# Poll: AAAC Education Levels



## JMatt (Feb 16, 2006)

I'll make this poll anonymous, but was curious about the education level here. I am asssuming it's statistically very high compared to the average population. I note many lawyers, investment bankers, adademics, etc.

Forgive the limits of my poll choices.

FORGIVE MY BLATANT ERROR IN NOT INCLUDING MASTERS-LEVEL DEGREES.

Someone lock this thread quick, and start it over.

_Moderator's Note: The Masters option has now been added._


----------



## Anthony Jordan (Apr 29, 2005)

JMatt said:


> I'll make this poll anonymous, but was curious about the education level here. I am asssuming it's statistically very high compared to the average population. I note many lawyers, investment bankers, adademics, etc.
> 
> Forgive the limits of my poll choices.


I am a Master of Arts but have decided to slum it as a B.A.


----------



## mussel (Oct 19, 2004)

No master degrees? What to check for people with MBA, MA, MS, M. Arch....? I expect the result will be very similar to the same poll taken at SF not long ago.


----------



## JMatt (Feb 16, 2006)

Anthony Jordan said:


> I am a Master of Arts but have decided to slum it as a B.A.


Arrrrgggghhh!!!!!

My apologies. I completely blew it! I meant to include Masters, but obviously I neglected to. My bad.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

mussel said:


> No master degrees? What to check for people with MBA, MA, MS, M. Arch....?


Ditto....


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

As requested, I have reposted of JMatt's earlier poll, but with the inclusion of Masters level degrees.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

No PhD option? I guess it's other doctoral.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

What if your college isn't accredited?


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Cantabrigian said:


> What if your college isn't accredited?


 Cantabrigian:

I'm sure I saw in the news recently that the School of Hard Knocks had been accreditied! :icon_smile:


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Cantabrigian said:


> What if your college isn't accredited?


_There are plenty of successful people who didn't go to college. Albert Einstein, Pocahontas never went to college. Harriet Beecher Stowe... Both Lewis and Clark, Suzanne Somers, Bono... _


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

JMatt:

If you can add to the choices... 

Some of us have more than one BA! (I've got one in sociology and another in journalism). I got the first degree (not much in careers with great financial gain there, so I got another BA in journalism). Still no opportunity for grand financial income in journalism, but man, the journalism students had great parties.

And also there are graduate school level certificate programs. Not sure how to work those in. For example I have a Certificate in Fire Protection Engineering from UCLA, but that may qualify as tech schooling. ??


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Andy said:


> JMatt:
> 
> If you can add to the choices...
> 
> Some of us have more than one BA!


While you're busy adding for multiple undergrads...add one for multiple grads too please, I have an MPH and MBA.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

I believe the software limits responses to a maximum of ten options on any poll.


----------



## Brian13 (Aug 9, 2006)

I have a useless BA in Biology from Cal State University

I work in IT


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Every time I think I have learned a great deal,
I discover something new that makes me realize how little I know. 

Give me another 30 years or so,
the education may be complete.

edit: 
typo and grammar,
I really have to stop posting on the fly!


----------



## Betterman (Sep 10, 2006)

I am currently in grad school, pursuing accounting and financial management


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

I've got some spares if anyone needs one. They're basically sitting around demonstrating that I spent what was supposed to be the fun and carefree portion of my life in a lab sitting at a computer.

...hey wait.


----------



## Mr. Golem (Mar 18, 2006)

I'm still in high school. Speaking of which I should be doing homework...


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Too bad you can't select more than one. I've got an MA and a JD.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Graduated High School


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

GMF said:


> Too bad you can't select more than one. I've got an MA and a JD.


Not to worry GMF, we kinda all assumed you had a BS and High School diploma before you got the JD.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

I got one of them there fancy JD diplomas.


----------



## hmhill (Apr 30, 2005)

I have a M.A. in American History and a Master in Library Science. My thesis was Populism and the Failed Realignment: Texas Politics in the 1890s--reading it is the perfect cure for insomnia.

Max


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

Andy said:


> Cantabrigian:
> 
> I'm sure I saw in the news recently that the School of Hard Knocks had been accreditied! :icon_smile:


I think say that article too - written by Jay-Z IIRC.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Chuck Franke said:


> Not to worry GMF, we kinda all assumed you had a BS and High School diploma before you got the JD.


Actually, I have a BA. I have a Drs, too, but I usually don't mention it because most people don't know what it is. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

medwards said:


> _There are plenty of successful people who didn't go to college. Albert Einstein, Pocahontas never went to college. Harriet Beecher Stowe... Both Lewis and Clark, Suzanne Somers, Bono... _


Once Mark Zuckerberg sells out, I believe that there will be at least one school whose dropouts are more successful, on average, than its graduates.


----------



## Hanseat (Nov 20, 2004)

I enrolled at the University of Freiburg, Germany just last monday. I'll be studying law, but will try to take a couple of courses in economics and history as well.
Great university, excellent students (not to brag... ;-) but the cafeteria stinks...

Most competitive school to get in, excellent reputation and in a couple of days it'll be a governmentally appointed 'elite university' and receive lots of additional funding... Regardless of that they're currently constructing lots of cool new glass building such as this one:









It'll be as much fun as the study of law can possibly be...
---

Oh, and Einstein went to the ETH Zurich, one of the world's leading science universities...


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

GMF said:


> Actually, I have a BA. I have a Drs, too, but I usually don't mention it because most people don't know what it is. :icon_smile_wink:


Business card must read like an eye chart


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Chuck Franke said:


> Business card must read like an eye chart


Nope. Only thing on my card is my name and "Attorney at Law."

It's generally frowned upon in the legal community to list your degrees on letterhead or business cards. The one general exception is with tax specialists who have a LLM in taxation, but even among tax lawyers it's rare to see the degree behind the name.


----------



## JMatt (Feb 16, 2006)

medwards said:


> As requested, I have reposted of JMatt's earlier poll, but with the inclusion of Masters level degrees.


Many thanks!! Sorry I mucked it up the first time.


----------



## JMatt (Feb 16, 2006)

I just checked the similar poll on SF. That poll showed 47% with Masters level education or higher. This poll currently shows 74% with Masters level education or higher. I'd suggest that's a fairly significant difference.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

medwards said:


> _There are plenty of successful people who didn't go to college. Albert Einstein, Pocahontas never went to college. Harriet Beecher Stowe... Both Lewis and Clark, Suzanne Somers, Bono... _





Hanseat said:


> Oh, and Einstein went to the ETH Zurich, one of the world's leading science universities...


:icon_smile_big: Indeed. The quote is from a current film; it is a little AAAC attempt at contemporary humor.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

I _*accepted*_ that. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

Hanseat said:


>


Mothership?

A similar Blancmange from planet Skyron of the Andromeda Galaxy landed in England in 1970 and turned all the Englishters to Scotspersons who then marched north into Scotland and left England depopulated. It's true. It's in Wikipedia.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

JMatt said:


> I just checked the similar poll on SF. That poll showed 47% with Masters level education or higher. This poll currently shows 74% with Masters level education or higher. I'd suggest that's a fairly significant difference.


While sticking one's tongue out is always fun there is a problem with the test data. If you did an age poll the 'regulars' here are probably 10 years older on average and a huge number of the guys on Style are in school or grad school currently.

Have you ever been brave enough to read the streetwear and denim forum? I can't, makes me feel like going out to buy some Geritol.

For all of our many charms, they, much to our chagrin, are cooler. I remember cool... vaguely


----------



## bwep (Apr 17, 2005)

I believe that I am well-educated, just not that smart. AB, MD, 7 years of postgraduate residency training and 1 year of fellowship.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

*Fun but Not Close to Accurate*

While polls can be fun, let's not have anyone take this one seriously. Perhaps to an even greater extent than was true with the "age of members" poll, this one--as anyone knows who has ever done survey research--will be fatally flawed through selection bias. This just means that those with a higher level of education will be more likely to select themselves into the poll and to (a) actually respond to the poll and (b) post any narrative response along with their poll selection. This will hopelessly skew the results, so that any final percentages--like those compared between forums by JMatt above for Master's or above--will be amusing, perhaps, but not to be taken at all seriously. Does anyone really think that 74% of AAAC forumers have a Master's-level degree or higher? Even if and when this percentage stabilizes to a lower number, it will still be completely unrepresentative of the true state of affairs vis-a-vis educational level on the AAAC forum.


----------



## JMatt (Feb 16, 2006)

Chuck Franke said:


> While sticking one's tongue out is always fun there is a problem with the test data. If you did an age poll the 'regulars' here are probably 10 years older on average and a huge number of the guys on Style are in school or grad school currently.
> 
> Have you ever been brave enough to read the streetwear and denim forum? I can't, makes me feel like going out to buy some Geritol.
> 
> For all of our many charms, they, much to our chagrin, are cooler. I remember cool... vaguely


Don't get me wrong. I'm not sticking my tongue out at anything. I actually post at SF as much as here. Yes - I even post on the streewear and denim forum.

What I find interesting, is people have often asked what the difference is between AAAC & SF. I'd suggest the difference is found in noting that SF has the mainstream business wear forum - and the street wear. AAAC has the mainstream business wear forum - and the trads. I'd agree that the educational differences probably reflect the age bias as much as anything, but that really illuminates the point. The posters here probably average 10 years older than at SF. I'm guessing SF is primarily ages 25-45, whereas AAAC is probably 35-60.

Neither is better than the other. Just biased slightly different. I'm 39, and find myself in the middle of both forums.

No slight to anyone intended. Just observations.

Finally - as to the scientific nature of these polls: Of course they're not scientifically valid. However, the bias in selection should be the same for both polls.

Anyway - all in good fun.


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

i'm technically taking up my mba but before i was about to start mythesis i went on indefinite leave- 6 years ago.


----------



## josepidal (Jul 24, 2005)

Roger said:


> This just means that those with a higher level of education will be more likely to select themselves into the poll and to (a) actually respond to the poll and (b) post any narrative response along with their poll selection.


Not a problem. Just make a new poll labeled "AAAC Lack of Education Levels."

So people here mainly have a Master's, JD, MD, or doctorate?


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

I have 2 masters degrees essentially in the same discipline (clinical psych) and am almost 1/2 way towards getting my PhD

MrR


----------



## Buffalo (Nov 19, 2003)

What's the purpose of this poll??


----------



## Holdfast (Oct 30, 2005)

^ curiosity, I suppose, though it doesn't seem a very "Fashion Forum" topic.

However, it IS interesting to see the distribution. Leaving aside specific forums for professional in the field, I doubt there are many internet forums with such a heavy skew towards higher degrees. Not actually sure what that says about us... 

Anyway, chalk me up as another guy with a medical degree.


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

Excuse my ignorance; what's a JD?


----------



## mano (Mar 17, 2003)

Buffalo said:


> What's the purpose of this poll??


When we're unable to raise our collective self-esteem by going on about our superior sartorial ways, we occassionally turn to other means, such as this. (insert smiley and wink emoticons here).


----------



## mano (Mar 17, 2003)

DougNZ said:


> Excuse my ignorance; what's a JD?


Juris Doctor. What lawyers receive upon graduation from law school. I believe it's a prerequisite for admission to the bar in most states.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

mano said:


> Juris Doctor. What lawyers receive upon graduation from law school. I believe it's a prerequisite for admission to the bar in most states.


Though not quite all, I believe. After watching Catch Me if You Can, I toyed with the idea of studying up for the bar in some state that didn't require a JD. I figured that if by some crazy chance I happened to pass, some firm would allow me to work for them...


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

I believe that all states with the exception of California (which includes an option called law office study) and possibly New York (which at least used to have a law office study provision as well) now require a J. D. (Juris doctor or doctor of jurisprudence) or its equivalent to gain admission to the bar. By the way, while the word "doctor" is in this title, this is not considered a _doctorate_ in most academic circles.


