User:Deep Purple Dreams/Sandbox

Original Form
Opinions differ as to the academic status of the J.D.

Evidence that the J.D. is a doctoral level degree

 * The American Bar Association, which regulates and accredits the Juris Doctor degree, authorizes holders of Juris Doctor degree to use 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.  However, one Australian academic institution has stated that, despite its name, recipients of its Juris Doctor are not entitled to use the honorific title "Doctor" at that institution.
 * Some academic and professional organizations describe the J.D. distinctly as a professional doctorate.
 * Like holders of research doctorate degrees, holders of the Juris doctor are issued doctoral robes in ceremonial contexts.
 * The Juris Doctor is the sole graduate degree of some university presidents—a position for which universities commonly require a Ph.D. or comparable (i.e. terminal) degree—is a J.D. (e.g. former Harvard president Derek Bok, and the presidents of Columbia and Johns Hopkins universities).
 * A 1919 Association of American Universities conference described the Juris Doctor 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..." They further noted that the J.D. was "a degree for graduates of law schools correctly corresponding the professional doctorate granted from the beginning by medical schools..."

Evidence that the J.D. is not a doctoral level degree

 * The European Research Council issues grants for scientific research. The ERC does not consider any degree besides a PhD appropriate for scientific research. The U.S. Department of Labor, in their 2004 summer program, set the starting pay grade for "Ph.D. or equivalent doctoral degree OR 3 full years of progressively higher level graduate education". at a higher level than for those with "Master's or equivalent graduate degree (such as LL.B., J.D.)". However, the United States Department of Justice hires J.D. holders at the same pay grade as Ph.D. holders.
 * 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 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."
 * The Students' Law Society at the University of Windsor renamed their LL.B. program (an undergraduate law degree) to J.D. to modernize their terminology, and subsequently said "A Windsor Law J.D. would not be a graduate degree [but rather] an undergraduate professional degree program.".
 * 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. Mr. Smith, in a 2004 Deans Council Meeting at Austin Peay State University stated that the Juris Doctor is not a doctorate and not a terminal degree.
 * One educational researcher has stated that the J.D. is not a doctorate.

My Rewrite
Shortly after its inception in the United States, the Juris Doctor degree was described by the Association of American Universities 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. The American Bar Association, which accredits U.S. law schools, issued a Council Statement that a J.D. is equivalent to the PhD for educational and employment purposes https://www.abanet.org/legaled/accreditation/Council%20Statements.pdf and further authorizes holders of Juris Doctor degree to use 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. In ceremonial contexts, Juris Doctor holders wear doctoral robes. In some cases, the Juris Doctor is the sole postgraduate degree of some university presidents - a position for which most universities require a PhD. or comparable (i.e. terminal) degree. (e.g. former Harvard president Derek Bok, and the presidents of Columbia and Johns Hopkins universities).

However, authors such as Kaoma Mwenda and Gerry Nkombo Muuka have challenged the "academic rank" of the JD in recent years. In their book, The Challenge of Change in Africa's Higher Education in the 21st Century, they 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.)

In 2003, an anonymous Washington Times article reported on the controversy surrounding Wilhelmina M. Reuben-Cooke's appointment as the University of the District of Columbia's provost. The reporter wrote that the candidate "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." President Pollard defended Reuben-Cook, stating that "logic and reason" require that the J.D. is a doctorate and is sufficient to support this appointment.

Juris Doctor holders, in the context of the United States government, are sometimes paid differently depending on their position. For example, the U.S. Department of Labor, in their 2004 summer program, set the starting pay grade for "Ph.D. or equivalent doctoral degree OR 3 full years of progressively higher level graduate education". at a higher level than for those with "Master's or equivalent graduate degree (such as LL.B., J.D.)". However, the United States Department of Justice hires J.D. holders at the same pay grade as Ph.D. holders.

The Juris Doctor degree has developed differently in Commonwealth countries. The University of Windsor in Canada changed the name of their undergraduate degree (LL.B.) to Juris Doctor to make the degree more marketable in the United States. The Student's Law Society remarked that their JD would remain an undergraduate professional degree program. The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Australia said that recipients of the Juris Doctor are not entitled to use the honorific title "Doctor" at that institution. A dean in a 2004 Deans Council Meeting at Austin Peay State University in Australia stated that the Juris Doctor is not a doctorate and not a terminal degree.

Furthermore, the European Research Council requires that the recipients of scientific research grants must have a PhD and no other degree would be acceptable.

RFC Results
On April 28, 2010, I opened an RFC for the bulletpoint section above. Here is a summary of all responses from outside editors:

Oppose - "As a side note, a lot of the sources used seem to be tangential at best" - 71.202.205.242

Oppose - Section should be "completely removed" - VernoWhitney

Oppose - Section is "patently ridiculous" - Sawagner201

Oppose - The debate is "asinine" - Varus2319

Oppose - "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." - 69.22.124.84

Oppose - "The J.D. clearly is a doctorate. To have a section that has "evidence" to the contrary is misleading and inaccurate." - 12.2.216.198

In short, every single outside editor who responded to the RFC stated that the bulletpoint section should be removed, and in some cases, that the entire debate is absurd and contrived. Other than a couple stubborn holdouts, there is massive opposition to this section, and outside editors unanimously agree that it's absurd.

As for established editors, from what I can tell, the only editors which support this section are JJL, Wikiant, and Viscountrapier. They are opposed by Deep Purple Dreams, Maverikk, SK75, Zoticogrillo, aigiqinf, Lawman15, UrbanisTO, Intelligirl, Sundayschild58, and many more, including several more IPs. What it boils down to is that over two dozen editors agree that this section is inappropriate, yet only three edit war to keep it in the article. This is a prime example of Wikipedia is not supposed to work. There is clear consensus against the inclusion of this section.