User:Deep Purple Dreams/JDCites

Original Research and Misleading Terminology in the Juris Doctor "Academic Status" Section
Introduction: It's my position that the "debate on the academic status of the JD" does not really exist in any substantial way. I believe that, after reading this document, you'll come to the same conclusion. Most of the cites used to show "evidence" that the JD is not a doctorate are misleading and present numerous original research and WP:SYNTH issues.

It is a well-settled fact that the JD is considered a professional doctorate[], much like an MD. There is a fringe viewpoint that the JD is somehow "less equal than others" when it comes to academic ranking. It is my belief that the "debate" section is designed to legitimize this fringe viewpoint by using sources that are just plain inappropriate for Wikipedia - some sources are anonymous, and some sources don't even mention the Juris Doctorate.

Read this for yourself and please chime in on the Juris Doctor talk page with your conclusions. I've gathered a list of citations that are used to establish the existence of this so-called debate, and I've posted an explanation as to the problems with each one. This document has been in existence since March 19th. Since then, I've invited the supporters of the "debate" section to examine this page and address these concerns. [] To date, none have done so, although they will eagerly revert any changes made to the section.

Evidence that the Juris Doctor is not a doctoral level degree citations

 * "The European Research Council, "First-professional degrees will not be considered...PhD-equivalent, even if recipients carry the title 'Doctor'.""
 * Original Research: This document does not even mention the Juris Doctor degree.
 * Misleading: The European Research Council awards grants for scientific research and has nothing to do with the practice of law. This citation is about the medical field. Even if the Juris Doctor were to be mentioned in the document (which it is not), then of course a law degree holder would not be considered for a scientific research grant unless they had a scientific research degree (the PhD). This source is misleading because it has nothing to do with the JD or the legal field.
 * Furthermore: This isn't even a proper sentence.


 * "The U.S. Department of Labor sets the starting pay grade for "Ph.D. or equivalent doctoral degree OR 3 full years of progressively higher level graduate education".[154] at a higher level than for those with "Master's or equivalent graduate degree (such as LL.B., J.D.)"."
 * Original Research: This citation is being used to support the contention that the JD is not a doctorate, yet, there's no reasoning given as to why they structure their pay grades this way. There could be a variety of internal reasons for doing this, yet the reader is supposed to infer that it's because the JD is not a doctorate. Wikipedia editors shouldn't be manufacturing intent where it is unclear.
 * Additionally: If you scroll down, it seems that other divisions of the Government pay equally to JD holders and PhD holders. This would indicate that the pay grade is determined by the nature of the work rather than the status of the degree.


 * "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."
 * Original Research: This assumes that doctorates must be the terminal degree in a field.
 * Misleading: This ignores the existence of professional doctorates. Whether or not an editor likes the concept of professional doctorates, there are degrees which are NOT the terminal degree in that field, yet the people who hold them are called doctors. A great example of this is the MD.
 * There are master's level law degrees in the US that are shorter than the JD program. Many universities offer degrees like the the Master of Studies in/of Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Studies_in_Law) that are law-focused programs for people who want to study law but do not need the degree that allows them to practice law. Widener even has a Master of Jurisprudence degree (http://law.widener.edu/Academics/Programs/GraduatePrograms/MasterofJurisprudenceinHealthLaw.aspx). It seems that JD holders, like many PhD holders, hurdle these intermediate degrees in pursuit of the more advanced credential. Sk75 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "A Washington Times reporter, in discussing a university provost whose lack of a graduate degree other than the Juris Doctor she reported caused controversy, wrote that she "holds a juris doctor degree from University of Michigan Law School -- which is equivalent to a master's degree, not a doctorate" and in a separate story that "A spokesman for Mrs. Reuben-Cooke's alma mater said her law degree is not equivalent to a doctorate."
 * Not a Reliable Source: The article does not appear to have an author. This makes it an unreliable source as per Wikipedia policy.

Interesting fact about this cite!


 * Another citation from the Washington Times about this very same issue (and from a different anonymous reporter) actually goes further into what the Spokesman said and his statement are qualified by "At Michigan"... not a representation of the JD as a whole. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/aug/05/20030805-113408-9575r/?page=2) Furthermore, that article contains a description of the Provost's support of the JD. He claims that logically, you can't deny the JD is a doctorate.
 * We should push to have this information added to the article either as: (1) a point on the JD side, (2) as a qualification of the strength of the source in the anti-JD side. Mavirikk (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Wash Post cite is one of the two most cogent sources suggesting some actual controversy about the status of the JD. However, the statement that a "law degree is not equivalent to a doctorate," made by someone in the higher education context could have meant either (a) that the JD is not equivalent to the PhD (which of course nobody contests) or (b) the JD is not a doctorate. However, deep in the archives of the talk page, an anonymous editor cited this source (http://sitemaker.umich.edu/umsarc/nida_training_grant) in a University of Michigan program lists the JD as an earned doctorate that qualifies the holder for a postdoctoral fellowship. This suggests that interpretation (a) is correct. In any case, since we cannot infer from the article what the unnamed spokesperson said which interpretation she meant to convey, the source is not reliable. (Under WP:RS, A source should directly support the information as it is presented in an article.) Compare, for instance, the unequivocal statements that the Australian universities make that their JD degrees are not doctorates. Sk75 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Students’ Law Society at the University of Windsor described the J.D. as a "name change" and said "A Windsor Law J.D. would not be a graduate degree [but rather] an undergraduate professional degree program."
 * Misrepresentation: This is one of the most egregious cites used here. This document is a report issued by the University of Windsor Student's Law Society regarding Windsor changing the name of their LLB degree to a JD, in order to keep in with the terminology used by the rest of the world. As the document states: "The change in designation from an LLB to a JD is a change in degree title only." (Emphasis in the original.)