----------



## Bracemaker (May 11, 2005)

Where do I tick for an 'O' Level in Woodwork (failed) ?? 
I was not allowed to sit the practical after the unfortunate incident with the buzz saw and Hetherington-Smythe Junior...


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

medwards said:


> I believe that all states with the exception of California (which includes an option called law office study) and possibly New York (which at least used to have a law office study provision as well) now require a J. D. (Juris doctor or doctor of jurisprudence) or its equivalent to gain admission to the bar. By the way, while the word "doctor" is in this title, this is not considered a _doctorate_ in most academic circles.


Virginia and one of the New England states that will also allow people to "read law" by studying under a lawyer. After a prescribed time of reading law, they can sit for the bar. Pass rates are typically lower than for those who have graduated from law school.

As for a JD being a doctorate, it is considered a _professional_ doctorate just like an MD, DMD, DDS, PsyD, DMin, etc. It is not considered a research doctorate like a PhD, SJD, ThD, etc.


----------



## JMatt (Feb 16, 2006)

Buffalo said:


> What's the purpose of this poll??





Holdfast said:


> ^ curiosity, I suppose, though it doesn't seem a very "Fashion Forum" topic.


A) Curiousity
B) It generates discussion 
C) We all learn some things about our fellow forumites
D) Paradoxically, this thread should be in "off-topic" but the only place to put a poll about the qualities of people posting to THIS forum, is in THIS forum. Thus, the poll must be placed in fashion, although it's not "fashion."


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

This is very interesting. One would expect people who wear fine clothes and often more formal attire to be in professions that require or are otherwise correlated with a college degree or beyond.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

GMF said:


> Virginia and one of the New England states that will also allow people to "read law" by studying under a lawyer. After a prescribed time of reading law, they can sit for the bar. Pass rates are typically lower than for those who have graduated from law school.
> 
> As for a JD being a doctorate, it is considered a _professional_ doctorate just like an MD, DMD, DDS, PsyD, DMin, etc. It is not considered a research doctorate like a PhD, SJD, ThD, etc.


Ah, a man who knows his academic ranking! I'm surprised how many _university professors_ I know who aren't aware of this. No kidding.

As an aside, I'm a little surprised to see you list DMD. I know of only one in my entire area (he went to Harvard Medical and actually interned in an ER in the Bronx before starting his oral surgery practice here in ND); every other oral surgeon I know is a DDS. David, the DMD, takes great pride in his degree, going to the extent to have it corrected (from DDS) on his hospital ID bracelet during a hospital stay several years ago!


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

I put myself down for a masters degree, but that isn't entirely accurate. I am a high school dropout :icon_smile_big: who has a bachelors degree with a double a major, and two masters degrees, from a total of 3 different univesities. I actuall enrolled and took classes at 5 universities, but only took a degrees from three of them.


----------



## mano (Mar 17, 2003)

cufflink44 said:


> Does anyone else remember when "JD" was most often associated with "Juvenile Delinquent"? (At least when I was in high school in New York . . .) :icon_smile:


...and you believe that's just a coincidence?


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

GMF said:


> As for a JD being a doctorate, it is considered a _professional_ doctorate just like an MD, DMD, DDS, PsyD, DMin, etc. It is not considered a research doctorate like a PhD, SJD, ThD, etc.


Actually, I wouldn't put it this way. Traditionally, the doctoral degree (the prototype of which is the PhD) has been a post-graduate degree--that is, a more advanced degree in a field in which an undergraduate degree, a _baccalaureate_ (generally a Bachelor's degree) is earned first. Thus, we have, as generally-accepted doctorates, the PhD, EdD (post-grad degree in Education), ThD (theology), PsyD (a true professional doctorate, but a doctorate all the same, in that it requires a prerequisite Bachelor's or Master's degree) and a few others.

Degrees like the MD, JD, DDS, are not truly doctoral degrees at all, but rather baccalaureate degrees in applied fields. In the UK, for example, the traditional medical degree has been the MB (or bachelor of medicine), and my father earned an MB from the University of Toronto many years ago. Whether this is still true in the UK I don't know; they may have gone the same way as the US in changing the name of the degree. The MB became the MD largely because of the work done by graduates, the fact that people doing this work were referred to as "doctors," and the fact that they were (in North America, but not Britain) addressed as "Dr."

At my university (and virtually all Canadian universities), the LL.B. (or Bachelor of Laws) degree is the one leading to practice. There is no JD, but there are three advanced degrees: the LL.M (thesis-based Master's degree), M Jur. (Master's degree for students with LL.Bs from other countries), and the PhD. Elevation of the name of the first earned degree in the field to JD is simply a PR phenomenon and, very likely, motivated by a desire on the part of law schools to keep up with the med schools vis-a-vis prestige of their degrees. Often the MD or LL.B. is a first degree of any kind for the student, in that many med schools, dental schools, and law schools will admit outstanding students prior to earning any Bachelor's degree. Even if the student enters with a Bachelor's degree, however, the curriculum starts at the beginning, so that such training cannot in any way be considered "advanced," which is a hallmark of true graduate degrees.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Roger said:


> At my university (and virtually all Canadian universities), the LL.B. (or Bachelor of Laws) degree is the one leading to practice, with the JD a more advanced degree. Elevation of the name of the first earned degree in the field to JD is simply a PR phenomenon and, very likely, motivated by a desire on the part of law schools to keep up with the med schools vis-a-vis prestige of their degrees. Often the MD or LL.B. is a first degree of any kind for the student, in that many med schools, dental schools, and law schools will admit outstanding students prior to earning any Bachelor's degree. Even if the student enters with a Bachelor's degree, however, the curriculum starts at the beginning, so that such training cannot in any way be considered "advanced," which is a hallmark of true graduate degrees.


My comments were confined to the US only. I recognize that in the Commonwealth tradition, one generally must have a first degree, i.e., a bacherlors, in whatever the discipline before getting a higher degree in that discipline.

In the US, the JD is considered a professional doctorate.

The real genesis behind the JD was actually federal govt/military employment. Pay grades for professional jobs in the govt used to be determined (and capped) based on educational levels. Lawyers, who typically had an LLB, were pay grade capped at the same level as other professionals who had a BA or BS because they "only had a bachelors degree." The lawyers argued they were on the same educational footing as a medical doctor and should be paid accordingly. This argument didn't work, hence the movement to make the default law degree a "doctorate," egro the JD.

As for Canada and other Commonwealth countries, I'd be very surprised if the JD is the advanced law degree beyond the LLB. I believe they still use the LLM and LLD. In the US, quite a few law schools offer the LLM, and a few offer an advance research doctorate in law, the SJD (Doctor of Juridical Science). The LLD in the US is exclusively an honorary degree.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

GMF said:


> As for Canada and other Commonwealth countries, I'd be very surprised if the JD is the advanced law degree beyond the LLB.


Correct. See my correction via an edit before I saw your post. However, at one time, my university (the University of British Columbia) did offer a D. Jur.



> in the US, the JD is considered a professional doctorate.


Calling any baccalaureate degree of any kind a "doctorate" is simply a misuse (albeit perhaps for practical reasons like those you suggest) of traditional academic usage.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Roger said:


> Calling any baccalaureate degree of any kind a "doctorate" is simply a misuse (albeit perhaps for practical reasons like those you suggest) of traditional academic usage.


We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. A Juris Doctor (or Doctor of Jurisprudence) is not a "baccalaureate degree" simply becuase it's a first degree in law. It is a doctoral degree in the US education system. One can argue that the US system has departed from the Oxford/UK model, but one can't maintain that said departure somehow invalidates the degree nominclature used therein.


----------



## Holdfast (Oct 30, 2005)

Roger said:


> In the UK, for example, the traditional medical degree has been the MB (or bachelor of medicine), and my father earned an MB from the University of Toronto many years ago. Whether this is still true in the UK I don't know; they may have gone the same way as the US in changing the name of the degree. The MB became the MD largely because of the work done by graduates, the fact that people doing this work were referred to as "doctors," and the fact that they were (in North America, but not Britain) addressed as "Dr."


Still the case - the UK medical degrees equivalent to the US MD are technically Bachelor degrees and our MD is Doctor of Medicine and an entirely different degree.

For instance, most UK medical degrees are MBBS (Bachelor Medicine, Bachelor Surgery) though my alma mater happens to give out BMBCh (Bachelor Medicine, Bachelor Chirugery) instead.

Not sure what the last bit of your text I quoted means. We in the UK with medical degrees most certainly are called doctors and use the Dr honorific in front of our names (well, apart from surgeons, who prefer Mr for historical reasons).


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

GMF said:


> We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. A Juris Doctor (or Doctor of Jurisprudence) is not a "baccalaureate degree" simply becuase it's a first degree in law. It is a doctoral degree in the US education system. One can argue that the US system has departed from the Oxford/UK model, but one can't maintain that said departure somehow invalidates the degree nominclature used therein.


JD is a graduate degree and therefore not a baccalaureate (unless in some jurisdictions you can practice law without first having a BS or BA and then going to Law School)


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

yachtie said:


> JD is a graduate degree and therefore not a baccalaureate (unless in some jurisdictions you can practice law without first having a BS or BA and then going to Law School)


Yes, but in the Oxford system, upon which the US system and virtually all Commonwealth systems were once based, a baccalaureate degree was the first degree conferred within a given discipline. Hence, at Oxford a MA who wanted to study for the pastorate would matriculate for the BD (Bachelor of Divinity) degree. This degree is considered a higher degree at Oxford, but it's still a bachelors degree. In fact, it takes less time to complete a D.Phil (Doctor of Philosophy) at Oxford than it does a BD. In the Oxford system, a bachelors degree is not saddled with an inferior connotation. Those who understand the system realize that a baccalaureate is nothing more than the first degree in a discipline. Oxford itself no longer holds firm to this system, however. It is possible to matriculate for a D.Phil without first obtaining a B.Phil and/or M.Phil.

In the US, the norm is now such that a second degree beyond a BA or BS, even if it is a first degree in a given discipline, is styled a masters or a doctorate.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

GMF said:


> In the US, the norm is now such that a second degree beyond a BA or BS, even if it is a first degree in a given discipline, is styled a masters or a doctorate.


While the basis of the system is true re: Oxford, Present usage dictates what the degree should be called (which makes more sense since taking upper level classes should result in the award of a more advanced degree)
e.g. BS Physics, MSNE is a route I've seen.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

While the JD (doctor of law) degree has replaced the LL.B. (bachelor of law) degree in many -- if not most-- American universities, it should be noted that the degree of Master of Law (LL.M) remains a more advanced degree than the JD.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Point taken:icon_smile_big:


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

alas i only have an MD [thats mending and darning].


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Holdfast said:


> Not sure what the last bit of your text I quoted means. We in the UK with medical degrees most certainly are called doctors and use the Dr honorific in front of our names (well, apart from surgeons, who prefer Mr for historical reasons).


Yes, I knew that you are referred to as "doctors" in any description of the work you do. However, it was my impression (perhaps wrong or at least dated, and gleaned from reading of novels and non-fiction works) that practitioners of the non-surgical specialities, as well as the surgeons, were addressed as "Mr." Evidently, this is not the case today.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

medwards said:


> While the JD (doctor of law) degree has replaced the LL.B. (bachelor of law) degree in many -- if not most-- American universities, it should be noted that the degree of Master of Law (LL.M) remains a more advanced degree than the JD.


Not true. At my law school graduation, the LL.M students were given their degrees first in the ceremony, and then the M.C. announced that the J.D. degrees would be given out last because they are the most advanced degrees that the law school awards.

One can argue that an SJD is a higher law degree than the JD, but that wouldn't be accurate either because the SJD is an academic degree and the JD is a professional degree.

