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

[PwarYuex]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

Originally Posted by KFunk

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.

Which they even admit!

At least on the other hand, they're downsizing their named degrees in an effort to cut down confusion created by the previous thoughts that, when it comes to marketing, 'more is better'. MQ's doing the same thing for 2010... Can't wait to transfer back into a normal degree. :S

Edit:

Originally Posted by 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?).

Ack I didn't see your second post.

I was under the impression that Melbourne was generally cutting down the number of named degrees? But you're right in that JD, MD, etc is all about marketing. USyd's direct from school entrance into BA(Advanced)(Hons) is a prime example of it.

It saddens my inner idealist.

hahah, university bureaucracy will kill any idealism. I sat in a 2hr meeting, in which at least 30 minutes was devoted to the idea that the subject labels above the respective assignment drop-boxes should have a less intimidating font, and definitely not be printed in capitals because it SCARES STUDENTS. :S

[RogueAcademic]

Originally Posted by KFunk

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

If you're not already aware, many top tier and mid tier law firms use cvMail as a way to organise clerkship and traineeship applications. If you're a law student, you should get familiar with it as early as possible. You plug in your academic results, your degree(s), your CV and other personal details. Each law firm will then filter the applications according to their individual requirements. As you know, some law firms receive thousands more applications than they have available vacancies. So CVMail is a mechanism with which they use to ease the distillation process.

For the purposes of a hypothetical scenario - some law firms may completely filter out students who receive below 70 for certain core subjects like contracts, property corporations law etc.

Or they may filter out academic results with a GPA that falls below a certain point.

Or, for example an IP law firm may use CVMail to single out students who have completed specific IP subjects and the results they received for that.

Or, some law firms may completely filter out applicants from all universities except for applicants from 'certain' universities only.

Originally Posted by KFunk

- the degree title doesn't mean squat.

Or, they may search through applicants as two distinct groups of LLB or JD. This is because accompanying CVs from JD applicants will generally be much more extensive that those from straight-out-of-school LLB graduates, and will play a much larger role in applicant selection than from LLB graduates. CVs from LLB graduates will generally be based more on academic results and possibly other extracurricular uni-related achievements like moot court participation, law essay prizes etc.

Originally Posted by KFunk

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.

Originally Posted by PwarYuex

Which they even admit!

Marketing absolutely plays a crucial role, that's never been a secret at all..... the tertiary education sector is a multi-million dollar industry, there's supply and demand, reputation and trademarks to protect, universities are not charity organisations. Did you think marketing played no role in the formation of the Go8? Glyn Davis has also said that he wants to bring UMelb more in line with the US system and recognition, hence the name and program changes.

Originally Posted by KFunk

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.

You should put that in an email and send it to Harvard, Yale, Columbia, UCLA, and all the other Ivy League universities about their fancy degree titles, fast-tracked degrees, artificially inflated grades and inflexible but bureaucratically simpler, degree requirements. I think a revolution is at hand to change it all back to non-fancy degree titles, slow-tracked degrees, genuinely deflated grades, and flexible but bureaucratically complicated degree requirements.

[PwarYuex]

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

You should put that in an email and send it to Harvard, Yale, Columbia, UCLA, and all the other Ivy League universities

UCLA isn't an Ivy. Los Angeles is sorta on the other side of America to them. I don't even think Ivy would grow in California... But anyway...

about their fancy degree titles

Which of those unis have fancy 'degree titles'? Not that I really know what you mean by 'title' - do you mean major, or what myself and KFunk are talking about - the name of the degree?

The bottom line is that straight out of high-school, if students want to go to an Ivy, UCLA, Chicago, etc, 95% of students look at a BSc or a BA. How is any of that fancy? It's not at all.

, fast-tracked degrees, artificially inflated grades and inflexible but bureaucratically simpler, degree requirements.

Again...? How are they fast-tracked, how are grades artificially inflated, and how the hell would you call a top-tier uni in the US 'inflexible'? :-/

If you'd actually like to learn about admissions into the Big Three, check this book out. It's actually relevant with the other great US colleges, as well. Anyway, if you knew anything about US admissions, you'd see it has nothing to do with 'artificially inflated grades'... :S

To be honest, I think you really have no idea what you're talking about.

[RogueAcademic]

Originally Posted by PwarYuex

UCLA isn't an Ivy... Los Angeles is sorta on the other side of America to them... But anyway...

No but UCLA's law school is one of the top tier law schools in the US, on par with the Ivy Leagues.

Originally Posted by PwarYuex

Which of those unis have fancy 'degree titles'? Not that I really know what you mean by 'title' - do you mean major, or what myself and KFunk are talking about - the name of the degree?

The bottom line is that straight out of high-school, if students want to go to an Ivy, UCLA, Chicago, etc, 95% of students look at a BSc or a BA. How is any of that fancy? It's not at all.

Again...? How are they fast-tracked, how are grades artificially inflated, and how the hell would you call a top-tier uni in the US 'inflexible'? :S

Anyway, if you knew anything about US admissions, you'd see it has nothing to do with 'artificially inflated grades'... :S

To be honest, I think you really have no idea what you're talking about.

lol on the contrary, I think you are a bit lost in the debate. Do you realise you're arguing my point for me against kfunk's argument? I could leave it to kfunk to explain to you what he was getting at, or you could go back and read his post.

