Top Law Schools

Nekrowizard wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Nekrowizard wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Nekrowizard wrote:I wouldn't even call a Ph.D a doctor. If a Ph.D I know insisted on it, I would relentlessly mock them both to their faces and behind their backs. It's either MD or nothing.

You will if you go into lit and have to work with expert witnesses.

FYI, you'll generally address experts as doctor not because the experts demand it (though some do), but because you'll want your expert to appear credentialed and authoritative in front of the jury.

I gathered that. Maybe I can slip in some mocking for the opposing experts.

No doubt. Also, when deposing opposing expert, make sure to say "doctor" with heavy sarcastic tone.

stego wrote:

PeanutsNJam wrote:

xspider wrote:This site is so weird, I assume we all want to be lawyers. But the majority appear to always try to downplay and belittle attorneys in most cases. I wouldn't call myself a doctor once I graduate school, unless maybe in a joke. But claiming people do "nothing of value" in law school and calling us garbage compared to other schools of education is ridiculous.

If people seem to be that ashamed of becoming an attorney, why not do something you would be proud of?

Getting a PhD requires you to do actual research and write a thesis that nobody else has ever written. You have to break new ground that literally no other human being has done. It can be small, but this process takes people on average 6 years to do. That's average. 6 straight years of research to create something entirely new. From what I've heard, the thesis defense is many orders of magnitude more humiliating and stressful than anything you will ever do in law school.

Law school is 1 year of a bloodbath, 1 year of just busy work, and 1 year of boredom.

The two are not comparable. Nobody is downplaying law school, but having a JD and wanting to be called "doctor" is like a chess player wanting to be called "athlete."

You're probably not working on your dissertation for all 6 years of your PhD program. You have other coursework. You are ABD (all but dissertation) when that is completed. You'd then spend at least 1-2 years working on the dissertation.
I haven't been through it but I would not say a dissertation defense is that stressful. If you're not ready, your advisor and your PhD committee won't let you defend. It's almost unheard of for someone to fail their defense.

JDs shouldn't call themselves doctors because nobody does that and therefore it is misleading as hell. It's also very douchey and pretentious.

Just because you're not likely to fail your dissertation defense doesn't mean it's not stressful.

Alsol lol at these wimpy 6-year PhDs.

As people have pointed out, a DBA is equivalent to an SJD or other doctorate; a JD is comparable to an MBA. The fact that it's called a JD has nothing to do with it really being comparable to a PhD and everything to do with wanting to create something distinct from the LLB, to show that it was a grad degree (once you reached a point where lots of people were getting BAs, so the value of an LLB was getting diluted; when the LLB was created, very very few people got BAs and it really was considered advanced).

KeYe88 wrote:

fliptrip wrote:

KeYe88 wrote:imo people feel acceptable to call DBA a dr. but refuse to call JD a doctor which is not quite fair

What does fairness have to do with this? Lawyers have a very convenient way of indicating their status to others, "esq".

If you want to be called doctor, you should probably get a degree that comes with it a social conferral of the title "doctor", otherwise you're going to be tilting at windmills. I want to warn you that I enjoy these conversations, so I can keep going as long as you can.

i think it is so nice of you to continue the conversation here... but then i want to ask: why jd wasnt called a juris master in the first place then, what is the point of setting
such a glorifying word “doctor” into the degree ..

Because the LLM already existed, but wasn't the same thing as the professional degree in law.

stego wrote:I haven't been through it but I would not say a dissertation defense is that stressful. If you're not ready, your advisor and your PhD committee won't let you defend. It's almost unheard of for someone to fail their defense.

I have been through it and it's pretty stressful. It's essentially two hours of experts in your field telling you the various ways you've fucked up the project you've been working on for two years, and asking you to explain/account for/correct those fuck ups on the spot.

There is no way I would have failed, and you're right that it's rare for anyone to fail, but that doesn't mean it's not hellish and difficult.

The rest of my PhD was pretty chill, for what it's worth, but I don't know that my experience was representative.

NONY IN THE HOUSE

KeYe88 wrote:

fliptrip wrote:

KeYe88 wrote:imo people feel acceptable to call DBA a dr. but refuse to call JD a doctor which is not quite fair

What does fairness have to do with this? Lawyers have a very convenient way of indicating their status to others, "esq".

If you want to be called doctor, you should probably get a degree that comes with it a social conferral of the title "doctor", otherwise you're going to be tilting at windmills. I want to warn you that I enjoy these conversations, so I can keep going as long as you can.

i think it is so nice of you to continue the conversation here... but then i want to ask: why jd wasnt called a juris master in the first place then, what is the point of setting
such a glorifying word “doctor” into the degree ..

and given that a lot of professors of law who are in fact practitioners of law, rather than researchers of law, only having obtained JD as their terminal degree, they are regarded as doctors, i mean Dr. xx

Capitol_Idea wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Nekrowizard wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Nekrowizard wrote:I wouldn't even call a Ph.D a doctor. If a Ph.D I know insisted on it, I would relentlessly mock them both to their faces and behind their backs. It's either MD or nothing.