In my personal opinion, neither JDs nor MDs should call themselves "Doctor" considering the fact that neither one teaches or contributes to knowledge; but, as a practical matter, if physicians can be awarded a degree with the word "doctor" in it, then I don't see why lawyers can't do the same.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

I cannot speak to your law school. All I can say is that my university -- like most others of my knowledge -- require a Juris Doctor or equivalent degree from an appropriately accedited law school in order to even be considered for admission to the Master of Law program.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

odoreater said:


> Not true. At my law school graduation, the LL.M students were given their degrees first in the ceremony, and then the M.C. announced that the J.D. degrees would be given out last because they are the most advanced degrees that the law school awards.


That's quite odd, especially given the fact that you can't get a LLM without first obtaining a JD.

The two LLMs that were on the faculty at my law school quite proudly wore their masters gowns and hoods at full dress functions, even though they could have worn doctors robes by virture of their JDs.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

odoreater said:


> In my personal opinion, neither JDs nor MDs should call themselves "Doctor" considering the fact that neither one teaches or contributes to knowledge; but, as a practical matter, if physicians can be awarded a degree with the word "doctor" in it, then I don't see why lawyers can't do the same.


Because people who earn medical degrees are referred to--in their work--as "doctors," unlike lawyers. This might be seen as representing a superficial inconsistency with the title of their degree, in the sense that one unfamiliar with these matters might wonder why a "doctor" didn't receive a "doctorate."

In any academic sense, this is not a good reason to designate such a degree as an MD or a doctoral degree for reasons noted before, but for lawyers to insist on this too--presumably because legal training (to the first degree in law) generally follows a bachelor's degree and takes 75% as long as that of physicians (to their first degree in medicine; but only those that don't specialize)--seems to me to constitute a sort of educational status-seeking. Consider the fact that physicians must take 4 years of med school, followed by a 1-year internship to practice--_at the bare minimum_--and the fact that the majority of physicians and all surgeons spend another 4-5 years minimum in residency/fellowship training such that the years of post-baccalaureate training represent a total of something on the order of 9-10 years for the majority of physicians and surgeons vs. 4 years of training (including articles) for the majority of lawyers. Are the two professions really equal in educational/training requirements? (I'm assuming that that is the argument lawyers and law schools have used to get their degree made a "doctorate.")


----------



## kali77 (Apr 8, 2006)

Unfortunately I have only graduated HS. This was due to circumstance and not by choice. My wife and I had twins when we were Seniors in HS. We decided I would go to work and her to school. Not sure why since she is a homemaker with our three children now. She graduated with a bachelor's in financial economics. When she had finished school I had established myself in my profession enough that going back to school was no longer a priority for finacial gain. Although eventually I would like to go back for my own personal benefit and knowledge.

P.S. Sorry for bringing the average down:icon_smile_big:

Gene


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Roger said:


> In any academic sense, this is not a good reason to designate such a degree as an MD or a doctoral degree for reasons noted before, but for lawyers to insist on this too--presumably because legal training (to the first degree in law) generally follows a bachelor's degree and takes 75% as long as that of physicians (to their first degree in medicine; but only those that don't specialize)--seems to me to constitute a sort of educational status-seeking.


I've never heard of lawyers being asked to be called "Doctor", so I don't think that said "status-seeking" is by lawyers but rather by law schools if at all.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

yachtie said:


> I've never heard of lawyers being asked to be called "Doctor", so I don't think that said "status-seeking" is by lawyers but rather by law schools if at all.


Lawyers, even in academic settings, tend to eschew the title "Doctor." When I was in law school, I had one professor who, in addition to a JD, had PhD in history, and another who had a SJD. Neither one was called "Doctor." They were called "Professor," as were all my other professors who had JDs.

The only time a JD can use the title "Doctor" and it not be seen pretentious by other JDs is when he/she teaches at the undergraduate level and the JD is their highest degree.


----------



## steveincharlotte (Aug 24, 2006)

More important than my degree, I'm a fabled "rocket scientist", with all the perogatives that pertain thereunto. Most important, I'm able to say to my University colleagues, "I AM a rocket scientist, and I still don't understand what you're talking about!" And I dress up nice.

steve


----------



## steveincharlotte (Aug 24, 2006)

THIS JUST IN. UNFORTUNATELY, NO JD's AVAILABLE. -STEVE
=================================================
A Genuine University Degree in 4-6 weeks!

Have you ever thought that the only thing stopping you from a great job and better pay was a few letters behind you name?
Well now you can get them!

BA BSc MA MSc MBA PhD

Within 4-6 weeks!
No Study Required!
100% Verifiable!

These are real, genuine degrees that include Bachelors, Masters, MBA and Doctorate Degrees. They are fully verifiable and certified transcripts are also available.

Just call the number below.
You thank me later

Please call:
1-206-984-21 85
Calls returned promptly


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

steveincharlotte said:


> THIS JUST IN. UNFORTUNATELY, NO JD's AVAILABLE. -STEVE
> =================================================
> A Genuine University Degree in 4-6 weeks!
> 
> ...


And to think of all the money and time I blew on school. Nuts!


----------



## Mr. Golem (Mar 18, 2006)

The way for my future is paved, thank you steveincharlotte!


----------



## Aus_MD (Nov 2, 2005)

steveincharlotte said:


> THIS JUST IN. UNFORTUNATELY, NO JD's AVAILABLE. -STEVE
> =================================================
> A Genuine University Degree in 4-6 weeks!
> 
> ...


One of our former seems not only to have received his LLD from one of these diploma mills, but he has claimed a PhD from another, which has no record of his enrollment. If one was going to enhance one's resume, surely he might claim a higher degree from a more eminent university?

Aus


----------



## kitonbrioni (Sep 30, 2004)

I have a PhD in Political Science.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Roger said:


> In any academic sense, this is not a good reason to designate such a degree as an MD or a doctoral degree for reasons noted before, but for lawyers to insist on this too--presumably because legal training (to the first degree in law) generally follows a bachelor's degree and takes 75% as long as that of physicians (to their first degree in medicine; but only those that don't specialize)--seems to me to constitute a sort of educational status-seeking.


Like others have stated, most lawyer in the United States do not refer to themselves as "doctor." In fact, it would be quite silly for them to do so.

I actually think you have it the opposite. I think (and there are many many others who agree across many fields) that physicians first began referring to one another as "doctor" in an "educational status-seeking" effort. Originally, the term "doctor" was used to refer to those that teach or contribute to human knowledge - neither of which is true of MDs. Not wanting to be left out of the group of people that are truly considered "learned" in society, physicians began to refer to themselves as "doctor" and somehow it caught on. No offense to any physicians on the board, but if it weren't for real "doctors" (the PhDs who do all the research and discovery that MDs base their practice on), MDs would still be sticking leaches on people.


----------



## Holdfast (Oct 30, 2005)

odoreater - you're quite right that "doctor" originally meant teacher and was first awarded to holders of the highest degree in a university and to physicians second, in recognition of their role in society and the duration of the training.

The time lag between the two is very short however. IIRC, the first recorded instance of each are less than a decade apart, though of course the first actual instances may have been more separated.

What is untrue is to say doctors don't teach. Much of medical education is based on one doctor teaching another doctor or medical student. And much of modern medical practice is about teaching patients - effectively communicating with them about their illness and explaining the options and the risks facing them so they can make an informed choice about their treatment.

As for research - much medical research is conducted by non-PhD holders too and a lot of the rest by medical doctors who've subsequently got MDs(UK flavour) or PhDs. Though I fully accept and am grateful that our basic science colleagues have contributed massively to medical knowledge.

By the way, if we're looking at the historical origins and traditions behind degrees, it's perhaps worth noting that PhD/DPhil is a relatively modern innovation, at least in the UK (less than a century old). The other Doctoral degrees (including a true Doctor of Medicine) have seniority both in age and in Academic standing (at least within Oxford). On the same ranking system though, my MA (essentially a freebie given for payment of a nominal fee a little while after you're done your BA) actually outranks my BMBCh medical degree. Go figure!

The japanese title for doctors is much cooler anyway. I _loved_ being called Sensei. Made me feel like I was in a kung-fu movie!


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

odoreater said:


> I actually think you have it the opposite. I think (and there are many many others who agree across many fields) that physicians first began referring to one another as "doctor" in an "educational status-seeking" effort. Originally, the term "doctor" was used to refer to those that teach or contribute to human knowledge - neither of which is true of MDs. Not wanting to be left out of the group of people that are truly considered "learned" in society, physicians began to refer to themselves as "doctor" and somehow it caught on. No offense to any physicians on the board, but if it weren't for real "doctors" (the PhDs who do all the research and discovery that MDs base their practice on), MDs would still be sticking leaches on people.


Well, that is speculation--just as my conjecture about lawyers seeking "doctoral" status was. And I don't think Holdfast's post supports it. And it would be good to see some evidence that "there are many many others who agree...." (that the MD degree arose from academic status-seeking among doctors and medical schools). It would seem, from Holdfast's post that the reason for a "doctoral" degree being awarded to medical graduates is more tied up with their role in society (i.e., being "doctors"), which was my original conjecture.

Where Holdfast has agreed with you--and where I have never disagreed, assuming it was common knowledge--is that the PhD or DPhil precedes any of the so-called "professional doctorates." This is a well-known historical fact. It appears that the PhD degree, as such, first appeared about 150 years ago in Germany. However, the use of the appelation "doctor" for those of great learning goes back to at least the 12th century. The particular degree (if there was one) would have been something other than the PhD. In the mid- to late-18th century, we had Samuel Johnson, a towering literary (and philosophical) figure in England, referred to as Dr. Johnson (he had an LL.D., earned or honorary). Thus, there is nearly a millenium's use of the term "doctor" to indicate learning--not place in society or occupational status. No one can disagree with this, and no one has in this thread.

If GMF is correct (see Post #58) about the origins of the JD, then my conjecture about educational status-seeking among the legal community is not far from the mark. Evidently, lawyers sought this degree to upgrade their status (and pay rates) to that of medical graduates with respect to government and military jobs. Isn't this, in fact, a kind of status-seeking? At least with the medical practitioners, the change from MB to MD was consistent with what they were universally referred to as in their work--"doctors."


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Holdfast said:


> The time lag between the two is very short however. IIRC, the first recorded instance of each are less than a decade apart, though of course the first actual instances may have been more separated.


The PhD degree per se evidently first appeared in about 1860 in Germany. In England, it replaced the DPhil a little later. I have two questions related to your statement above: (a) When was the DPhil first awarded? and (b) When was the first MD--as opposed to a baccalaureate medical degree, such as an MB--awarded? Also, Holdfast, is it still true that the first medical degree earned (that allows one to proceed to medical practice) in the UK is the MB (or another bachelor's degree), rather than the MD, with the latter used instead as a post-graduate degree?

As I noted in my post in response to odoreater, even if the actual PhD degree is a mere 146 years old, some form of "doctoral" degree--and/or the accompanying appelation "doctor"--has been in use since at least the 12th century for those of great learning. This, as has been agreed upon in preceding posts, is the historically-correct meaning of the term "doctor." And it is certainly in this spirit that we use the term most correctly today to refer to post-graduate degrees--generally the _highest_ post-graduate degree in a discipline.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Roger said:


> If GMF is correct (see Post #58) about the origins of the JD, then my conjecture about educational status-seeking among the legal community is not far from the mark. Evidently, lawyers sought this degree to upgrade their status (and pay rates) to that of medical graduates with respect to government and military jobs. Isn't this, in fact, a kind of status-seeking? At least with the medical practitioners, the change from MB to MD was consistent with what they were universally referred to as in their work--"doctors."


It wasn't seeking status. It was purely pecuniary. Status seekers would have demanded the use of the title along with the degree, don't you think?


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Roger said:


> The PhD degree per se evidently first appeared in about 1860 in Germany. In England, it replaced the DPhil a little later. I have two questions related to your statement above: (a) When was the DPhil first awarded?


Oxford still uses the abreviation DPhil for their Doctor of Philosophy degree. The first Oxford DPhil was awarded early in the 20th century, somewhere around 1910 I believe.

In rank among doctorates at Oxford, the DPhil is at the bottom. The DPhil graduates are the first of the doctoral graduates in the pecking order at the graduation ceremony.