 * As the document notes, "Traditionally in much of the commonwealth ... the LLB designation has typically been used to refer to students who entered the study of law directly out of high school or the equivalent." The document also notes: "The curriculum of the Law program would not differ from what it is now."


 * A Windsor Law JD would not be a graduate degree - because they're only renaming their bachelor's degree. This is not represented in the citation, which makes it look like Windsor Law is passing judgment on the JD as a whole. To someone who didn't read the source, it would appear that the JD is not a doctorate, when they're only talking about a "JD in name only" (as in, a renamed bachelor's degree.)


 * Windsor didn't describe the JD as a "name change": they were describing their name change, from LLB to JD.
 * Not a Reliable Source/Undue Weight: Why is a Student's Law Society authoritative on this?
 * Regional Bias: Like many sources in this article, it refers to a particular country's JD specifically, but is used to generalize to all JDs. This statement also is strictly limited to a description of JDs from Windsor Law, a Canadian school.


 * "The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology states that, despite its name, recipients of the Juris Doctor are not entitled to use the honorific title "Doctor" at that institution."
 * Misleading: It's no secret that the JD in Australia is substantially different than the JD in the United States and elsewhere. The Australians renamed one of their existing degrees to "Juris Doctor" in order to be more inline with the rest of the world (this fact is noted in the source). But, this source is being used to generalize to JDs at large.


 * "The minutes of a 2004 Deans Council Meeting at Austin Peay State University state that the Juris Doctor is not a doctorate and not a terminal degree."
 * Not a Reliable Source: One man, known only by his last name, said that the JD was not a doctorate at a 2004 dean meeting. The comment was made in passing and there's nothing to indicate that this is the position of the University. This is hardly the authoritative source that Wikipedia requires by policy. Are we going to include every single comment made in passing by anyone?
 * Not Authoritative: Austin Peay State University does not have a law school. There's nothing to indicate why this individual is qualified to be cited so authoritatively.


 * "The U.S. government sets the starting pay grade for "Master's or equivalent graduate degree(s) (such as LL.B., J.D., or M.D.)" at GS-9, but the pay grade for "Ph.D. or equivalent doctoral degree(s)" at GS-11."
 * Misleading: This has the same problem as the second citation.
 * This citation should at least be paired with a citation to the justice department honors program page showing that new attorneys are hired at the GS-11 grade. http://www.justice.gov/oarm/arm/hp/hpsalary.htm Sk75 (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your citation would seem to indicate that the pay level is influenced by the circumstances of the job rather than any statement about the validity of a degree. Otherwise, they'd come in at GS-9. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Some overarching problems

Geography: The JD has different requirements in different places. This section does not take that into consideration, which creates an issue with WP:SYNTH.


 * I agree with a lot of your criticisms. I will expand on a few of them and add several of my own later tonight or tomorrow when I have more time to consider them in depth. Thanks. Mavirikk (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, here are a few of my observations: (numbers refer to bullet points above in order)
 * (1)The quotation says first professional degrees will not be considered Ph.D equivalent. That doesn't prove anything. We need to know if this source includes a JD in the category of "first professional degree." Also, the source does not address the issue in contention: whether a degree can be a doctorate while not being equivalent to a Ph.D. No one has argued that the JD is the same as the Ph.D, in fact we have acknowledged they are quite different degrees.
 * (2)Seems to me to violate the rule against synthesis. JJL's argument seems to be this, "The US government is saying, 'Ph.D get paid x' while it then says 'JDs get paid y.' Y is lower than X, therefore..." That therefore step is synthesis. Further, This argument takes out of context what the source says. The source isn't attempting to make any judgments on academic hierarchy. It is merely setting pay grades. Surely the information that justifies the pay grade scheme is publicly available somewhere. Cite to THAT source, not this one.
 * (3) In addition to being original research, as you state, I think this "fact" does not reflect the realities of both the practice and academic study of law. Almost no American lawyers OR law professors have the SJD. Look at the enrolled student profiles at these law schools: the SJD is almost exclusively awarded to foreign lawyers. I suspect because they come to study here for the prestige of attending an American law school. Further, very few law schools offer the SJD, like twenty of approximately two hundred ABA-accredited law schools. This raises the question, if a hand full of universities created a degree purportedly above the Ph.D, does the Ph.D lose its doctorial status? I suspect our opponents would argue no, that merely we have created a "higher doctorate" like they have in the UK. I don't see why that same answer can't be applied to the SJD: it is a higher doctorate. Conversely, the LL.M, while indeed rare, is held by fair number of lawyers and professors and offered by most law schools. Thus, the LL.M has a much stronger claim to being the terminal law degree in the United States than does the SJD.
 * (4) This quotation is problematic. First, since doctorate in the US in years past has, inaccurately, been synonymous with "Ph.D," and the spokeswoman could have been answering the question that the JD is not a Ph.D-equivalent (which we readily acknowledge), not that the JD is not a professional doctorate. Further, what authority does she have on the matter? Just because she is the spokeswoman for the law school doesn't mean she has knowledge/authority on this narrow topic. Clearly she was unaware of the ABA opinion on the matter. Finally, even if we concede it is competent evidence, how much weight do we give it? Since it appears to be only one person's opinion, I believe it has very little probative value.
 * (5)Finally, the foreign university's statements on the matter have very little weight. We don't know if they are talking about the foreign version of the JD or the American version. Second, who cares? They have no authority on the matter.
 * I know a lot of these arguments have already been stated ad nauseum, and I kinda started to half-ass it at the end because I was getting tired, but that's what I got for now. I am skeptical that we can actually change minds, though I have tried a conciliatory approach as of late. Ultimately I believe we will eventually have to go to arbitration to get this resolved (one way or the other). And, frankly, I don't know I care enough to go through that hassle. Mavirikk (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
It seems to me, that when all this is taken into account, it becomes clear that there are few reliable sources that support this contention. The "debate" section has been propped up by misleading citations which do not reflect the sources cited. If this debate is so legitimate, there is no need to use anonymous sources to support it. If it's so genuine, we wouldn't have to cite the mysterious "Mr. Smith" from the 2004 Dean's Minutes of some University.

