable online (the link is in the archive) and there's at least one published, refereed article on the same subject by (one or both of) them indicated in the archives (Journal of Commonwealth Law and Legal Education 3(1), 17-38 (Nov. 2004)--since apparently I will be repeatedly asked to enter the same material in every archived page in what increasingly seems like an attempt to wear down the opposition). If you don't have an idea what the context is, it's not incumbent upon me to buy you a copy of the book--you should be able to locate a library with an Inter-library loan service and verify it for yourself. I know what the context is because I read the relevant material. I would argue that as disinterested parties who are studying the whole of the U.S. system in what's reminiscent of an anthropological approach--describing what the reality in practice is as well as what the involved groups say--that they are better suited to describe the actual state of affairs than those with a horse in the race. What about the reference from Canadian Lawyer Magazine? The GMU factbook? The Inside Higher Ed. article? The entirely unambiguous statement in the Loughlin book? The mediation resulted in a format that left equal numbers of points for each side, so not everything made it in, but there's plenty more out there. To dismiss the existence of a legitimate disagreement without checking the proffered sources isn't helpful. JJL (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a question for you, JJL. Does the "not a doctorate" position enjoy the same widespread academic and professional acceptance as the "not a doctorate" position? Why does it seem that this is a contention primarily advanced by individual authors? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the question. How do those two positions differ? JJL (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't think there's a difference between the position of the Association of American Universities, ABA, etc that the JD is a professional doctorate and the position of Mwenda that it's not a doctorate at all? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That isn't what you asked. Read it again. Also, I'd like to see a cite on the AAU's alleged position on this. All we have is a 1919 report by some faculty at some law school that happened to be given at an AAU meeting. That doesn't magically make it the position of the entire AAU. Please provide a clear citation to the opinion of the AAU as a whole on this matter, or stop misrepresenting the issue. JJL (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So, how about this:


 * == The Juris Doctor in Academia ==
 * The Juris Doctor degree is a first professional graduate degree that prepares the recipient to hold a job within the legal profession, as do the D.D.S. and M.D. in the dentistry and medical professions, respectively. While the J.D. is the sole degree necessary to teach law or to obtain a license to practice law, it is not the final degree available in the study of law. Advanced degrees in the study of law include the Master of Laws (LL.M.), which requires the J.D. as a prerequisite, and the Doctor of the Science of Law (S.J.D./J.S.D.) degree, which ordinarily requires the LL.M. as a prerequisite.