----------



## JMatt (Feb 16, 2006)

GMF said:


> It wasn't seeking status. It was purely pecuniary. Status seekers would have demanded the use of the title along with the degree, don't you think?


I hear you GMF! From here on out, I demand to be called "J Matt, esquire"!


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

GMF said:


> It wasn't seeking status. It was purely pecuniary. Status seekers would have demanded the use of the title along with the degree, don't you think?


Pecuniary status.


----------



## JMatt (Feb 16, 2006)

The original poll is simply listed in order of years of schooling. Ignore the labels if you must, they're purely acedemic (pun intended).

Associate - 2 years (post high school)
BS/BA - 4 years
MA/MS/MBA - 6 years
JD - 7 years
MD - 8 years
Other Doctorate - 11-13


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Here is a good article on doctorates at Wikipedia.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

GMF said:


> Oxford still uses the abreviation DPhil for their Doctor of Philosophy degree. The first Oxford DPhil was awarded early in the 20th century, somewhere around 1910 I believe.


True, but Cambridge and virtually all other UK universities with established graduate programs now use the PhD.



> In rank among doctorates at Oxford, the DPhil is at the bottom. The DPhil graduates are the first of the doctoral graduates in the pecking order at the graduation ceremony.


Does being the first to be awarded the degree necessarily equal being "at the bottom"? In what other sense are the DPhil grads "at the bottom"? At most universities, the PhD is regarded as the "highest" degree awarded by the institution.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

GMF said:


> Here is a good article on doctorates at Wikipedia.


This article, while in general good, has one error, or at least potentially confusing point. It lumps doctoral degrees in psychology in the same category (professional doctorates) as the MD, JD, and a bunch of occupationally-related degrees. Although there is a Psy.D., which is a true post-graduate degree which generally follows graduation with a BA and a major in psychology, and which is, in fact, a professional degree for people wanting to practise clinical psychology (and be licensed to do so), the vast majority of doctorates in psychology are PhDs, which are (for lack of a better word) "research doctorates." This article doesn't note this fact.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I have a Bachelors in Accounting


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Roger said:


> Does being the first to be awarded the degree necessarily equal being "at the bottom"? In what other sense are the DPhil grads "at the bottom"? At most universities, the PhD is regarded as the "highest" degree awarded by the institution.


Typically, degrees are awarded in order of rank, with the highest being last.

At Oxford and some other UK universities, there are several Higher Doctorates that outrank the DPhil. The highest ranking doctorate at Oxford is the DD. Very, very few of these degrees are awarded based on actual work done at the University because the requirements are stagering. But as in the US, the DD is awarded _honoris causa_, but to distingish it from a DD that is earned it is notated as such.


----------



## Holdfast (Oct 30, 2005)

Roger said:


> The PhD degree per se evidently first appeared in about 1860 in Germany. In England, it replaced the DPhil a little later. I have two questions related to your statement above: (a) When was the DPhil first awarded? and (b) When was the first MD--as opposed to a baccalaureate medical degree, such as an MB--awarded? Also, Holdfast, is it still true that the first medical degree earned (that allows one to proceed to medical practice) in the UK is the MB (or another bachelor's degree), rather than the MD, with the latter used instead as a post-graduate degree?


a) PhDs/DPhils were pretty much unknown in the UK until early this century. My understanding is that Oxford was among the first to adopt this new-fangled degree (as a DPhil) and later other universities awarded PhDs. Oxford to this day awards DPhils rather than PhDs.
b) A true Doctor of Medicine (DM or MD depending on where awarded) rather than a regular Medical Doctor - not sure when first awarded, sorry. But I think some centuries.
c) Yes, the UK medical degree that allows clinical practice (equivalent to a US MD) continues to be a Bachelor degree. The precise letter combination varies between universities, Oxford awards BMBCh, I think Cambridge or Edinburgh is MBBCh and the London ones are MBBS. All Bachelor degrees however. UK doctors who work in the US often get awarded honorary US-style MDs by the insitution they work at, simply to make life simpler for US clients to understand.



Roger said:


> Does being the first to be awarded the degree necessarily equal being "at the bottom"? In what other sense are the DPhil grads "at the bottom"? At most universities, the PhD is regarded as the "highest" degree awarded by the institution.


The ranking in Oxford is that DPhil is the nearly the lowest of the Doctorates. As GMF correctly says, DD is the top ranking Doctorate. The order of Academic Standing is largely historic but still used to determine what order people enter the Sheldonian and where they sit during Convocation and other ceremonies.

IIRC, there are some interesting quirks in the order, especially when comparing Oxbridge degrees to non-Oxbridge ones, meaning new non-Oxon tutors need to be awarded Oxon MAs (at least) soon after starting or they can actually be outranked by their own Oxon MA-holding students! For instance, within the Oxford system my Oxon MA severely outranks my medical degree, but also outranks a Doctor of Medicine from anywhere else who doesn't also hold an MA!


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

The Juris Doctor is America's designation for a professional first degree in Law, so I'm hoping nobody thinks that the word "Doctor" in the JD means it is an advanced degree comparable to a Doctorate degree; at best it can only be compared to a Master's Degree since the JD program requires three years of post-baccalaureate course work with any bachelor's degree. Only a JSD is comparable to a Doctorate Degree in any other field.

Master of Laws (LL.M.) is generally a post J.D. degree in law and is usually held in a specialized area such as tax law, intellectual property law, international law, or advanced tort law.

Doctor of Laws (LL.D.) is an honorary law degree awarded in the United States, although in Canada and most other common-law jurisdictions it is a terminal academic degree.

Doctor of Juridical Science (J.S.D.) is the terminal research degree in law, i.e., the equivalent of a Ph.D. in law, typically earned by those wishing to pursue academics rather than practice as an attorney. Unlike a J.D., a J.S.D. program includes a doctoral dissertation and other features common to other research doctorates such as a Ph.D.

_The U.S. Department of Education distinguishes between first-professional degrees and research doctorates as follows:
"It is also important to recognize that first-professional degrees...are first degrees, not graduate research degrees. Several of the degree titles in this group of subjects...incorporate the term 'Doctor,' but they are not research doctorates and not equivalent to the Ph.D. Master's degrees and research doctorates in these fields of study are awarded, but they have different names and students enroll in those programs after having earned a first-professional degree."_


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Asterix said:


> The Juris Doctor is America's designation for a professional first degree in Law, so I'm hoping nobody thinks that the word "Doctor" in the JD means it is an advanced degree comparable to a Doctorate degree; at best it can only be compared to a Master's Degree since the JD program requires three years of post-baccalaureate course work with any bachelor's degree. Only a JSD is comparable to a Doctorate Degree in any other field.


Isn't an MD a professional first degree in Medicine just the same way that a JD is a professional first degree in Law?

I wasn't saying that a JD is equivalent to a research doctorate, I was saying that a JD is, more or less, equivalent to an MD.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

odoreater said:


> Isn't an MD a professional first degree in Medicine just the same way that a JD is a professional first degree in Law?
> 
> I wasn't saying that a JD is equivalent to a research doctorate, I was saying that a JD is, more or less, equivalent to an MD.


I wasn't disputing your stance, my post was to somewhat back up Roger's post #52.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

GMF said:


> The only time a JD can use the title "Doctor" and it not be seen pretentious by other JDs is when he/she teaches at the undergraduate level and the JD is their highest degree.


I've never seen that done and think it would be rather silly if someone allowed himself to be referred to as 'Doctor' in an academic (or any other) setting for having received a professional degree such as a JD.

I have always known 'Doctor' in an academic setting to refer to someone who has done extensive research and made some original contribution to scholarship in his field. In that regard, a JD - though clearly an impressive accomplishment - is far more similar to an MBA than to a Ph.D.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

I spent last night with my daughter looking at colleges on line...things sure have changed...the priceton review site is a bit help as it gives the particlars that the college sites do not, SAT score requirements, and other important things. I took 3 years off myself before getting my masters and worked in that field a few years before going into sales....did my degree help me, my graduate dregee, even though it was in another field, yup...I cannot impress upon people enough what you can gain if you pick the right degree, and it does not matter if you decide to not follow that career path, just keep the knowledge you have gained and use it in the world...


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Cantabrigian said:


> I've never seen that done and think it would be rather silly if someone allowed himself to be referred to as 'Doctor' in an academic (or any other) setting for having received a professional degree such as a JD.
> 
> I have always known 'Doctor' in an academic setting to refer to someone who has done extensive research and made some original contribution to scholarship in his field. In that regard, a JD - though clearly an impressive accomplishment - is far more similar to an MBA than to a Ph.D.


Well, you can think it's silly if you want, but the fact of the matter is the title "Doctor" comes with _any_ doctoral degree, be it research or professional. A DMin who teaches at a school of religion or seminary is called "Doctor." An EdD who is the school superintendent is call "Doctor." And a JD who teaches can legitimately be called "Doctor" if he so chooses. (Most JDs who teach happen to fit your description of having done extensive research and made some original contribution to scholarship in that they write voluminously for publication in various law journals. Hell, I was published in a law review during my second year in law school on a topic about which nothing had ever been written. It was not only "original research," it was groundbreaking.)


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

GMF said:


> An EdD who is the school superintendent is call "Doctor."


Your analogy breaks down here. The Ed.D.--regardless of the particular work the graduate does after earning it--is a true _graduate_ degree (usually the third earned in the field of Education), by which I mean an advanced degree earned by a student in a field in which s/he has already earned lower degrees. Most Ed.D.s have a B.Ed., then an M.Ed. or M.A. (in Education), before studying for the Ed.D. In addition, most Ed.D. programs require a doctoral dissertation consisting of some original--and, one would hope publishable--research, thus constituting a level of scholarship not required in the J.D. program. I fully agree with those other posters who have pointed to the complete inappropriateness of a J.D. having others refer to him/her as "doctor." At the (U.S.) graduate school that I attended, even the Ph.D.s on faculty were referred to as "Mr.", and they were all research scholars with extensive publications. Cantabrigian's equating (roughly) of the J.D. to an M.B.A. is right on the mark. M.B.A graduates often have a first degree in some discipline other than business and spend two years getting their business training in their M.B.A. program, in much the same manner that law students follow up some bachelor's degree in virtually anything with three years on their J.D. program. The extra year in the J.D. program doesn't change the fundamental similarity of the two training programs.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Asterix said:


> Doctor of Laws (LL.D.) is an honorary law degree awarded in the United States, although in Canada and most other common-law jurisdictions it is a terminal academic degree.


Not so sure about this. At my Canadian university, there is no earned LL.D., with the Ph.D. being the highest degree in law.



> Doctor of Juridical Science (J.S.D.) is the terminal research degree in law, i.e., the equivalent of a Ph.D. in law, typically earned by those wishing to pursue academics rather than practice as an attorney. Unlike a J.D., a J.S.D. program includes a doctoral dissertation and other features common to other research doctorates such as a Ph.D.


Not all graduate programs in law award the J.S.D. as their highest earned degree. With some law schools (examples: University of Washington; University of British Columbia), the Ph.D. is that highest degree in law. In others, the letters are rearranged to S.J.D. (still read as Doctor of Juridical Science; example: Harvard), or the J.S.D. is read as "Doctor of the Science of Law" (examples: Berkeley, Yale).

_Note:_ I've assumed by "terminal" degree, you have meant "highest" degree. For a graduate intending to practise law, the J.D. is certainly a "terminal" degree.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

It seems abundantly clear from a small internet search that most US universities awarded an LL.B. (bachelor of law) degree in the past and that they have generally replaced it in very recent years with a JD (juris doctor) without changing a single graduation requirement nor adding any additional coursework, research or scholaraship. A JD remains the _initial _ law degree granted in the States. If a lawyer wants to be called "doctor" that is his or her prerogative I suppose, but don't be surprised when a medical doctor sues him for slander. :devil:

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. -- Dick, _Henry VI (Part 2),_ Act IV, Scene 2


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

The last LLB awarded in the US was in 1971 by Yale, which was the last law school to make the switch from the LLB to the JD.