You will if you go into lit and have to work with expert witnesses.

FYI, you'll generally address experts as doctor not because the experts demand it (though some do), but because you'll want your expert to appear credentialed and authoritative in front of the jury.

Also the (extremely few, to be honest) expert witnesses I have known make some crazy bank.

So, like, y'all can keep your scorn or whatever but they're not really the idiots here.

I would so love to be a professional expert witness. Unfortunately a PhD in medieval history doesn't get you there. Sadness. So many poor life choices.

Nony, you have a PhD in medieval history?

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Capitol_Idea wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Nekrowizard wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

Nekrowizard wrote:I wouldn't even call a Ph.D a doctor. If a Ph.D I know insisted on it, I would relentlessly mock them both to their faces and behind their backs. It's either MD or nothing.

You will if you go into lit and have to work with expert witnesses.

FYI, you'll generally address experts as doctor not because the experts demand it (though some do), but because you'll want your expert to appear credentialed and authoritative in front of the jury.

Also the (extremely few, to be honest) expert witnesses I have known make some crazy bank.

So, like, y'all can keep your scorn or whatever but they're not really the idiots here.

I would so love to be a professional expert witness. Unfortunately a PhD in medieval history doesn't get you there. Sadness. So many poor life choices.

Damn always assumed your PhD was in something like urban planning.

Let's keep beating the dead horse.

The JD is the ultimate outcome of C.C. Langdell's (who's pretty important at Harvard, they have just a few things named after him) to create graduate level professional training in law to mirror the graduate level professional training that had then become widely available in medicine. The moment that a bachelor's degree became required to get a degree in law, the "J.D." was born, even though because of tradition, it took many decades for schools far and wide to grant the J.D.

When you think that holding a J.D. means that you've completed a pre-set curriculum of courses and have met certain other universal standards, it seems just as valid a professional doctorate as any other.

Contrast that with an MBA, which lacks useful accrediting standards or a core curriculum. Is there a single thing that you can feel assured an MBA knows about or how to do in the same way I am pretty sure that anyone holding a J.D. can give a definition of what constitutes false imprisonment?

DrRighteous wrote:NONY IN THE HOUSE

PhD-lady-bro-fist bump

And no, law profs aren't called doctors, unless ththe have a PhD or SJD. Law is a weird not really real academic field that doesn't really have any distinctive training/methodology of its own (besides reading cases) and just scavenges from other academic fields.

But law profs make more than almost any other academics, so I doubt they care about the title.

(And yes, my PhD is supremely relevant and marketable.)

fliptrip wrote:Let's keep beating the dead horse.

The JD is the ultimate outcome of C.C. Langdell's (who's pretty important at Harvard, they have just a few things named after him) to create graduate level professional training in law to mirror the graduate level professional training that had then become widely available in medicine. The moment that a bachelor's degree became required to get a degree in law, the "J.D." was born, even though because of tradition, it took many decades for schools far and wide to grant the J.D.

When you think that holding a J.D. means that you've completed a pre-set curriculum of courses and have met certain other universal standards, it seems just as valid a professional doctorate as any other.

Contrast that with an MBA, which lacks useful accrediting standards or a core curriculum. Is there a single thing that you can feel assured an MBA knows about or how to do in the same way I am pretty sure that anyone holding a J.D. can give a definition of what constitutes false imprisonment?

agreed its a dead horse, but there are questions to be cleared

A. Nony Mouse wrote: But law profs make more than almost any other academics, so I doubt they care about the title.

Oh yeah, they make a shitload...highest paid professors at the U. of Texas for instance. Only profs who make more are probably in med or business schools.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

DrRighteous wrote:NONY IN THE HOUSE

PhD-lady-bro-fist bump

And no, law profs aren't called doctors, unless ththe have a PhD or SJD. Law is a weird not really real academic field that doesn't really have any distinctive training/methodology of its own (besides reading cases) and just scavenges from other academic fields.

But law profs make more than almost any other academics, so I doubt they care about the title.

(And yes, my PhD is supremely relevant and marketable.)

so how abt DBA, it can be irrelevant to researching, but it earns the doctor calling

KeYe88 wrote: agreed its a dead horse, but there are questions to be cleared

What questions are you talking about?

1. Can a JD call him or herself doctor? Yes, there is nothing preventing them from this, in much the same way that there's nothing preventing me from calling myself Emperor of the West, but I don't think many people will react well to either of those things happening.
2. Why is the JD not called doctor while other professional doctorates are? Tradition and the history of the JD's development in higher education.
3. What field is Nony's PhD in? Medieval history.

What else didn't we cover?

KeYe88 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

DrRighteous wrote:NONY IN THE HOUSE

PhD-lady-bro-fist bump

And no, law profs aren't called doctors, unless ththe have a PhD or SJD. Law is a weird not really real academic field that doesn't really have any distinctive training/methodology of its own (besides reading cases) and just scavenges from other academic fields.

But law profs make more than almost any other academics, so I doubt they care about the title.