Wikiant (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. I say try it out. Sk75 (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this looks fine. Now, do we have to go over which of the current materials we'll be using for references and where they'll go? Rmcsamson (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It won't work to have the first sentence of this section define JD differently than the first sentence of the article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems to be the purpose of this section, Zoticogrillo. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand. You want to revise the definition of JD? How do you account for the citations that state the degree is a doctorate?  Shouldn't they be represented in the definition?  Particularly relevent since the degree is called a juris doctor. Zoticogrillo (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the use of the word "graduate" is intended to give that effect, as are the references to the D.D.S and M.D.. We can probably just add the necessary explanatory footnotes that discuss the for and against positions on the JD being a true(?) doctorate. Rmcsamson (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was being a bit sarcastic, Zoto. It seems that from the start, this section (in its many different forms) was designed to undermine the JD's definition in the lead. There's so much evidence that it's a professional doctorate that it cannot be ignored in the lead, so that must be challenged elsewhere. As you well know, I'm against this section entirely. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really follow what's going on. Let's arbitrate this stuff and get it over with. We should include all citations and commentary, from proper sources, and interpret the best sources accordingly. Speaking of the spirit of inclusiveness, I think I found some interesting materials on the debates of the status of the JD in old law review articles iin the 70's. Confirming the fact that, yes, the berkeley law library is better than the u of washington's. Course, the library of congress would be cool. Anyone in DC? Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There have been recent edits to the section by an anon. Do we work with this or do we work with the working text we seem to have been able to cobble together? Rmcsamson (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * in spirit of improvement and openness to change, let's keep editingand going forward to gget consensus on new proposals rather than simplyundoing edits, etc. This will also help in build-up to dispute resolutuion, as key issues will be distilled. I will upfdate you on afore mentioned law review articles when I return to Berkeley later next week. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that the article is useful to a reader. It could be written to be more direct. Could also be more clear in explaining definition and context of professional degree. Shouldn't start out with definition statement, because not useful (redundant, demeaning to reader who already read the fist sentence of article). I don't understand why some citations (on both "sides" of the issue) have been excluded. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Recent Flurry of Edits
Anyway, this is what made the bulleted list attractive: It clearly indicated the issue at hand, was nominally balanced, and was easy to maintain. The form of the section right now consists of 5 sentences. The first is redundant with the opening of the article. The second adds info., though it's a part of the argument relating to the underlying matter. The third discusses the opinion of the ABA (which is referring to, but not "in", academia) and the fourth and fifth clarify the terms used in the third. The issue that motivated the section and which continues to attract edits on it is buried so deeply that only we who have been here all this time can see it. This form and the similar ones that have been edited back-and-forth don't seem like actual improvements to me. As one editor wrote in the edit summary, consensus is not the goal--an accurate and useful encyclopedia is. Consensus is a means for achieving that when opinions differ. Not being able to achieve consensus can't stop us from being accurate and complete. JJL (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, JJL. I've gone through some of the sources in the archives, such as the materials by Mwenda, Muuka, and Pappas, and agree that they're pretty good sources. In relation to the other opinions posited by the ABA and those other parties that assert a particular status for the J.D., it might be helpful to clarify that the ABA and a lot of these other sources are referring to American academia, which might then clarify the standing of the J.D. in other academic circles other than those imagined by the ABA. We've actually got most of the opinions represented (although some of the other opinions cited in the books you pointed out might deserve a place among the references), but I think the source of conflict among edits may be that a large amount of the opinions are American and of an American orientation, vis-a-vis those more influenced by the degrees and any sort of hierarchy they may occupy among the Commonwealth nations (this seems to be a sticking point in Mwenda and Muuka). Clarification of those contexts might help resolve some of the conflicts here. And while we're at it, we may want to consider how the J.D. works in non-American or non-Commonwealth academic circles. For example, I have a J.D., but not from an American or Commonwealth university. It is officially treated as the equivalent of a master's degree here, just like the LLB (also a graduate degree), but there is acknowledgement that the J.D. curriculum is much more difficult and has more requirements. Rmcsamson (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've often said if this page were more like the M.D., B.S., etc., pages, then at the very least some of this could more easily be shunted to a J.D. (United States) or similar page. as it is now, the article as titled needs to address disparate things that call themselves the same thing. I'm glad to learn that you've consulted the sources in the archives. In principle we could simply acknowledge the existence of a diversity of opinion on the matter in a single sentence. My experience here and on other pages is that drive-by editors quickly change the mention to their POV. The bulleted form was somewhat more stable because it clearly alerted such editors to the existence of sourced disagreement. Of course it was ugly--a compromise settled in the mediation--but it served a purpose. I do fear a brief treatment as here, with details buried in footnotes, will lose that stability...but if we can improve the article then it will be worthwhile. JJL (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The ugliness was definitely not the only problem with a bullet-point list. One of the main problem is a WP:WEIGHT concern. The bulletpoint list made the two positions sound equally valid by giving it equal space, although the "not a doctorate" position was only supported by a handful of individual authors and a combination of synthesis and original research. Compare this to the "is a doctorate" position, which has support in authoritative organizations such as the Association of American Universities. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your analysis of the relative weights. An official spokesperson of the U. of Mich. law school seems pretty authoritative to me, as does the universal opinion of the federal govt. (including the disparate treatment of J.D. holders vs. doctorate holders w.r.t. commissioning). Also, you continue to claim as a position of the AAU what was actually just a 1919 report to it by a subcommittee of one school's law faculty which described their position as a "feeling". You grossly overstate your teh strength of your own case. One more thing--are you willing to concede that Kentucky is in the United States yet, as you contested in the previous section? JJL (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Tea kettle says what to the pot? Whether your citations are good or authoritative should be obvious, regardless of your opinions of them.  Isn't saying a statement attributed (heresay) to an un-named "spokesperson" (whether or not official, it's not mentioned, and if was official, why not named?) is "pretty authoritative" also an "overstate[ment]"? Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, you're simply making stuff up. The article says: 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. So, the name of the "spokesperson" was David Baum, J.D., Assistant Dean of Students at the University of Michigan Law School. You can find more info. on him here: . JJL (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, I also point out that you (Zoticogrillo) twice (thrice?) removed the clarification that an ABA Council Statement is advisory only, despite the fact that the wording you removed was verbatim from the same source whence came the ABA Council Statement. It is behavior like this that led us to the rigid bulleted-point structure we had before. Wikiant (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Inclusion of this section is patently absurd, and it has allowed editors to maintain an irrelevant, fringe position (that the JD is somehow not a doctorate) on the article.  I still stand by my position that it needs to be removed in its entirety. Sawagner201 (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A position on the J.D. that is held by the U. of Michigan law school is not especially fringe-y. JJL (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * sorry that I remembered the u of mich statement wrongly. Mr. Burn's statement is congruous with other clear statements made by other authoritative sources: that the JD is not the same as a PhD because the JD is a professional degree, not a research degree. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