To clarify my position on this, let me say that I in no way equate the JD to a PhD or any research doctorate in terms of "academic standing." And like most lawyers, I tend to frown on being called "Doctor," no matter what the setting. But the fact remains that the JD is a _doctorate_, inasmuch as the title of the degree contains the word "Doctor." Therefore, holders of the degree have a s much right as any other holder of a doctorate to the title "Doctor" whether or not they choose to use that title or not.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

So a 1971 Yale graduate is just an everyday _esquire_ while a 1972 graduate is an esteemed _doctor_! I think I'll wait a few years until these attorneys come up with something new like..."your eminence." :devil:


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

GMF said:


> Therefore, holders of the degree have a s much right as any other holder of a doctorate to the title "Doctor" whether or not they choose to use that title or not.


Well, that is where we disagree. The fact that the word "doctor" (put there for the pecuniary reason you have detailed) appears in the degree name is, in my mind, insufficient justification (particularly given the reason it is there) for actually using that term in a form of address. The circumstances under which post-graduate doctoral degrees (not one-shot professional degrees) are earned and the level of education and scholarship they represent provide that justification, just as they did in the middle ages when individuals recognized for the highest levels of scholarship were similarly addressed regardless of whether there was any official degree earned or not. I suspect that it is this realization that leads many of your legal brethren on this forum to consider being called "doctor" as silly.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

*To The Interchange!*

While I appreciate JMatt's interest in having this poll in the Fashion Forum, I believe this is truly become an Interchange topic. However, I will leave a permanant redirect in the Fashion Forum so that this arena's participants will see the topic and be able to take part in the poll without undue difficulty.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

So in essence someone who gets a first degree in anything and spends another 4 years in law school can be called a "doctor" just because the word "doctor" is in the JD?

So with my collection of degrees (AA in Computer Science, a BSc in Mathematics, another BSc in Management Information Technology, an M.B.A and Ed.D in Leadership for the Advancement of Learning and Service) is comparable to a JD? A very laughable thought if I may say.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Asterix said:


> So in essence someone who gets a first degree in anything and spends another 4 years in law school can be called a "doctor" just because the word "doctor" is in the JD?


Actually it's _three_ years of law school and there has been some discussion about the need and value of that final third year:


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

medwards said:


> Actually it's _three_ years of law school and there has been some discussion about the need and value of that final third year:


Thanks Medwards for the correction. It actually makes the claim of the rights to the prefix "doctor" even more comical.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

I do fear this is much ado about nothing. I know a great number of American lawyers, yet I do not know of a single one who has used the term "doctor" as a title. In fact, even those with whom I teach who have a JD degree rather than a PhD tend to use "Professor" rather than "Doctor" as a university title...


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

medwards said:


> I do fear this is much ado about nothing. I know a great number of American lawyers, yet I do not know of a single one who has used the term "doctor" as a title. In fact, even those with whom I teach who have a JD degree rather than a PhD tend to use "Professor" rather than "Doctor" as a university title...


Exactly. People want to dance around the issue by qualifying which degrees can legitimately be called "Doctor" based on the amount of work done. The simple fact remains that if you hold a "doctorate" of any kind, you are entitled to the title by virtue of that fact alone. Period.

And, yes, I think a lawyer being called "Doctor" is silly. In fact, on the few occassions when I've had to wear academic regalia I wear my masters gown and hood, which is paterned after the regalia worn by an Oxford MA and looks way more cool than an American doctors robe because it's designed to be worn open and shows more of your suit. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## hockeyinsider (May 8, 2006)

I graduated from high school in 2002 and am nearly done with my bachelor's degree (political science and journalism) at Central Michigan University. Will be considering law school.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

medwards said:


> I do fear this is much ado about nothing. I know a great number of American lawyers, yet I do not know of a single one who has used the term "doctor" as a title. In fact, even those with whom I teach who have a JD degree rather than a PhD tend to use "Professor" rather than "Doctor" as a university title...


The issue is the fact that someone attempted to qualify a JD as being comparable to an actual doctorate degree something that is tantamount to an insult to the intelligence of the learned ones who earned true doctorates.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Asterix said:


> The issue is the fact that someone attempted to qualify a JD as being comparable to an actual doctorate degree something that is tantamount to an insult to the intelligence of the learned ones who earned true doctorates.


What a load of baloney.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

GMF said:


> What a load of baloney.


If you want to be seen as a "doctor", get the level of education that bequeaths the title.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

Roger said:


> Well, that is where we disagree. The fact that the word "doctor" (put there for the pecuniary reason you have detailed) appears in the degree name is, in my mind, insufficient justification (particularly given the reason it is there) for actually using that term in a form of address. The circumstances under which post-graduate doctoral degrees (not one-shot professional degrees) are earned and the level of education and scholarship they represent provide that justification, just as they did in the middle ages when individuals recognized for the highest levels of scholarship were similarly addressed regardless of whether there was any official degree earned or not. I suspect that it is this realization that leads many of your legal brethren on this forum to consider being called "doctor" as silly.


I agree completely.

GMF is obviously correct in his observation that in name a J.D. makes some reference to the word 'doctor' but to say that therefore puts the degree on the same titular and academic standing as a Ph.D. is incorrect.

There is a real difference between what is done to earn a Ph.D. and what is done to earn a J.D. - GMF's 'groundbreaking' research notwithstanding. (Both are impressive and both are equally good) But they are simply different and one (Ph.D.) brings with it the distinction of being optentially addressed as Doctor.

(With the exception of medicine) one who has not obtained the highest degree in the relevant field (as the J.D. is not) is not to be called Dr and is not called Dr.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Asterix said:


> If you want to be seen as a "doctor", get the level of education that bequeaths the title.


You obviously haven't read all my posts in this thread.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Cantabrigian said:


> GMF is obviously correct in his observation that in name a J.D. makes some reference to the word 'doctor' but to say that therefore puts the degree on the same titular and academic standing as a Ph.D. is incorrect.


I never said that, nor do I believe it to be the case.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Why would an MD sue a lawyer for calling himself "doctor." I'm not saying that a lawyer has as much right to call himself "doctor" as a PhD does, but he certainly has as much right to call himself "doctor" as an MD does.

Lawyers don't call themselves "doctor" because they know that it's silly and that they are undeserving of that title. I only wish physicians would realize the same thing.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

odoreater said:


> Lawyers don't call themselves "doctor" because they know that it's silly and that they are undeserving of that title. I only wish physicians would realize the same thing.


I think we all know this isn't going to happen. For the vast majority of the US population, doctor=physician. And a "doctor" who isn't a physician is some sort of academic egghead who isn't good for anything.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

*Meant in Good Humour*

_A man went to a brain store to get some brain to complete a study. He sees a sign remarking on the quality of professional brain offerred at this particular brain store. He begins to question the butcher about the cost of these brains.

"How much does it cost for engineer brain?"

"Three dollars an ounce."

"How much does it cost for programmer brain?"

"Four dollars an ounce."

"How much for lawyer brain?"

"$1,000 an ounce."

"Why is lawyer brain so much more?"

"Do you know how many lawyers we had to kill to get one ounce of brain?" _


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Borat said:


> wrong, Mr naughty lawyer! for ex., being a 'Lord of the Manor' doesn't grant the right to be called Lord, even though Lord is in the title. Neither is an heraldic King of Arms called 'Your Majesty', even though King in his title (b/c not really a king).
> 
> 'Wow wow wee wah!'


I just love it when I'm facing another lawyer who argues the facts like you do. 

Cha-ching!


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

I was nosing around the Bundestag's website and noticed a lot of "Dr." prefixes. Seems that, at least in Germany and maybe elsewhere on the Continent, it's not uncommon for a Doctor of Laws to be addressed as such.

Has anyone else noticed more PhD holders in the high ranks of German car companies vs American ones? Not just Dr. Z either!


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> _A man went to a brain store to get some brain to complete a study. He sees a sign remarking on the quality of professional brain offerred at this particular brain store. He begins to question the butcher about the cost of these brains.
> 
> "How much does it cost for engineer brain?"
> 
> ...


That is a good one


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

odoreater said:


> a lawyer has as much right to call himself "doctor" as a PhD does


Please....

PhD in most disciplines including mine: 
4 yr undergrad + 2 yr masters + 5 yr doctoral study + 1 yr postdoctoral training - 12 years total

Lawyer: 
4 yr undergrad + 3 yr law school - 7 total

5 years of intense study, a completed dissertation and several of those 5 years doing practica, working 60 hrs a week for 1,000 a month govt stipend (before taxes) is what gives me the title "Dr" and my law buddies "Mr"

I appologize if I sound harsh but I take that post as a direct insult. Many of my friends as well as my gf are lawyers and I know what it entails. Consider though the attrition rates of law school versus any PhD programs. On average for a doctoral program the attrition rates run north of 50% which is not even close to law school.

MrR


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Good to see I'm not the only one who felt insulted that a prefix attained from over a decade plus of educational accomplishments is being compared to a JD.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

GMF said:


> For the vast majority of the US population, doctor=physician. And a "doctor" who isn't a physician is some sort of academic egghead who isn't good for anything.:icon_smile_wink:


While I do not agree with your opinion GMF, I did respect your stance until I came to this comment. The majority of the US sees psychologists and researchers as academic eggheads who are good for nothing?? Where exactly do you live in the US?

Perhaps you are blind to the feelings the majority of the US hold regarding what YOU do for a living.

MrR


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

Asterix said:


> Good to see I'm not the only one who felt insulted that a prefix attained from over a decade plus of educational accomplishments is being compared to a JD.


Good to see some sense in this thread Asterix....

What we know that the others don't is exactly what it takes to be called Dr., whether it be medical or otherwise. Gaining such a title is commensurate of the process required, and the reason why there are so few of us and so many of them.

MrR


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

MrRogers said:


> While I do not agree with your opinion GMF, I did respect your stance until I came to this comment. The majority of the US sees psychologists and researchers as academic eggheads who are good for nothing?? Where exactly do you live in the US?
> 
> Perhaps you are blind to the feelings the majority of the US hold regarding what YOU do for a living.
> 
> MrR


I stand by what I said. Walk up to any person on the street and tell them you're a doctor and see what they assume you to be.

Let there be some sort of medical emergency in a public place, and when someone calls out "Are there any doctors around?" do you think they are looking for PhDs in English?


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

GMF said:


> I stand by what I said. Walk up to any person on the street and tell them you're a doctor and see what they assume you to be.
> 
> Let there be some sort of medical emergency in a public place, and when someone calls out "Are there any doctors around?" do you think they are looking for PhDs in English?


Obviously most people connect Dr. with MD..... that wasn't your comment

Your comment was that all PhD's and PsyD's are "academic eggheads who are good for nothing"

Anyhow, nevermind, I'll assume that you at least have the intellect to realize how absurd your original statement is and the positive effect these "good for nothings" have had on you and your families lives.

MrR


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

MrRogers said:


> odoreater said:
> 
> 
> > a lawyer has as much right to call himself "doctor" as a PhD does
> ...


Wow, for someone with so much learning you sure need some work on your reading comprehension skills. Way to take my quote out of context. In my field, if you cited a case like that to a judge, you'd be in a world of ****.

Here is the quote in its entirety (emphasis added):



odoreater said:


> Why would an MD sue a lawyer for calling himself "doctor." I'm *not saying* that a lawyer has as much right to call himself "doctor" as a PhD does, but he certainly has as much right to call himself "doctor" as an MD does.


Way to take the "I'm not saying that" out of my quote.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

MrRogers said:


> Your comment was that all PhD's and PsyD's are "academic eggheads who are good for nothing"


Please show me where I said that. I never mentioned PhD or PsyD in my comment to which you are referring. You conventiently added that part.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

GMF said:


> I think we all know this isn't going to happen. For the vast majority of the US population, doctor=physician. And a "doctor" who isn't a physician is some sort of academic egghead who isn't good for anything.:icon_smile_wink:


"Dr" who isn't a physician = PhD, PsyD, (Ed.D.)