(And yes, my PhD is supremely relevant and marketable.)

so how abt DBA, it can be irrelevant to researching, but it earns the doctor calling

DBAs are like SJDs, they are graduate degrees within professional schools and both are called doctor. No ambiguity here.

KeYe88 wrote:

fliptrip wrote:Let's keep beating the dead horse.

The JD is the ultimate outcome of C.C. Langdell's (who's pretty important at Harvard, they have just a few things named after him) to create graduate level professional training in law to mirror the graduate level professional training that had then become widely available in medicine. The moment that a bachelor's degree became required to get a degree in law, the "J.D." was born, even though because of tradition, it took many decades for schools far and wide to grant the J.D.

When you think that holding a J.D. means that you've completed a pre-set curriculum of courses and have met certain other universal standards, it seems just as valid a professional doctorate as any other.

Contrast that with an MBA, which lacks useful accrediting standards or a core curriculum. Is there a single thing that you can feel assured an MBA knows about or how to do in the same way I am pretty sure that anyone holding a J.D. can give a definition of what constitutes false imprisonment?

agreed its a dead horse, but there are questions to be cleared

Just out of curiosity, what kind of answers are you looking for that would clear up these questions...? None of us gave the degree its name and we (at least I) don't seem to have a sufficient answer for you if none of the explanations above were good enough. You can insist that lawyers should be called doctors all you want but they just aren't and probably never will be (and I don't think any of us are kicking to start up the movement). No one is going to recommend that someone should be the first one to start pushing it

fliptrip wrote:

KeYe88 wrote: agreed its a dead horse, but there are questions to be cleared

What questions are you talking about?

1. Can a JD call him or herself doctor? Yes, there is nothing preventing them from this, in much the same way that there's nothing preventing me from calling myself Emperor of the West, but I don't think many people will react well to either of those things happening.
2. Why is the JD not called doctor while other professional doctorates are? Tradition and the history of the JD's development in higher education.
3. What field is Nony's PhD in? Medieval history.

What else didn't we cover?

thanks for the sum up. are u a current jd or a graduate? i can see u providing nice justifications

I'm neither. I am an aspirant, who apparently likes being taken on rides of esoteric question asking fancy.

i once asked a recently-minted female PhD prof in undergrad a question by addressing her as "Ms." rather than "Dr." and was firmly excoriated in front of the class. i was pissed at the time but get it now.

FloridaCoastalorbust wrote:i once asked a recently-minted female PhD prof in undergrad a question by addressing her as "Ms." rather than "Dr." and was firmly excoriated in front of the class. i was pissed at the time but get it now.

Why on earth would you say "Ms." rather than "Prof.", even if you didn't say "Dr."? Did you address your male profs as "Mr."?

FloridaCoastalorbust wrote:i once asked a recently-minted female PhD prof in undergrad a question by addressing her as "Ms." rather than "Dr." and was firmly excoriated in front of the class. i was pissed at the time but get it now.

Why didn't you just address her as "professor X," like everyone does in undergrad?

FloridaCoastalorbust wrote:i once asked a recently-minted female PhD prof in undergrad a question by addressing her as "Ms." rather than "Dr." and was firmly excoriated in front of the class. i was pissed at the time but get it now.

Yeah I mean you deserved it (mostly because a student referring to a teacher as "Ms." sounds patronizing and disrespectful), but it's good that you recognize it now

toomanymornings wrote:

stego wrote:I haven't been through it but I would not say a dissertation defense is that stressful. If you're not ready, your advisor and your PhD committee won't let you defend. It's almost unheard of for someone to fail their defense.

I have been through it and it's pretty stressful. It's essentially two hours of experts in your field telling you the various ways you've fucked up the project you've been working on for two years, and asking you to explain/account for/correct those fuck ups on the spot.

There is no way I would have failed, and you're right that it's rare for anyone to fail, but that doesn't mean it's not hellish and difficult.

The rest of my PhD was pretty chill, for what it's worth, but I don't know that my experience was representative.

If that's your defense, you're doing it wrong. Qualifying was a bitch. That's where I'd expect people to flunk out. By the time I got my degree, I was the expert. No one in that room or the world for that matter, knew more than me about my research. All they could do is ask me questions and why I had not looked at their particular protein/cell type/whatever of interest.

Some dissertations require an original thought. I was talking with another PhD at ASW about this. Do you know how hard it is to have an original thought, test it, and either prove it or see that it failed and come up with one that works (bc science, much to my chagrin, does not believe in negative data). Yeah so with all due respect to MDs (and I've taken some of their classes too), no one understands.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

FloridaCoastalorbust wrote:i once asked a recently-minted female PhD prof in undergrad a question by addressing her as "Ms." rather than "Dr." and was firmly excoriated in front of the class. i was pissed at the time but get it now.

Why on earth would you say "Ms." rather than "Prof.", even if you didn't say "Dr."? Did you address your male profs as "Mr."?

Yea I did. I said it cause I thought it was respectful. Of course I was wrong. But it was a good learning experience!