And we're back to square one
The disputed section on the status of the J.D. in academia has now fallen into the same old problems of the original versions, with just some minor changes in the wording of the section itself. Sorry, but I can't help but note the bickering by more or less the same editors over the same little things. Can't we just strengthen the sections on the different variants of the J.D.? That might be better than trying to cram something into one section. This appears to have been the way that the article on the M.D. has gone. Rmcsamson (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should follow the structure of the MD article--specifically in how it allows for international variants--thereby making the article more clear as a whole. Putting everything in one section confuses the issue and implies that the degree is identical everywhere.  I think it would stabilize the JD article quite a bit. Sawagner201 (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the real problem is that putting everything in one section makes the issue crystal clear. We have gone the route of dividing the information among the rest of the article. What follows are numerous tweaks: inserting "doctor," "terminal," "graduate," and pictures of doctoral robes throughout; then comes the corresponding tweaks on the other side. You don't make the battle go away, you simply force it to be fought throughout the entire article rather than in a single section. Wikiant (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I disagree that we're back to square one. These last months have brought into clear focus what the issue precisely is: (1) the ABA recommends that the JD be considered equivalent to a Ph.D., (2) in academia, the Ph.D. represents the highest educational level in a discipline, (3) in academia, the SJD/JSD represents the highest educational level in law. Reliable citations all around. End of story. Wikiant (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As usual, Wikiant is incorrect. (1) The PhD is not synonymous with "academia," and is but only one degree therein;  (2) The PhD is not the highest degree one can earn (see, for example, higher doctorates); (3) The JD is the highest degree in Law; the SJD is a degree in Juridical Science/Jurisprudence, not Law, and the LLM is in Laws, derived from the latin Legum, referring to specific Laws, not the collective concept of Law (a cite on Georgetown University, I believe previously incldued in this article, discusses that); the citations you have used have been presented in a misleading fashion; they often do not specifically mention the JD, but are talking about professional doctorates generally.  Furthermore, academia is more than just the PhD granting schools at a university.  For example, the highest degree awarded by most law schools is the JD, and this is precisely the degree that qualifies one to be a professor at a law school.  This debate will never go away as long as your push misleading edits. Sawagner201 (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * On (1) Yes. (2) Most of the higher doctorates are now only given honoris causa, which means they're not really an academic qualification that one uses together with degrees actually studied for. (3) I have absolutely no idea where you get this distinction other than the translations of the degree names from Latin, and agree with JJL on this point. Rmcsamson (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Ph.D., meaning "Teacher of Philosophy", is surely closely identified with the very nature of academe. It is the highest degree one can earn in the U.S.--at least, there are none higher. The J.D. is unequivocally not the highest degree in law; you're making up a distinction that doesn't exist (and recall that foreign-trained lawyers, for example, can sometimes use an American LL.M. as their degree to allow them to practice law here). Furthermore, we've produced a long list of citations that address the J.D. in particular as being a professional doctorate accorded lower status than the M.D. (Mwenda and muuka, the differential treatment by the military, the U. of Michigan statement, etc.). The M.F.A. is often the highest degree given in certain artistic fields and qualifies one to be a professor in those fields--it's a terminal degree--but the D.F.A. exists, is offered by some schools, and is higher. I'm taken aback by how you can claim to see things in the way you indicate. It's simply contrary to what sources have been adduced. JJL (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you may be overstating the evidence that the JD is accorded a "lower" status than the MD. (I remain skeptical of the very notion that one doctoral degree can have a lower or higher position than the others although certainly people hold varying opinions, particularly based on the duration of the programs, about the rigor and value of those degrees.)


 * First, none of the military citations I've read indicate that any difference in the treatment of doctors and lawyers in the U.S. armed services are attributable to the degree itself rather than the profession they practice in the armed forces.