If this isn't what you meant, please explain to me who you were referring to.

MrR


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

MrRogers said:


> "Dr" who isn't a physician = PhD, PsyD, (Ed.D.)
> 
> If this isn't what you meant, please explain to me who you were referring to.
> 
> MrR


I wasn't referring to anyone in particular. My statement can stand on it's own as a general proposition.

And please note that my comment was about how non medical "doctors" are perceived by ordinary people, not how I feel about them. Example: I had a prof in college who used to love to tell the story of how his son would respond to "So your dad is a doctor?" The boy would reply, "Yeah, but not the kind that helps anybody."


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

odoreater said:


> Wow, for someone with so much learning you sure need some work on your reading comprehension skills. Way to take my quote out of context. In my field, if you cited a case like that to a judge, you'd be in a world of ****.
> 
> Here is the quote in its entirety (emphasis added):
> 
> Way to take the "I'm not saying that" out of my quote.


Odoreater, relax, I appologize. I went back and read this entire thread 3x as I was sure I had seen that comment made by yourself somewhere. I think that as I was scanning your original thread my eyes caught the line that I posted without the "I'm not saying that". It was not my intention to manipulate your words and I understand that it is not your position.

In the end my personal feeling is obviously that only select individuals who have proven themselves academically are deserving of the title Dr.. The entire latter section of this thread is in essense a moot point since despite anyone's personal opinion, lawyers are not referred to as doctors while all others with doctoral degrees are.

MrR


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

GMF said:


> Cantabrigian said:
> 
> 
> > GMF is obviously correct in his observation that in name a J.D. makes some reference to the word 'doctor' but to say that therefore puts the degree on the same titular and academic standing as a Ph.D. is incorrect.
> ...


While it is true that you did specify that the two degrees do not have the same academic standing (which incidentally would tend to contradict your earlier claim that the academic program required to get a JD is roughlyt equivalent to that required to get a PhD) you do claim that they are titular sense:



GMF said:


> To clarify my position on this, let me say that I in no way equate the JD to a PhD or any research doctorate in terms of "academic standing." And like most lawyers, I tend to frown on being called "Doctor," no matter what the setting. *But the fact remains that the JD is a doctorate, inasmuch as the title of the degree contains the word "Doctor." Therefore, holders of the degree have a s much right as any other holder of a doctorate to the title "Doctor" whether or not they choose to use that title or not.*


(emphasis added)

You implicitly claim that any degree with 'doctor' in the name is a doctorate. That is incorrect. 'Doctorate' is taken to designate the highest degree in a field and is a degree whose coursework focuses on research rather than vocational training. A JD meets neither of those requirements.

I should also note that I think a obtaining a JD is a great accomplishment indeed. I would also add that in my personal experience the law students I have known are, on the whole, brighter and more intellectually impressive than the PhD candidates I have known. I am not in any trying to disparage the JD. I am simply arguing against the assertion that because the basic law degree's name was changed to include some variant of the phrase 'doctor' that its holders are themselves academic doctors.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

odoreater said:


> I'm not saying that a lawyer has as much right to call himself "doctor" as a PhD does, but he certainly has as much right to call himself "doctor" as an MD does.
> 
> Lawyers don't call themselves "doctor" because they know that it's silly and that they are undeserving of that title. I only wish physicians would realize the same thing.


Neither an MD nor a JD are doctors in the academic sense (I believe this is what the quoted portion of your post was meant to indicate).

'Doctor' does not however refer only to a doctor in an academic sense.

Calling an MD 'doctor' does not mean that the person holds a doctorate but rather because that person is, in some sense, a medical doctor. Why that designation would apply after receipt of the degree and before completion of residency, etc. is a matter of convention and somewhat arbitrary. I would suspect that it is a holdover from a time when such training post-schooling was not as formalized of a process.

Since neither a JD nor an MD holds a doctorate, neither are doctors in an academic sense. Since an MD is something of a doctor in another sense, he is referred to as 'doctor' as the JD is referred to as 'esquire.'

Again, let me emphasize that I think both degrees are good. We are simply talking about titular conventions here.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

MrRogers said:


> Good to see some sense in this thread Asterix....
> 
> What we know that the others don't is exactly what it takes to be called Dr., whether it be medical or otherwise. Gaining such a title is commensurate of the process required, and the reason why there are so few of us and so many of them.
> 
> MrR


Very true but we have to remind ourselves that they are lawyers, so making the untrue true is their forte.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Cantabrigian said:


> While it is true that you did specify that the two degrees do not have the same academic standing (which incidentally would tend to contradict your earlier claim that the academic program required to get a JD is roughlyt equivalent to that required to get a PhD) you do claim that they are titular sense:
> 
> (emphasis added)
> 
> ...





Cantabrigian said:


> Neither an MD nor a JD are doctors in the academic sense (I believe this is what the quoted portion of your post was meant to indicate).
> 
> 'Doctor' does not however refer only to a doctor in an academic sense.
> 
> ...


Excellent articulation, my kind sir.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

BS in Criminology and MS in Correctional Services Administration.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Cantabrigian said:


> While it is true that you did specify that the two degrees do not have the same academic standing (which incidentally would tend to contradict your earlier claim that the academic program required to get a JD is roughlyt equivalent to that required to get a PhD)...


I never made any such claim. To compare the academic requirements for a JD to those of a typical PhD and say they are equivalent would be ridiculous.


----------



## DaveInPhilly (May 16, 2005)

I question the post that most Ph.D degrees require 10 + years of schooling. I am a J.D., but I strongly considered getting my Ph.D in Economics before I decided on law school. The Ph.D program I most seriously considered only required four years of study concluded with a doctoral thesis. No MA work was needed, nor, to my knowledge, was any post doctoral training required. It was the same for a Ph.D. in chemistry, although I did not give that program nearly as much consideration. I just checked the website, and they actually state that only three years of post baccalaureate study is required, but most students require four to complete the program. 

My fiancee just finished two MA programs, one of which she was/is on a Ph.D tract, but she decided to enter the work force full time for a few years before completing the degree. However, to complete her degree she only required about two more years of full time course work. She would need some time after she gets her degree, but I am not sure about the details. I don't believe it was more than a years worth though. 

That being said, I do agree that a JD more closely equates to an MA than a Ph.D, and have never even considered using the Dr. prefix. I actually had a contracts professor who was a Ph.D, and had taught English Literature at Princeton for several years before decided to go back and get his J.D. (so that he could earn a better living...). Even he had students address him by the title Professor, not Doctor. 

Cantabrigian, I noticed when you use the word ‘doctor’ and ‘esquire’ in your recent posts you did not capitalize the first letter, I assume that is intentional. I have only seen them capitalized as if they were proper names. Is that in correct? Grammar is something that escapes me.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

DaveInPhilly said:


> I question the post that most Ph.D degrees require 10 + years of schooling.


I agree, though I'd decided not to open that can of worms.



DaveInPhilly said:


> That being said, I do agree that a JD more closely equates to an MA than a Ph.D


Actually, I think the JD more closely equates to a terminal masters degree like the MBA, MSW, or MDiv. The MA, like the PhD, is a research degree (usually) and requires the completion of a thesis (again, usually).


----------



## DaveInPhilly (May 16, 2005)

GMF said:


> Actually, I think the JD more closely equates to a terminal masters degree like the MBA, MSW, or MDiv. The MA, like the PhD, is a research degree (usually) and requires the completion of a thesis (again, usually).


You'll have to forgive me on that point. I was, quite improperly, using the abbreviation MA to encompass all masters degrees. Beyond the MBA, which I also considered briefly, I know very little about what is required for any of them.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

hockeyinsider said:


> I graduated from high school in 2002 and am nearly done with my bachelor's degree (political science and journalism) at Central Michigan University. Will be considering law school.


Congratulations. An old friend of mine went do Central from Texas, sight unseen. When he arrived in Mt. Pleasant on the bus he was a bit confused, since the mountain he had in mind was along the lines of the snow-capped peaks of the Rockies!


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

DaveInPhilly said:


> *I question the post that most Ph.D degrees require 10 + years of schooling.* I am a J.D., but I strongly considered getting my Ph.D in Economics before I decided on law school. The Ph.D program I most seriously considered only required four years of study concluded with a doctoral thesis. No MA work was needed, nor, to my knowledge, was any post doctoral training required. It was the same for a Ph.D. in chemistry, although I did not give that program nearly as much consideration. I just checked the website, and they actually state that only three years of post baccalaureate study is required, but most students require four to complete the program.
> 
> My fiancee just finished two MA programs, one of which she was/is on a Ph.D tract, but she decided to enter the work force full time for a few years before completing the degree. However, to complete her degree she only required about two more years of full time course work. She would need some time after she gets her degree, but I am not sure about the details. I don't believe it was more than a years worth though.
> 
> ...


I don't know of any legitimate college/university that would allow anyone get a Phd without a masters degree so when doing the basic math of a 4 year degree + a 2 year Master's program and the usual 4 years for a conventional Phd, it amounts to 10 years/a Decade.


----------



## DaveInPhilly (May 16, 2005)

Asterix said:


> I don't know of any legitimate college/university that would allow anyone get a Phd without a masters degree so when doing the basic math of a 4 year degree + a 2 year Master's program and the usual 4 years for a conventional Phd, it amounts to 10 years/a Decade.


The degree programs I was referring to were offered at the State University of New York at Albany. It may not be Harvard or Yale, but certainly legitimate. My fiancée attended Widener University just outside of Philly here in PA.

Edit: A quick trip over Harvard's website turned up this. I was looking for the statistics for the Economics Ph.D specifically, but this was the best I could turn up:

https://www.hbs.edu/doctoral/admissions/index.html

Apparently of the 21 students admitted to the 2006 class of the Harvard School of Buisness's Ph.D. program, 12 had only bachelor's level degrees, 4 had MBA's, and 5 had "other graduate degrees". So at least one "legitimate institution" will allow some folks to earn a Ph.D. without having first earned a masters degree.

Edit part 2: This is from Yale's website:



> Chemistry
> Ph.D.
> https://www.chem.yale.edu/
> 
> ...


Emphasis added. It looks like there are at least two legitimate college/university that would allow someone to get a Phd without a masters degree.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Asterix said:


> I don't know of any legitimate college/university that would allow anyone get a Phd without a masters degree so when doing the basic math of a 4 year degree + a 2 year Master's program and the usual 4 years for a conventional Phd, it amounts to 10 years/a Decade.


Most PhD programs are 4 years max, and then they will give you additional time beyond that to complete your dissertation. In looking at Yale's web page, that's how their program works. Four years and then up to two more to complete the dissertation. No masters degree is noted as a prerequisite for admission to Yale's doctoral programs, though they do state that if you've already completed a MA or MS at Yale, that time of study counts toward the four years required for the PhD. Along those same lines, many grad schools award the MA as a matter of course after your second year in the PhD program (Harvard, for example).


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

DaveInPhilly said:


> The degree programs I was referring to were offered at the State University of New York at Albany. It may not be Harvard or Yale, but certainly legitimate.


_Program Leading to the Doctor of Philosophy Degree at SUNY Albany

The Ph.D. program in economics trains highly qualified professional economists for careers in teaching and research in colleges and universities and in research and administration in government and private organizations.

Ordinarily the program of study and research requires at least four academic years of full-time work beyond the baccalaureate. Students take courses in economic theory, econometrics, and in at least two of the following fields of concentration: advanced macroeconomics, advanced microeconomics, econometrics, industrial organization, international economics, labor and income distribution, and public economics.

Requirements for Admission

Applicants must fulfill the general University requirements for admission to doctoral study. An undergraduate major in economics is not essential but applicants are expected to have completed a year sequence in intermediate economic theory, three semesters of calculus, and one semester of linear algebra. For those whose undergraduate training in economics and mathematics is deficient, courses are available during the summer session prior to entering the program.

