"..growing number of law schools .. around the world that have moved to a JD.."

[RogueAcademic]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

Originally Posted by hfis

The only real 'benefit' that the JD brings (mature/informed students) has nothing to do with the program itself, and I think that the position is served well already by the graduate LLB program.

I kind of agree with this. But at present, for older, mature-age and experienced students, there isn't any other way to distinguish themselves from the masses of high school grads when everyone's out there applying for jobs.

Originally Posted by hfis

The change strikes me as purely aesthetic dick-waving that'll end up making law graduates have even more of an entitlement complex than they already do when they leave their chosen degree factory.

Now that's the kind of thing that I'd expect an LLB-aged student would say. That's exactly part of what makes all the difference.

[KFunk]

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

I kind of agree with this. But at present, for older, mature-age and experienced students, there isn't any other way to distinguish themselves from the masses of high school grads when everyone's out there applying for jobs.

Show evidence of study prior to law, or simply say 'mine was a graduate program'?

[circusmind]

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

Now that's the kind of thing that I'd expect an LLB-aged student would say. That's exactly part of what makes all the difference.

How stupid.

One would hope that your outstanding maturity and experience would shine through at interview, not in the choice of abbreviation after your name.

[sirfeathers]

OK well I'm not planning to do law, have never planned to do law and only found out what a JB was by reading this thread. But it would seem to me that phasing out the LLB would be ignoring the fact that a lot of undergrads today do it as a "generalist" degree anyway. As opposed to something like med which prescribes a very specific professional career path.

[RogueAcademic]

Originally Posted by KFunk

Show evidence of study prior to law, or simply say 'mine was a graduate program'?

I've found that they are a little more flexible, they seem to be interested in what's in your CV first and are more than happy to have a look at that in context of discussing flexible clerkships if you have other commitments during the normal prescribed clerkship season.

Originally Posted by sirfeathers

phasing out the LLB would be ignoring the fact that a lot of undergrads today do it as a "generalist" degree anyway. As opposed to something like med which prescribes a very specific professional career path.

That's a great point. But if they weren't intending to practice law, then there are other generalist degrees to do? As neo_o was saying earlier in this thread, I agree that for students who have the UAI to get into undergrad law straight from high school, it seems easier to get in now rather than later.

Originally Posted by circusmind

One would hope that your outstanding maturity and experience would shine through at interview, not in the choice of abbreviation after your name.

Obviously you wouldn't be using questionable language during a job interview..

[RogueAcademic]

I should add that I think with some decent PAE, whether it's an LLB or JD won't matter very much at all.

[circusmind]

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

I should add that I think with some decent PAE, whether it's an LLB or JD won't matter very much at all.

Forgive my ignorance--PAE?

[RogueAcademic]

Originally Posted by circusmind

Forgive my ignorance--PAE?

Post-admission experience (after completing traineeship/articles). Usually counted in years.

So, 5 PAE = 5 yrs post-admission experience.

[PwarYuex]

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

Technically yes. But in reality no. In my experience there is a world of difference between the average LLB graduate and a JD graduate. The JD graduate generally brings a lot more professional experience than a young LLB graduate does. In the JD courses at Monash and at Melb Uni bring in a lot of older experienced students. And that is how the JD students are differentiated from LLB grads.

So do you think that someone who happens to do a 'graduate' BA should then get a KD (an equally-puzzling choice of letter until it's explained), or should simply note that they're a graduate in all their documentation and actually prove themselves?

Edit: A fuck, beaten to it by Kfunk. Again.

[RogueAcademic]

Originally Posted by PwarYuex

So do you think that someone who happens to do a 'graduate' BA should then get a KD (an equally-puzzling choice of letter until it's explained), or should simply note that they're a graduate in all their documentation and actually prove themselves?

Completely different context. Makes no difference if it's a KD or BLitt in an arts context.

Another example - Melbourne Uni will be dropping their MBBS program and will have a US version instead, meaning Melb Uni med students will graduate with an MD. But it won't make a difference because Australia needs doctors and in the beginning the MD will only mean that the med graduate is a Melb Uni alumni. But increasingly, you can see that some med schools are openly stating that they prefer med school applicants to have a background in the health profession, like nurses, physiotherapists etc. It helps show that you have some experience in health care and treatment.

That's the same with law as well. If you've been an accountant for years in one of the Big 4, then you go and complete a law degree, well obviously the commercial law firms are going to pay specific attention to your CV when you approach them about a clerkship or traineeship. You'll be able to bring in a lot of commercial experience to the legal side of things. With the increase in the number of law schools in Australia and the increasing number of students competing for relatively few places in law firms, it might make a slight difference.

[DaGizza]

I had always thought that Australian unis struck a balance between age and experience with the combined law degree. English law students cannot bring inter-disciplinary thinking into their law degree whereas the Americans start to become legally educated by the age of 21.

A lot of people ask why under-grad law has to be combined or why is it not purely a post-grad degree. Under the combined system, students are only exposed to the most introductory concepts of law in first year, and the concepts slowly become mre sophisticated as you progress in your tertiary studies. Futhermore, for the first 3 or 4 years, the students are studying subject from two different faculties at the same time, which IMO gives the student an appreciation of the subtle differences and connections betwen two seemingly distant areas of higher education. The differences and similarities could range from content, methods of thinking, to methods of teaching and understanding their influence on wider society.

[hfis]

An 'appreciation of subtle differences' between two different areas of education doesn't exactly help you much in the real world (assuming you're among the 40% or so of people who go on to practise). The reason I transferred out of a combined degree into the straight law program was because I found that all my other degree did was distract me from my legal studies and prevent me from truly excelling in that area. If all someone wants to do is practise law, then tacking another degree onto that student's program is nothing more than a waste of their time and money.

[neo o]

Ditto here. I actually enjoy arts, but I get 8 non law units in my straight law degree, so it really didn't matter to me either way. To be honest, I think combined degrees have just become a bit of a fad.

[KFunk]

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

Completely different context. Makes no difference if it's a KD or BLitt in an arts context.

Another example - Melbourne Uni will be dropping their MBBS program and will have a US version instead, meaning Melb Uni med students will graduate with an MD. But it won't make a difference because Australia needs doctors and in the beginning the MD will only mean that the med graduate is a Melb Uni alumni. But increasingly, you can see that some med schools are openly stating that they prefer med school applicants to have a background in the health profession, like nurses, physiotherapists etc. It helps show that you have some experience in health care and treatment.

You don't seem to be quite addressing the point that both PwarYeux and I are making.

We're pushing the 'rose by any other name' argument - the degree title doesn't mean squat. The quality and nature of the degree program itself is what counts. It is fine to argue for the value of graduate programs, but this is a seperate issue to the title of the degree, which is what the OP's article appears to be about.

There are plenty of graduate medical programs in Australia and they generally award MBBS (whereas MD is usually reserved as a higher research degree in Aus and Britain). Melbourne's decision to award an MD, rather than MBBS, is all about marketing. Much the same for LLB vs JD. It's superficial bollocks.

[KFunk]

Adding to that:

It irks me partly because I see it as part of a general trend to bypass quality of education in favour of fancy degree titles, fast-tracked degrees, artifically inflated grades and inflexible, but beaurocratically simpler, degree requirements (why on earth should I have to complete a 1st year philosophy course as part of my major when I already know the material and could complete a more rigorous 3xxx level course instead?).

It saddens my inner idealist.