 * Second, I think that the Mwenda source actually suggests that the MD cannot properly be viewed as any kind of doctorate. It quotes from another source (Phillips and Pugh) that suggests the MD is a bachelor's degree: "[G]eneral medical practitioners are given the honorary title of Doctor although they do not have a doctorate from their universities. Indeed, on the basis of their university course they are credited with two bachelor's degrees..." (90). (It's not even clear to me that Mwenda is referring to the American academia in this statement.) Mwenda also apparently regards the JD as a kind of second-entry bachelor's degree: "[T]he U.S. law degree program is neither a master's degree nor a doctorate" (87). In Mwenda's worldview, as I read it, the only kind of doctorate is the PhD and other dissertation doctorates. I suggest that this is a fringe viewpoint when describing American higher ed. Indeed, on pages 89-90, Mwenda states that "most professional doctorates, unlike a JD, have both taught and research components, culminating in the presentation of a thesis or dissertation," and Mwenda cites the DBA and DEng degrees as proper professional doctorates. The Wikipedia pages on the DBA and DEng describes them as a research doctorates. Thus, while I understand Mwenda's point, I view it as (1) an argument for how the author thinks things ought to be conceptualized and (2) contrary to the consensus view of professional doctorates in the United States.


 * Third, the U. Michigan statement was simply that the JD is not the same as a traditional higher-ed doctorate, like the Ph.D. I understand that statement to mean the JD is not a research doctorate, which I think we all agree on. I don't read it as saying the JD is inferior to the PhD. And I don't see how it relates at all to the MD.


 * Also, I think you dismiss Sawagner201's point too quickly. Even the Mwenda source describes some evidence that the LLM and SJD degrees are "'illegitimate' children" in the family of law degrees (93). Mwenda notes that the LLM and SJD degrees "do not attract much professional respect or recognition from many quarters of the U.S. legal profession" (93), and, indeed, at the Cornell Law School "in exceptional cases" a JSD or LLM candidate can transfer to the JD program. Mwenda condemns the whole system as "illogical" (95). However they are regarded, I am not convinced they can be seen as "higher" degrees in a "vertical" progression with the JD at the base of the progression.


 * For those editors who wish to view the Mwenda source directly, it is accessible at bit(dot)ly/b4F4qq. After reading it over again, I wonder if this source is a "questionable source" under Wikipedia's rules because the views it expresses are "widely acknowledged as extremist" (such as the MD is not any kind of doctorate) and "rel[ies] heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Look, for instance at how Mwenda quotes extensively on page 91 from a blog post on one lawyer's blog. I'm not sure it crosses the line into "questionable" territory, but for me it comes close. Sk75 (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You direct me to pg. 90 of M&M...the very first sentence is "Getting back to the case of the United Kingdom." In the U.K., would-be physicians receive two bachelor's degrees (see MBBS) and are accorded the courtesy title 'Doctor' despite not having a doctorate. It's a completely different system. Quoting Wikipedia as a source on the DBA and DEng degrees isn't helpful. As to the question of whether the J.D.-->LL.M.-->S.J.D. progression is legitimate or not, given that that's the order of prerequisites I'd need to see a source rather than a WP:SYNTH here. The U. of M. statement seems clear enough to me. To suggest that M&M expresses "extremist" views in the context of all the other material advanced that aligns with those views is to simply dismiss an entire side of this debate. In any event, Mwenda's academic work is clearly a preferred source in the context of WP:RS. In any event, let's be clear: The M.D. is not always accorded the same status as is the Ph.D., but both are accorded higher status than the J.D.


 * Things are really moving in the wrong direction here. JJL (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