All applicants for the doctoral program must present official Graduate Record Examination (GRE) scores for the verbal, quantitative, and analytical tests. Applicants who are not residents of the United States may be exempted from this requirement by the Graduate Studies Committee of the Department if they reside in countries where GRE examinations are not administered. Foreign students whose native language is not English are required to take the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) administered by the Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.

Program of Study and Research (60 credits, minimum)

Students must demonstrate proficiency in economic theory, econometrics, and two fields of concentration. A minimum of 60 credits in graduate credits in economics and supporting fields (as approved by the Department) beyond the baccalaureate are required, including:

Economic Theory: Eco 600 Microeconomics I (3); Eco 601 Macroeconomics I (3); Eco 700 Microeconomics II (3); Eco 701 Macroeconomics II (3). 
Econometrics: Eco 620 Econometrics I (4); Eco 621 Econometrics II (4); Eco 720 Econometrics III (4). 
Advanced Research Topics: Eco 798 (3). 
Students who enter with advanced training may apply for a waiver of one or more of these courses. 
Preparation for a field of concentration normally requires a year of coursework at the 700 level or above. With the approval of the Department's Graduate Studies Committee, one of the two fields may be replaced by another appropriate discipline or by a specialization combining economics with a related field. Advanced doctoral students are required to participate in at least one of the three workshops of the department (Eco 800, Eco 801, or Eco 820).

Research Tool Requirement

Students must demonstrate proficiency in either a foreign language or at least one of the research tools used by economists. These include mathematical and quantitative techniques of problem solving and statistical and econometric techniques involving data analysis.

Departmental Qualifying Examinations

The Departmental Qualifying Examination consists of three parts.

The first part, in economic theory, consists of two written examinations covering the subject areas of Economics 600, 601, 700, and 701 and must be taken at the end of the first year in the program. A student must pass the theory examination in order to continue in the Ph.D. program.

The second part, in econometrics, is a written examination normally taken at the end of the second year. This requirement may be waived upon completion of Eco 621 and Eco 720 with grades of B or better.

The third part consists of written examinations in two fields of concentration, normally taken at the end of the second year.

A student who fails any qualifying examination twice may petition the Graduate Studies Committee for permission to retake it.

Full Time Study in Residence

Each student in the Economics doctoral program must complete 9 credits in Ph.D. core or elective courses in each of two semesters (not necessarily consecutive). This requirement is designed to ensure for each student a period of intensive intellectual growth and interaction with other participants in the program.

Admission to Candidacy

A student is admitted to candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy having met the following requirements:

Satisfactory completion of all required core and elective courses; 
Satisfactory completion of the research tool requirement; 
Completion of University residence requirements; 
Satisfactory completion of the doctoral qualifying examinations. 
Presentation in a workshop of a written dissertation proposal and formation of a dissertation committee approved by the Graduate Studies Committee
Doctoral Dissertation 
The student will select a chair for the Dissertation Committee from the Department in the first semester after passing the qualifying examinations. With the committee chair's advice and approval of the Graduate Studies Committee, the student will select two or three additional members for the committee. A description of the dissertation and the composition of the committee will be filed with the Department.

An oral presentation of the preliminary results of the dissertation will be made at one of the department workshops (Eco 800, 801, or 820).

Before accepting the final draft of the dissertation, the dissertation committee will conduct a public oral examination of the candidate on the dissertation, at a time and place to be announced at least one week in advance.

The dissertation must be approved by a majority of the committee members, consisting of at least three members of the committee. _


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

DaveInPhilly said:


> The degree programs I was referring to were offered at the State University of New York at Albany. It may not be Harvard or Yale, but certainly legitimate. My fiancée attended Widener University just outside of Philly here in PA.
> 
> Edit: A quick trip over Harvard's website turned up this. I was looking for the statistics for the Economics Ph.D specifically, but this was the best I could turn up:
> 
> ...





GMF said:


> Most PhD programs are 4 years max, and then they will give you additional time beyond that to complete your dissertation. In looking at Yale's web page, that how their program works. Four years and then up to two more to complete the dissertation. No masters degree is noted as a prerequisite for admission to Yale's doctoral programs, though they do state that if you've already completed a MA or MS at Yale, that time of study counts toward the four years required for the PhD. Along those same lines, many grad schools award the MA as a matter of course after your second year in the PhD program (Harvard, for example).


Gentlemen, I stand corrected. In my case, it took two bachelors degrees and an MBA before I got to earn my Doctorate degree. So more like 12+ years and that is aside from an Associates degree.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> _Program Leading to the Doctor of Philosophy Degree at SUNY Albany
> 
> The Ph.D. program in economics trains highly qualified professional economists for careers in teaching and research in colleges and universities and in research and administration in government and private organizations.
> 
> ...


I guess the statement in bold is what was vague? In my little knowledge, 60 graduate credits is approximately the same number of credits required to earn a Masters degree.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

GMF said:


> I never made any such claim. To compare the academic requirements for a JD to those of a typical PhD and say they are equivalent would be ridiculous.


Then I must have misread this exchange:

I had written


Cantabrigian said:


> I have always known 'Doctor' in an academic setting to refer to someone who has done extensive research and made some original contribution to scholarship in his field. In that regard, a JD - though clearly an impressive accomplishment - is far more similar to an MBA than to a Ph.D.


To which you responded in part


GMF said:


> And a JD who teaches can legitimately be called "Doctor" if he so chooses. (Most JDs who teach happen to fit your description of having done extensive research and made some original contribution to scholarship in that they write voluminously for publication in various law journals. Hell, I was published in a law review during my second year in law school on a topic about which nothing had ever been written. It was not only "original research," it was groundbreaking.)


I take it then that you claim that a JD is a doctorate is based solely on the fact that it has doctor in the name.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Cantabrigian said:


> I take it then that you claim that a JD is a doctorate is based solely on the fact that it has doctor in the name.


Exactly. It's that simple. But it's not just a "name." "Juris Doctor" is the _title_ of the degree, ergo, it is a _doctorate_. It isn't a PhD, or any other research doctorate, but it _is_ a doctorate.

Hypolthetically, if a university had a masters program, the requirements for which were identical to most other schools' PhD programs, would you claim that the holder of that masters degree actually had a doctorate? If I'm understanding your position correctly, you would have to answer _yes_.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Asterix said:


> I don't know of any legitimate college/university that would allow anyone get a Phd without a masters degree....


Wrong. Lot's of excellent PhD programs allow students to bypass the Master's degree.



> so when doing the basic math of a 4 year degree + a 2 year Master's program and the usual 4 years for a conventional Phd, it amounts to 10 years/a Decade.


Unlike with a coursework-driven professional degree program like those leading to the MD and JD, PhD programs can vary considerably in length, not only between programs, but also within a single program. In the PhD program in which I teach, for example, we do require the Master's degree along the way and require students to complete it--with thesis--in 2 years. The typical doctoral program after that is designed to take about 4 additional years, and that time might be the average here (University of British Columbia--one of the top 2 or 3 research universities in Canada). However, we occasionally have a student finish in 3, instead of 4, and quite a number that take longer than the 4 (the record is 10, although how the student got past Faculty of Graduate Studies time-to-degree regulations is a mystery to all of us). So, for us, Asterix's 6 years of post-baccalaureate study is about right--or 10 years post-secondary education. I might add, however, that these days probably the majority of our PhD graduates find that they need a 1- or 2-year post-doctoral fellowship to be competitive in the academic job market. This trend will only increase. Thus, I suspect that the number of years of post-baccalaureate education necessary to land a job will probably increase to 7 or 8 years.

BTW, I think that the 6-years to PhD post-baccalaureate estimate is probably about right for the majority of first-rate universities. Often times published in university catalogs reflect the "ideal" or hoped-for time to degree, rather than the actual time needed to complete all requirements, and are, therefore, underestimates.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

GMF said:


> Exactly. _*It's that simple*_. But it's not just a "name." "Juris Doctor" is the _title_ of the degree, ergo, it is a _doctorate_. It isn't a PhD, or any other research doctorate, but it _is_ a doctorate.


[boldface mine above.]Actually, it's nowhere near that simple. Calling a first, professional degree in law a "doctoral" degree is simply a case of what we might term "degree inflation" (for the economic reasons noted earlier) and in no way makes the JD a doctorate, in any legitimate sense of that term. And there are other examples of degree inflation, many involving minor health-related focused applications like chiropody or podiatry (with relatively short training programs whose graduates don't go near any medical school), for example. But as a better illustration of my point, let's suppose the realtors of a particular state decided that it would aid their cause to have their members receive a "doctoral" degree or diploma after a 2-year coursework-based program in selling real estate--the D.R.E. degree (and it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that this has actually happened somewhere!). It follows from your earlier comments that you would say that "it _is_ a doctorate"! I think that we need to get real here.

_Edit:_ I think a PhD from the program in the following link might make this point in a different way. GMF, since the word "doctor" appears in the title of the degree (which seems to be your key requirement)--and indeed it is a PhD, after all--presumably you would consider this a doctorate.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

GMF said:


> Exactly. It's that simple. But it's not just a "name." "Juris Doctor" is the _title_ of the degree, ergo, it is a _doctorate_. It isn't a PhD, or any other research doctorate, but it _is_ a doctorate.


There's a distinction between a doctorate - i.e. a terminal degree in a field - and a degree with 'doctor' in the name. One, by convention, allows the holder of the degree to refer to himself as 'doctor' the other does not.

You obviously refuse to understand that distinction so there isn't much more that can be said on the matter.

As a friendly recommendation, I would not tell anyone with any knowledge of academic titles that you are have every right to be referred to as 'doctor' on the basis of your JD as that is - by convention rather than for some higher reason - not done.



GMF said:


> Hypolthetically, if a university had a masters program, the requirements for which were identical to most other schools' PhD programs, would you claim that the holder of that masters degree actually had a doctorate? If I'm understanding your position correctly, you would have to answer _yes_.


No. One part is the type of work involved - i.e. research and extensive writing. The other part is the fact that the degree received is the highest in the field. A rigorous masters program confers only a masters degree and that is not the highest degree obtainable in the discipline.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Cantabrigian said:


> There's a distinction between a doctorate - i.e. a terminal degree in a field - and a degree with 'doctor' in the name. One, by convention, allows the holder of the degree to refer to himself as 'doctor' the other does not.


I've spent most of my adult life in higher education and I've never heard this before. Please point me to some authority which stipulates in the US system of higher education the terminal degree in a field is a "doctorate" irrespective of the degree title.

I submit that your position is untenable and not based in fact. A _doctorate_ is any degree that is titled _Doctor_.


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

Roger said:


> _Edit:_ I think a PhD from the program in the following link might make this point in a different way. GMF, since the word "doctor" appears in the title of the degree (which seems to be your key requirement)--and indeed it is a PhD, after all--presumably you would consider this a doctorate.


Let's use this nifty website to create a Doctorate in AAACology!


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

GMF said:


> I've spent most of my adult life in higher education and I've never heard this before. Please point me to some authority which stipulates in the US system of higher education the terminal degree in a field is a "doctorate" irrespective of the degree title.
> 
> *I submit that your position is untenable and not based in fact.* A _doctorate_ is any degree that is titled _Doctor_.


You have got to be joking. ic12337:

:teacha: Visit here for some simple definitions :icon_smile_big:


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Are they in the Big East?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Asterix said:


> I don't know of any legitimate college/university that would allow anyone get a Phd without a masters degree so when doing the basic math of a 4 year degree + a 2 year Master's program and the usual 4 years for a conventional Phd, it amounts to 10 years/a Decade.


