« "Back to the Future, Again?" -- ELS in Context | Main | Decision Making in the U.S. Court of Appeals »

May 25, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b58069e200d835484e3853ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Not a Ph.D. in Law?:

Comments

Oz JD

My apologies if it is inappropriate to resurrect old threads, but this is the closest blog thread I could find for my question.

2 questions:

1. I am 45, and currently studying a JD/M.Ec at Australia's top (or top 3) Law School.

My undergrad included a B.Ec (1st Class Honors) and BA (History) (1st Class Honours). I am one year away from a masters in economics (which in Australia is the equivalent of the coursework for a US PhD). My concentration is Econometrics.

My academic interest are ELS, Law and Economics, and Corporate Regulation.

2. Age and hiring:

To cut a long story short, after a 10 year careers in management consulting and investment banking, I had quite an horrific accident. Anyways, once recovered, I decided to go to Law School to become an academic.

I am so far ranked in the top 3 of my year, and will graduate will 1st Class Honors. Every year, students from my Law School get accepted to Harvard's LLM, and many complete the SJD.

Does my age make my ambition completely unobtainable?

AEChloe

What solid text just about this topic. That’s worth to select the paper writing services that can do the essay writing or custom essay. Moreover, you will buy research paper.

aamirlaws@yahoo.com

Hey, i'm thinking to apply for a PhD in Law

Maria

Hey, i'm thinking to apply for a PhD in Law and i need a letter of reference from 2 professors.
One of them asked me to write it first and after he would have checked it.
i was wondering whether it's possible to have an example.

Thanks

New Focus

Law schools should offer the Ph.D. as an adjunct to the J.D. Actually, it makes no sense to earn a J.D. degree if one cannot refer to himself as "Dr." - the same as with other professional doctorates. Is the J.D. a doctorate or not? Nevertheless, for marketing purposes and for the expansion of a lawyer's employability [i.e. university assignments], the Ph.D. should be offered (in the nature of a major) to the J.D. candidate who takes an additional semester of specialized course work.

New Focus

Law schools should offer the Ph.D. as an adjunct to the J.D. Actually, it makes no sense to earn a J.D. degree if one cannot refer to himself as "Dr." - the same as with other professional doctorates. Is the J.D. a doctorate or not? Nevertheless, for marketing purposes and for the expansion of a lawyer's employability [i.e. university assignments], the Ph.D. should be offered (in the nature of a major) to the J.D. candidate who takes an additional semester of specialized course work.

J D

Non-first-professional doctorates seem to be inherently specialized. Thus, the SJD falls into the same category. Yet, with such further education and additional expense, what professional or economic benefit does the Ph.D. in law [now the S.J.D.] offer most lawyers who can work and teach the profession with the J.D.?

My recommendation is that law schools offer the Ph.D. as an adjunct to the J.D. Just add an additional fifteen semester units of elective courses, directed study, and a dissertation that is critiqued and approved by three practicing attorneys in a specialized field of law and this "research degree" is bestowed at graduation or at a later time when work has been completed successfully.

Ph.D.'s in law alone, however, serve no purpose except to confuse the public and to open the doors wider for those who practice law without a license.

Lawyers with Ph.D.'s in law increase their marketability as educators as well as enhance their images as experts in a given legal discipline.


J D

Non-first-professional doctorates seem to be inherently specialized. Thus, the SJD falls into the same category. Yet, with such further education and additional expense, what professional or economic benefit does the Ph.D. in law [now the S.J.D.] offer most lawyers who can work and teach the profession with the J.D.?

My recommendation is that law schools offer the Ph.D. as an adjunct to the J.D. Just add an additional fifteen semester units of elective courses, directed study, and a dissertation that is critiqued and approved by three practicing attorneys in a specialized field of law and this "research degree" is bestowed at graduation or at a later time when work has been completed successfully.

Ph.D.'s in law alone, however, serve no purpose except to confuse the public and to open the doors wider for those who practice law without a license.

Lawyers with Ph.D.'s in law increase their marketability as educators as well as enhance their images as experts in a given legal discipline.


blog2.zingip.com

Did your dean put you up to this? At 2 million lawyers in a population of 300 million (one for every 150 of us) don't you think that there is enough of us. Besides, it tough enough for me to find work now and I have four degrees (JD, MS and two BS's).

Christopher Zorn

Tim:

In theory, that's (sort of) right. Orly's post has a nice discussion of SJDs and other such creatures. For my part, I don't necessarily put a lot of stock in the letters that get used, so long as we're talking about (a) a doctoral-level degree that is (b) strongly research-focused, and that (c) becomes the de facto standard requirement for a faculty appointment in a law school. At the moment, SJDs are clearly (a), clearly not (c), and vary in their degree of (b).

Jeff:

I wouldn't see any reason not to have the bulk of the courses taught by current (JD-holding) faculty. And don't get me wrong: I'm very much in favor of interdisciplinary programs, and would hope that Ph.D.s in other departments would play a role in such a program in a law school, where appropriate. My bigger point, though, is that a Ph.D. in law need *not* be interdisciplinary, any more than one in sociology, history, etc. is. Just as (say) political scientists know aspects of the history and structure of political systems and incorporate that knowledge into their research, Ph.D.s in law would be expected to know about evidence, trusts, etc. and to incorporate that knowledge into theirs. And just as disciplinary scholars in other fields do (e.g., I know a lot about the federal courts, but very little about corporatism, Thomas Aquinas' political thought, or the politics of exchange rate regimes), they'd necessarily specialize in their research and teaching focus.

Jeff Harrison

I am wonder where one would find professors qualified to teach Ph.D. in law candidates. Would they be sociologists,historians, philosophers, economists, etc. A Ph.D. in law would presumable mean learning "about" law from a broad perspective and not, let's say, even more about evidence or procedure or trusts and estates. It seems like it would be an interdisciplinary program taught only partially within a law school.

Tim Hayes

Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't the S.J.D. (i.e., Doctor of Juridical Science) program at many institutions fill this role?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Conferences

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

Site Meter


Creative Commons License


  • Creative Commons License
Blog powered by Typepad