@Sawagner201 : The Phd is the highest degree earned in the United states... End of story. The JD is not the highest degree that can be earned in law; the JD is nothing more than an LLB masquerading as a so-called professional doctorate. If I ever meet a lawyer with a JD, who requests to be addressed as “Dr”, I will laugh straight at their face. Also, the ABA is an accreditation group of lawyers; to have the ABA declare that the JD is equivalent to the PhD lol, is like having a bunch of monkeys claiming to be humans. I see you have a JD, so I am not shocked about your stance. I suggest you take your ass and get a “real” doctorate degree ….loser lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.212.171 (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The US developed a unique system of professional programs of study (law, medicine, business, etc) that is separate from the research or "academic" programs. It was originally believed in other countries that professional skills should only be taught in the field, through apprenticeships for example, and that all universities teach only academic theory and research. This perspective changed in the US, and the JD and MD were born.  That has started to change outside the US, but the change is fairly recent and usually only adopted piece-meal.  The JD is a professional degree, not a research degree, and is the terminal professional degree in the field of law.  I hope that my citations clarifying this haven't been removed, but I'm having a hard time finding them, which is a shame, because they added a great deal of clarity. Zoticogrillo (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We seem to agree that the SJD is a research (i.e., academic) degree. The fact that the JD is a prerequisite for the LLM and (in turn) for the SJD indicates that the JD is indeed not separate from academic programs. Wikiant (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually fail to see how the J.D. is NOT an academic program. It's not a research-oriented program (even if J.D. students are trained in some form of legal research), but it's an academic program. I thought that was pretty obvious. Hahaha.Rmcsamson (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The distinction is between academic degrees like the M.A. and professional degrees like the M.F.A. In a broad sense both are degrees from an academy of higher learning and hence are 'academic degrees' but when used more narrowly they separate a professional degree like the J.D. from a (purely) academic degree like the S.J.D. that isn't intended to prepare a person for a profession. JJL (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Phd is the highest degree earned in the United states. End of story." Really? It can be logically argued that the J.S.D. "is the highest degree earned in the United States."

"[T]the JD is not the highest degree that can be earned in law." But that is also true of the D.D.S./D.M.D. (The Juris Doctor resembles the D.D.S./D.M.D., which is the prerequisite for the Master of Dental Science (M.S.D.), making the M.S.D. the terminal academic degree in dentistry.) "[T]he JD is nothing more than an LLB masquerading as a so-called professional doctorate." It can be logically argued that this is also true of the D.D.S./D.M.D. "If I ever meet a lawyer with a JD, who requests to be addressed as “Dr”, I will laugh straight at their face." It is immodest and rude for any degree holder to make such a request.

The current wording--implying that the distinctions made w.r.t. the J.D. are the same as for any other professional degree--isn't what we've been trying to address here and is weaker than what's in the sources. It sidesteps, rather than addresses, the reason for having this section. JJL (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's allow for variations in usage of English internationally: The term "academic" in this context is used differently in the U.S. than in commonwealth countries. Let's just use the term "research," and remember that the U.S. is not a commonwealth country nor a part of the "Oxbridge" system.  Comparing the J.D. to a research degree is like comparing apples and oranges.  Now, who erased those citations?  In fact, there are a whole TON of citations that have been thrown to the wind--citations from both sides of the issue.  We should really try and include all interesting material relevant to the article, regardless of our opinions.  Again, those citations that explain the differences in the U.S. between research degrees and professional degrees to non-U.S. readers are particularly useful.  Wikiant's reasoning that all elements in a series must be of the same type is flawed (i.e. that the JD is not a separate academic program because it is a prerequisite for research degrees). Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