I've been trying to effect change in this article for quite a while now, but all attempts to change these citations have been blocked time and time again.

To sum it up, I see the following categories for these cites:


 * Misrepresenting the source material - European Research Council, Windsor Law
 * Synthesis Problems - Pay Grade issue
 * Unreliable Source - Anonymous newspaper articles, "Mr. Smith" at a Dean's meeting
 * Original Research - "Terminal degree" claim
 * Different country, Different JD - Australia citation, Canada citation

Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well put. Mavirikk (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Course of Action
(1) Delete the section entirely. -or- (2) Absorb the regional differences into a different section and delete the rest. For example, note that in Australia the JD is considered a different degree than an American JD. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your suggestions, and I also think this section is a great idea: instead of just further debates with the anti-JD crowd, formulate a strategy. I have two more ideas for at least the immediate future in lieu of having the entire section removed. First, there have been several good sources that were mentioned in the talk page that do not appear, at least as far as I can tell, in the body of the article (at least, not as separate bullet points). I think those sources should be added, and I think that the number of bullet points on either side of the argument should be even (so, from casual observation, it does not appear that the anti-JD side is stronger than the pro-JD side). Second, I propose that we work to remove the very weak anti-JD evidence (those sources we have shown to be irrelevant, synthesis, etc.). Thus, the anti-JD crowd will have to continue on with the few legitimate sources they have, which will strengthen our hand if we move forward to arbitration. Mavirikk (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources I listed on the talk page are very strong (because they are statements by universities themselves), very on-point (because they discuss the "academic status" of professional doctorates), and very recent, and I think they should be included. Since the page is locked against my changes, however, I have not been able to incorporate these sources into the article. I just want to be clear that I have not tried to incorporate these sources and experienced a revert. Sk75 (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Other Citations not in the Article
The following is a critique of citations found on the Talk page of the Juris Doctor article, but do not appear to be present in the main article.


 * Waist Deep n the Big Muddy: The JD/PhD Debate in Criminal Justice Education at []
 * Misleading: This does not deal with the academic status of the JD. Rather, this article is positing that the field of criminal justice is inherently sociological, and therefore, teachers should be hired with degrees that pertain to statistical analysis. I quote from the article:
 * "I also have been known to do a little survey research from time to time, and to run data through SPSS. I have been able to help students with research projects, and have been on numerous thesis committees. I could not have done these things nearly as well if I had not received training in social science research methods and statistics, learned criminological theory, and been involved in large-scale social science research projects, including my dissertation."
 * This is misleading because the issue is the criteria for being a criminal justice professor, not the Juris Doctor degree in itself.


 * Canadian Lawyer Magazine cite at []
 * Misleading: This suffers the same problem as the Windsor Law cite. It does not discuss the JD, it discusses a Canadian university's renaming of their LLB to a JD.
 * 'Additionally: This is only more evidence that there cannot be one unified "academic status" section when clearly it means different things in different countries.

Changes related to the Article
[] - I removed the misleading cites as per this document. The change was swiftly reverted. No discussion about the changes, neither here nor on the article's talk page.
 * Yeah, these guys (I presume JJL and Wikiant) watch the article like hawks and stonewall any attempt to change the article in a way that may favor of the pro-JD argument. Not sure how to proceed. Like you say in your profile discussion page, I am not THAT into Wikipedia either. Not sure if I have the time, patience or desire to see this thing through to the end. I mean, this apparently has been going on for years with different editors. Crazy. Mavirikk (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)