Actually if one has a terminal degree in their field then they can legitimately seek a PhD. I have a Doctorate in Physical Therapy (DPT) and could pursue a PhD from that point. The question I think would depend on the field in which one wanted to pursue the PhD. In my case a related field (anatomy, biomechanics) would make sense. However to seek a PhD in economics would be another matter. Remember also that PhD programs are selective so the university in question would have to evaluate the candidates qualifications prior to admission.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

GMF said:


> I've spent most of my adult life in higher education and I've never heard this before.


Firstly, I'm afraid that your not having heard something before does not make it untrue. Secondly, you must have heard something similar before since you consciously shun the title of Dr. and have noted that almost every other (non-PhD, non-MD) JD does as well.



GMF said:


> Please point me to some authority which stipulates in the US system of higher education the terminal degree in a field is a "doctorate" irrespective of the degree title.


You want a higher authority, eh?



medwards said:


> I know a great number of American lawyers, *yet I do not know of a single one who has used the term "doctor" as a title*. In fact, even those with whom I teach who have a JD degree rather than a PhD tend to use "Professor" rather than "Doctor" as a university title...


 (emphasis added)

This scenario has played out probably hundreds of times on AAAC. 
Member A: Is ____ acceptable? 
Member B: No, generally ___ is not done. 
Member C: Wait a minute!!! I like ___ and I should be able to ___ if I darn well please!!! 
Member B: Okay then, best of luck in ___-ing but as a matter of convention ___ is generally not considered acceptable among the small amount of people who choose to care about such things&#8230; 
Member C: What do you mean generally not acceptable?!? All of my friends and I ___ and we know way more about what is done today than you do, Member B. If you know so much why don't you show me where anything about ___ was written in stone? 
Member B: I'm afraid such a source does not exist. It is a matter convention. The convention makes some sense for the following reasons but it isn't as though it could not be any other way. If you choose to ignore such convention, some people who do know the convention will think you are incorrect but if you're committed to ___, by all means, don't let that stop you. 
Member C: <Continues to advance his opinion with increasing force until everyone agrees with him or until Malinda closes the thread (whichever happens to come first).>

And so it goes whether the question is wearing black suits, notch lapel tuxedos, taking the title of Dr. with only a JD, etc. (I use 'only' not at all disparagingly, but rather to indicate that the person does not have a MD or PhD.)

(If you can find it, FlatSix did an amazing parody of this scenario on a thread about black pants)

There is no source that says JDs aren't doctors. Those sorts of things are not codified like that. It is simply understood among those familiar with such things. Given that experience would suggest the opposite of what you propose, the proverbial burden to prove would be upon you to show that an appreciable number of reputable only-JD-holding profs at a decent universities refer to themselves as Dr.



GMF said:


> Please point me to some authority which stipulates in the US system of higher education the terminal degree in a field is a "doctorate" *irrespective of the degree title*.


As fate would have it, the highest degrees in fields have 'doctor' in the name. But, taking things back to 4th grade and the beauty of Venn Diagrams, not all degrees that have 'doctor' in the name are terminal degrees.



GMF said:


> I submit that your position is untenable and not based in fact. A doctorate is any degree that is titled Doctor.


All I can say is that that simplistic appraisal of the situation will not hold water with people who know about those sorts of things.

Can someone who has only a JD call himself Dr. until the cows come home? Of course. Someone can do all sorts of things that are not in accordance with convention. Yes and there are certainly worse and more uncouth things that can be done.

Are there any consequences to calling yourself Dr. JD? Well yes. If you tried that your students and other faculty members would likely form an impression of you that probably isn't what you want to convey and would somewhat counteract the effect you are trying to achieve by taking the title of Dr.

Feel free to have your undergrad students call you Dr. all you like. You can explain to them that your degree has doctor in the name. Of course people will roll their eyes at you but what will you care since you're a doctor. I still think you're a good guy but we've really reached some fundamental disagreement and the substantive discussion must necessarily end there.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Cantabrigian, I think that in fairness to GMF, it is important to note that he hasn't (if I remember correctly) advocated lawyers with JDs referring to themselves as "doctor." In fact, I seem to recall him stating that he thought that it would be inappropriate. The issue with GMF is whether or not a degree that is not the highest one conferred in a field of study--involving graduate study--can be rightfully referred to as a "doctorate." That is, whether the degree can be labeled that, not whether a holder of that degree should call him/herself "doctor." My argument is that it really cannot, but GMF feels that it can. In the end, this is a reasonable difference of opinion, and I'm not sure any amount of source-citing will resolve the issue.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

Roger said:


> Cantabrigian, I think that in fairness to GMF, it is important to note that he hasn't (if I remember correctly) advocated lawyers with JDs referring to themselves as "doctor." In fact, I seem to recall him stating that he thought that it would be inappropriate. The issue with GMF is whether or not a degree that is not the highest one conferred in a field of study--involving graduate study--can be rightfully referred to as a "doctorate." That is, whether the degree can be labeled that, not whether a holder of that degree should call him/herself "doctor." My argument is that it really cannot, but GMF feels that it can. In the end, this is a reasonable difference of opinion, and I'm not sure any amount of source-citing will resolve the issue.


But he has indicated that it is legitimate for a JD holder who teaches at the undergrad level to use the title of doctor as the holder of a doctorate would. That is what I believe to be an incorrect assertion.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Cantabrigian said:


> But he has indicated that it is legitimate for a JD holder who teaches at the undergrad level to use the title of doctor as the holder of a doctorate would. That is what I believe to be an incorrect assertion.


Oh, OK. I guess I'd forgotten that.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

_Odium scholasticum_ is always a welcome diversion, in any context. Soon - I hope - we shall be entertained with a heated debate on the pressing topic of how many doctors, _juris_ or otherwise, can dance on the head of a pin. While awaiting this development, one might peruse the Department of Education's website, which has a mildly helpful analysis of the distinction between honest-to-god docs and lesser beings:

Note the listings for J.S.D, S.J.D., and L.Sc.D which are reputedly the jurisprudential equivalents of a Ph.D., although rarely found in the real world, so-called.

Based upon my decade and a half of practice, it is my impression that the appropriate professional honorific for those called to the bar is "Asshole."

My favorite Doctor is J.


----------



## DaveInPhilly (May 16, 2005)

Thats it. From this point foward it decree it to be so: I shall now be referred to only by *Dr. DaveInPhilly, Esq. XIII*.

And when they are no longer on back order, I will have all of the appropriate documentation.

:icon_cheers: :icon_cheers: :icon_cheers:


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Asterix said:


> You have got to be joking. ic12337:
> 
> :teacha: Visit here for some simple definitions :icon_smile_big:


I think you're the one who needs to read those definitions...closely.


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Lushington said:


> _Odium scholasticum_ is always a welcome diversion, in any context. Soon - I hope - we shall be entertained with a heated debate on the pressing topic of how many doctors, _juris_ or otherwise, can dance on the head of a pin. While awaiting this development, one might peruse the Department of Education's website, which has a mildly helpful analysis of the distinction between honest-to-god docs and lesser beings:
> 
> Note the listings for J.S.D, S.J.D., and L.Sc.D which are reputedly the jurisprudential equivalents of a Ph.D., although rarely found in the real world, so-called.


That the DOE would equate a DMin degree to a PhD is laughable...but probably should be expected. _That_ should be an insult to PhD holders everywhere.

But please note that the title of the page linked is "Research Doctorate Programs" and "Recognized Research Doctorates." At the bottom of the page you'll find the following:



> You should remember that *doctoral degrees* are not research doctorates in those fields. The research doctorate in all such fields is either the Ph.D. or one of the related research doctorates named in the list immediately above. *As with master's degrees, the institution awarding the doctorate has considerable discretion as to the titles it uses for degrees,* and thus institutional nomenclature may differ even in the same subject. (Emphasis added.)


And from the page linked in the above quote:



> It is also important to recognize that first-professional degrees in these fields are first degrees, not graduate research degrees. *Several of the degree titles in this group of subjects (see below) incorporate the term "Doctor," but they are not research doctorates and not equivalent to the Ph.D.* Master's degrees and research doctorates in these fields of study are awarded, but they have different names and students enroll in those programs after having earned a first-professional degree. (Emphasis added.)


In other words, this DOE website pretty much confirms my position, namely, the JD, MD, etc. are _doctoral degrees_ (i.e., doctorates), but they are not _research doctorates_ and are not the equivalent of the PhD.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Arguing with you is pointless especially when you got a specialized degree (JD) in professional flip-flopping. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## GMF (Jun 28, 2006)

Asterix said:


> Arguing with you is pointless especially when you got a specialized degree (JD) in professional flip-flopping. :icon_smile_big:


I find it amusing that lawyers get such a bad rap, but in this exchange it hasn't been the members of the bar who have stooped to _ad hominem_ attacks.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

GMF said:


> I find it amusing that lawyers get such a bad rap, but in this exchange it hasn't been the members of the bar who have stooped to _ad hominem_ attacks.


My apologies if you consider my attempt at humor at the members of the bar to being an adhomien attack but I don't see anything intellectual about a debate that is based on your continously shifting personal definition of what a JD means irrespective of what it means to the intellectual community.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

MrRogers said:


> Odoreater, relax, I appologize. I went back and read this entire thread 3x as I was sure I had seen that comment made by yourself somewhere. I think that as I was scanning your original thread my eyes caught the line that I posted without the "I'm not saying that". It was not my intention to manipulate your words and I understand that it is not your position.


Sorry about the way that I reacted, but your post, and the quote from my post contained therein, was a flagrant mischaracterization of both what I said and the position I have consistently taken throughout this thread. As a matter of fact, it seems that we agree on about 90% of what is at issue in this thread.

My position, to clarify and summarize, is as follows:

PhDs (and holders of equivalent research degrees) are the only ones deserving of the title "doctor."
JDs do not, and should not use the title "doctor."
JDs are just as deserving as MDs of the title "doctor."
MDs do, but should not use the title "doctor" (obviously, I know that this is commonly accepted in our society and will not change, but as an intellectual matter, I believe that it is wrong for them to use this title).

Here's some more food for thought. What do people think about JDs using the title "doctor" when in a foreign country where lawyers are customarily called "doctor" or where the only possible way that people would understand the extent of an American lawyer's education is if he used the title "doctor"?


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

GMF said:


> But please note that the title of the page linked is "Research Doctorate Programs" and "Recognized Research Doctorates." At the bottom of the page you'll find the following:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In the first passage you cited, a clear distinction is made between a research doctoral degree (also called a doctorate) and a professional doctoral degree (not generally called a doctorate). You have admitted before that there is a great difference between a PhD and a JD. This bit from the DOE website only emphasizes that fact. It would still be incumbent upon you to demonstrate that a professional doctoral degree carries with it the title of doctor given the difference between the degrees.

With regard to the second passage you cited, I believe that I now understand part of your confusion as to how the titles apply. Your reading of the second passage would be correct if universities granted titles. They do not grant titles. They grant degrees. Universities have discretion in terms of the title assigned to the degrees that they award. They do not award titles and therefore do not have discretion over the title given to the degree recipient.

Titles are given by convention, by people who know about these things referring to holders of degrees in a certain way. Given that JDs are not called Dr, your claim that they are entitled to that designation flys in the face of common practice and common sense.

Why do you think it is that JDs do not refer to themselves as Dr? It certainly isn't due to their being title-shy given the prevalence of the use of Esq. It is due to the fact that a JD is not considered a doctorate.


----------



## Borat (Sep 23, 2006)

If JD is doctorate, then why it outranked by a master degree? (LLM)

I make new song, you like?

'Throw the JD down the well/So my country can be free/you must grab him by his doctorate/then we have a big party'

'Wow wow wee wah!'


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

JMatt said:


> I'll make this poll anonymous, but was curious about the education level here.


The education level, or the formal education level?


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

Welcome back, JLP


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Work other professional, yet post-Master's into this too please. A good example would be the Dr.PH. or Doctor of Public Health. Usually must have an MPH first but it is deemed a professional degree with an internship and report, not a thesis.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Cantabrigian said:


> Welcome back, JLP


Thanks, Cantab :icon_smile:


----------