btw, re-reading the section in question: Duh! It's obvious: Because they are both reseach doctorates! One in law, the other in philosophy. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I mean, the last sentence, saying that the SJD is equiv to the PhD. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * At least with respect to the JD, the division between professional and research degrees raises two troubling issues. (1) Based on your repeated emphasis that "doctor is latin for teacher," since the point of the JD is to prepare one to practice law, not teach law, the JD is not a "doctorate". (2) The application of "doctor" as an indicator of the JD being terminal relies on an arbitrary and artificial distinction. The body of knowledge required for the practice of law is a subset of the body of knowledge required for the research of law. I can make similar arbitrary distinctions to show that the MBA is a terminal degree. For that matter, one can argue that a high school diploma is terminal for the practice of a trade. Wikiant (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, there's something to be said about this. If "doctor" is latin for teacher, then "juris doctor" means "teacher of the law/jurisprudence" (no need to get technical on the meaning of law vs. jurisprudence at this point). I agree that the J.D. is meant to prepare one to practice law. But the J.D. also suffices as adequate training to allow someone to actually teach law. Having an LLM and an SJD will probably be indicative of better training as an academic researcher, but in terms of teaching law, especially teaching in the sense that the classes taught prepare a student for legal practice? The J.D. seems rather adequate. Rmcsamson (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I should also note that a J.D. seems to be sufficient to teach law. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. However, there is still a division between professional and research doctorates in the U.S., and it's not my idea.  Please research the issue more, using the citations I provided in previous versions of the article and the archived discussions. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Zoticogrillo
Once again you're declaring in the edit summary as you have here that you're adding back material improperly removed. No material is being removed improperly. You don't have a right to have certain material in the article, even if it's sourced. No one WP:OWNs the page. The material you've re-added in the lede, in particular, amounts to trying to move the contentious "in Academia" section argument back up there rather than handle it all in one place. The prof. doctorate language in the lede is from the mediation you agreed to previously. More important, though, is the attitude of having a right to have your material in and defending it against 'improper' edits, as you so often have done. JJL (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Awfully vitriolic, don't you think?
 * The "graduate" reference was removed was on the 30th of September, 2009, in this version, and it was done by an anonymous editor who removed a lot of verifiable content without any discussion.
 * You've forgotten that our final mediated agreement was whether to call the degree a doctorate, professional doctorate, or whether to leave the doctorate word out all together. The article still reflects that agreement.  We didn't reach an agreement about terms such as "first degree," or "graduate."  Which is why you didn't remove the term "graduate" after mediation. (mediation was around March 2009)
 * The material is properly placed here because it is verifiable, and from the very best of sources (University Southern California, University of California at Berkeley, University of Melbourne).
 * It is really important that we include all material that comes from the best sources, according to wikipolicies, and not pick and choose material. I've been forthcoming and honest in posting all material that I've run across, whether it tends to support a point I usually make, or one you usually make.  I'm sorry that you don't agree with it, and that it puts a hole in your POV.  Did you notice that I also restored material to the Hong Kong section which says that the J.D. is not a doctorate?
 * I stopped participating in the editing of this article for some time because of the abusive behavior I experienced while trying to do so. Please try to avoid making this personal.  I really don't understand why this is so important to you. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The frustration is due at least in part to your repeated (over several years) invoking of rules when they suit your purposes and ignoring those same rules when they don't. One example is the above paragraph where you invoke the mediated agreement in defense of your edits. This is the same mediated agreement that, when it was reached in opposition to your position, you insisted was merely opinion and not binding. Another example: you repeatedly deleted the definition of "Council Statement" -- a definition from an extremely reliable source and taken verbatim from that source -- yet in the past, you have threatened to have editors banned because they deleted sourced edits that supported your POV. Look, everyone comes here with a POV -- we're human and that can't be helped. However, we can all at least try to apply the rules even handedly. Wikiant (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You thought the mediation was arbitration, and you were trying to force me to agree to your terms of that mediation, forgetting that only mutually agreed upon terms are binding in mediation, and I never used the word opinion.
 * It's not normally appropriate to put commentary in footnotes. I was suggesting that you put that commentary somewhere in the text.  Any thesis supervisor would have done the same.


 * Sorry, I'm calling BS. (1) It isn't "commentary", it is the definition of "Council Statement" taken almost verbatim from the exact same document that the aforementioned Council Statement was taken. You simply kept the part of the document that supported your POV and deleted the part that did not. (2) I did put the definition in the text, not in a footnote. You are attempting to justify your action as innocent editing. Check the record. You removed it here. You've been pulling this nonsense for years. It is no wonder that you are occasionally met with vitriole. Wikiant (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "For years"? Really?  My mistake, I thought that the text was in the footnote and not the main body.  We are allowed to make mistakes, aren't we?  If my intent was malicious, why would I only pick that one citation out of all of them?  Please direct your energies away from me personally and to the content of the article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, we all come here with a POV, but allowing it to control our actions is not only annoying, but it clouds logic. Haven't I tried to provide a balanced view?  Haven't I allowed numerous edits and discussion to go on without my input?  So I agree that it is human to have a POV, however: Some people allow their POV to drive them, while others allow the tension between their POV and that of others to educate them.  I recommend to you the latter paradigm. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, those university web sites are primary sources on a particular program's version of the degree and not secondary sources covering the degree itself and so they are not of the highest caliber, per WP:RS. Mwenda's published work is of the highest sort according to policy--academic, peer-reviewed, disinterested study of the overall subject and not a web site by an involved party. JJL (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that scholarly articles are generally quite reliable. But, Mwenda's article is not reliable because (1) it expresses a fringe position with respect to US professional doctorates (that they aren't doctorates if they lack a thesis/dissertation requirements or if there are further degrees available) and (2) some of Mwenda's most probative primary sources are blog posts and opinion pieces (such as the Pappas piece) that would not qualify as reliable if we cited them directly. And, even if Mwenda's view were not a fringe viewpoint, it ought to be cited in the professional doctorates section of the doctorates page because it would also call into question almost all of the US professional doctorates (MD/DO, DDS, DVM, PharmD, etc). I am increasingly troubled that only the article on the JD, among all of the articles on the professional degrees awarded in the US at the doctoral level, contains a section like our "JD in Academia" section, even though the stated rationales for making a distinction apply to many of the other degrees as well. Sk75 (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, I think we should just call JJL, "the Mwenda dude" (in the very informal gender neutral sense). The above statement by JJL is a great example of when rules are interpreted for absurd results, because all alleged biases aside, the article's crappy scholarship! Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, two anonymous Internet users probably know more about it than his peers, I suppose. I remind you, however, that the applicable standard here is WP:V WP:RS, not WP:TRUTH, and Mwenda trumps all other sources there. JJL (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Right on, Mwenda dude! Stay true to the cause! ;)  Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've merely restored content which was removed by a rogue editor. Since you did not object to the content at the time, and because the content met wiki policies, I re-introduced it without discussion. I had no idea it would enrage you like this. I only mentioned the mediation because JJL did, and it's certainly not my basis for inclusion. I haven't been editing this article for "several years." The objection to primary source material is that it leads to original research and synthesis, and that is not a concern with the use of these citations. An "involved party" normally refers to an editor of a wiki article, which doesn't apply here. If this content and its citations are so objectionable, why did you allow it to remain for so long before? And why are you being so strong in your objections, even to the point of exaggeration? (several years, hypocritical use of mediation, etc etc etc) Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate Zoticogrillo's edit, and I don't see why it would be inappropriate. It seems we even have a consensus that the JD is a graduate degree. In any case, as JJL points out, none of us own the article. Sk75 (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, but I'll own you! :P  Does anyone else have a hard time explaining to their friends or people at parties that one of their pass-times is creating and editing wikipedia articles?  I love it, but I have to admit, I'd rather hear the details of someone's stamp collection than have a conversation about someone's wiki editing. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

motion for massive "undo"
Editor 98.209.6.176 has given me a huge anonymous headache. I started undo-ing some of the edits which seemed overly hasty, but realized it was a waste of time. All of the edits seem to be inappropriate for one reason or another. I will try and add citations where appropriate, but some issues, like the number of Canadian schools using the J.D. (only a handful at present) I have tried to address with this user on a number of occasions over this past year. I vote that we undo all or most of this user's recent edits. Ok? Zoticogrillo (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I reverted 98's edits. For the record, 98 deleted sourced material and seems to have an on-going beef with other editors describing "Council Statements" as recommendations (despite the fact that the cited document itself describes Council Statements as recommendations). If this continues, I'll request partial protection for the page. Wikiant (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also for Zoticogrillo: Your edits describing European JDs as more "scholarly" seems to be contrary to the Langbein work that you cite. Langbein says, "In the mid-1960s when I first encountered both systems of legal education as a student at the two Cambridges, English legal education was in important respects more scholarly than American. American law schools devoted themselves almost exclusively to training for the legal profession. Today, the leading American law schools have transformed themselves into temples of scholarship. while English law schools have striven to become stronger as training centers for the profession." Wikiant (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, interesting. That's true.  But I believe that quote is not representative of the article as a whole, which states that although the schools in those countries have strived to developed one way or another in recent years, American schools remain more focused on professional training, and English more on more academic, scholarly study of law. Isn't that true? Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * But this anon editor seemed to think that saying one was more scholarly than the other was some kind of value judgement or something, which is strange. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits: It is in juxtaposition to minds like that of our anon friend that I understand what mental instability is, and that I understand myself to be, in easy differentiation, sane. Otherwise, were I a solitary being, without such comparisons, how would I ever know? It's therefore entertaining on many levels to read the recent editing history involving our challenged anon friend. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Lose the Rewrite, Part II
I reviewed the outcome of the RFC and it looks like consensus squarely favors removing this section entirely, including the re-write. Every single outside editor opposed this section, with some calling it absurd, misleading, and a litany of other terms. Although there are a few hold-outs, consensus doesn't require every single person to agree to a change. Given that we have six outside opinions -- all in favor of deleting the section -- combined with over a dozen editors in the past few months who want the section gone, it seems that consensus is clearly in favor of deleting the section entirely. Even though there seem to be two or three editors who disagree, the opinion amongst Wikipedia editors is overwhelmingly in the delete corner. There really is no justification for keeping this section in the article when such a vast majority of Wikipedia editors oppose it. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude! You deleted the whole thing. I thought that the discussion we were having was over the style of presentation, not the presence/absence of the material. With aforementioned caveats, I'm willing to help flesh out a more encyclopedic presentation. Deleting the material wholesale is right out. Wikiant (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion was about both, actually. There's overwhelming opposition to much of the material that you want included. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First you insist on having your prose be the way it's handled, then when someone edits what you wrote you decide the whole thing has to be deleted? I don't think you understand how this place works. What you write will be edited by others and will eventually become no longer recognizable as your work. You may want a blog instead.JJL (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your assessment is incorrect. I deleted the section because, in reviewing the RFC, I thought there was consensus to do away with it. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If your goal is a more encyclopedic treatment, how about the following? This has the benefit of cutting the whole section down to what appears to be the most relevant issues:


 * ==The Juris Doctor as an Academic Degree versus a Professional Degree==


 * The Juris Doctor is a first professional degree that, like the DDS or MD, prepares the recipient to hold a job within a specific profession. The degree's status within academia, however, has been the subject of debate due primarily to two conflicting facts: (1) that, in academia, the J.D. is not the last in the sequence of degrees that encompass the study of law, and (2) that, within the legal profession, the J.D. is the last in the sequence of degrees necessary for the practice of law. In the book The Challenge of Change in Africa's Higher Education in the 21st Century the authors assert that the J.D. is not a doctorate. Mwenda and Muuka note that the Juris Doctor is a prerequisite for the LLM (Master of Laws) which, in turn, is a prerequisite for the SJD (Doctor of Laws), making the SJD the terminal academic degree in law. (In this respect, the Juris Doctor resembles the D.D.S., which is the prerequisite for the Master of Dental Science (M.S.D.), making the M.S.D. the terminal academic degree in dentistry.) A report to the Association of American Universities from a committee of the University of Michigan law faculty suggested that the J.D. be regarded as "a strict analogue to the degree of Doctor of Medicine (M.D.), so firmly established in practice that it must be regarded as permanent" and "a degree for graduates of law schools correctly corresponding the professional doctorate granted from the beginning by medical schools." Many academic and professional organizations describe the J.D. distinctly as a professional doctorate       though it is unclear whether all professional doctorates are perceived as being equivalent in terms of academic rank with respect to one another or with respect to the Ph.D. The American Bar Association, which accredits U.S. law schools, issued a Council Statement that a J.D. is equivalent to the Ph.D. for educational and employment purposes  and does not prohibit holders of the Juris Doctor degree from using the title "Doctor"  which is sometimes used to refer to holders of research doctorates, and some local bar associations in the United States have also issued concurring opinion statements.


 * Wikiant (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm one of those who was in favor of removing the section, but I must say that this proposal looks decent. I do have an issue with the "The degree's status within academia, however, has been the subject of debate ..." phrase, since I still haven't seen any sources which actually state there's a debate (although I haven't been following closely for the past few months, so I may have missed one). Something like "There are differing opinions regarding the degree's status within academia, however, ..." would seem to avoid the OR issues there. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is workable. The focus on Mwenda makes it seem like it's just them and otehr examples have been cited, The U. of Michigan/Wash. Times source would be nice to see worked in somewhere. JJL (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting rewrite. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, although it does have some issues, which I'll summarize briefly. The chief issue is -- what is going on here? Who is debating? What is "academic rank"? The MD is a first professional doctorate too, why is the JD lower? Or is the JD lower? Where exactly does it fall on the "academic rank" scale? Are the only two options "doctorate" or "not a doctorate" and how does this square with the article's position that it's a professional doctorate? This section is essentially incomprehensible to someone who doesn't know anything about this topic... frankly, I'm not sure I can even make sense out of it. From a more technical aspect, the title of the section is incorrect - according to the Wikipedia article for academic degrees, an academic degree is merely a degree awarded after a course of study. Using the word "versus" implies that academic degree is mutually exclusive in relation to professional degree. Anyway, I'm willing to work with this, I just think it needs to be far more specific. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are some very basic questions that this section must answer in order to be encyclopedic:
 * Who?: Who is debating this, besides the African education authors?
 * What?: What exactly is "academic rank"? What are the actual opinions here? Are the only two options "doctorate" or "not a doctorate"?
 * Where?: Is this only in the US?
 * When?: Is this very recent or has this debate been around from the start?

Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of 'academic' degrees: The ABA seems to be drawing that distinction here (see under "Graduate             Degrees Defined" at the bottom). Categories 1 and 3 are described as academic while category 2 is described as for practice. I also note that the ABA describes the S.J.D. as "The Doctorate Degree" (emphasis added; pg. 39) in law in their comprehensive curriculum survey analysis. JJL (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)