[PwarYuex]

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

lol on the contrary, I think you are a bit lost in the debate. Do you realise you're arguing my point for me against kfunk's argument? I could leave it to kfunk to explain to you what he was getting at, or you could go back and read his post.

I would hardly call any discourse with you a 'debate'. Generally if someone quotes someone and then responds, it implied that they've read their post, mate.

Just to summarise:

1. You said that having a specifically-named degree was important for graduands of that degree, because it then showed that they were better experienced, etc.
2. KFunk then pointed out that you can just say that you did a grad degree, as you're effectively studying the same thing.
3. I then asked whether you thought that people who thus did a graduate Arts degree should be awarded something else. (You responded that this is a 'different context', which I think we all know... We're wondering why you think the examples are not analogous...)
4. KFunk pointed out that my example was analogous, and this is the very point. He commented that marketing was obviously the main factor, and that the result made him sad.
5. I said that pretty much anything to do with university bureaucracy would make him sad.
6. You posted a bunch of gibberish which didn't actually respond to anything.
7. I replied to this.
8. Now you're implying I'm somehow lost in the debate.

Anything else? Tbh, I think you should give up.

[RogueAcademic]

Originally Posted by PwarYuex

I would hardly call any discourse with you a 'debate'. Generally if someone quotes someone and then responds, it implied that they've read their post, mate.

Tbh, I think you should give up.

Well, I see you've given up debating on the points and resorted to schoolboy insults instead...

[PwarYuex]

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

Well, I see you've given up debating on the points and resorted to schoolboy insults instead...

Sorry, I updated my post. See above.

But I honestly don't see any point in responding to you. Do you see all the questions in my post above? Why don't you respond to them and not claim that I've somehow given up debating? :-/

[RogueAcademic]

Originally Posted by PwarYuex

Just to summarise:

1. You said that having a specifically-named degree was important for graduands of that degree, because it then showed that they were better experienced, etc.
2. KFunk then pointed out that you can just say that you did a grad degree, as you're effectively studying the same thing.
3. I then asked whether you thought that people who thus did a graduate Arts degree should be awarded something else. (You responded that this is a 'different context', which I think we all know... We're wondering why you think the examples are not analogous...)
4. KFunk pointed out that my example was analogous, and this is the very point. He commented that marketing was obviously the main factor, and that the result made him sad.
5. I said that pretty much anything to do with university bureaucracy would make him sad.
6. You posted a bunch of gibberish which didn't actually respond to anything.
7. I replied to this.
8. Now you're implying I'm somehow lost in the debate.

Anything else? Tbh, I think you should give up.

I'd say that was pretty much a one-sided biased summary, anything you don't understand or agree with is 'gibberish'. And that's what I mean by your 'schoolboy' mentality.

[PwarYuex]

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

I'd say that was pretty much a one-sided biased summary, anything you don't understand or agree with is 'gibberish'. And that's what I mean by your 'schoolboy' mentality.

Well then why don't you address my direct questions to you, or indeed correct my summary? :-/

Er, and you don't have to elaborate on your idea of a schoolboy mentality, we all get it.

[RogueAcademic]

Originally Posted by PwarYuex

Well then why don't you address my direct questions to you, or indeed correct my summary? :-/

Simple, because if you read carefully, you've argued my points for me against kfunk's comments which I gave you the link to.

[PwarYuex]

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

Simple, because if you read carefully, you've argued my points for me against kfunk's comments which I gave you the link to.

Yes, you've said this already... Although KFunk and myself seem to be in total agreement... Er, anyway.

[RogueAcademic]

Originally Posted by PwarYuex

Yes, you've said this already...

And yet you still don't see it.

[KFunk]

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

Or, they may search through applicants as two distinct groups of LLB or JD. This is because accompanying CVs from JD applicants will generally be much more extensive that those from straight-out-of-school LLB graduates, and will play a much larger role in applicant selection than from LLB graduates. CVs from LLB graduates will generally be based more on academic results and possibly other extracurricular uni-related achievements like moot court participation, law essay prizes etc.

But it's a faulty generalisation since there exist graduate LLB programs. The relevant search would be between undergraduate and graduate programs. Surely they could limit applicantions to (1) those coming from universities offering graduate law and (2) those from students who commence in year X and graduate in X +2, or X + 3 (using the information made available in cvmail profiles).

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

Marketing absolutely plays a crucial role, that's never been a secret at all..... the tertiary education sector is a multi-million dollar industry, there's supply and demand, reputation and trademarks to protect, universities are not charity organisations. Did you think marketing played no role in the formation of the Go8? Glyn Davis has also said that he wants to bring UMelb more in line with the US system and recognition, hence the name and program changes.

As I have stated above, I dislike the smoke and mirrors approach to selling education. A JD does not make you better in bed.

[KFunk]

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

Simple, because if you read carefully, you've argued my points for me against kfunk's comments which I gave you the link to.

No, he's arguing the same thing.

You seem to be making a straw man argument against my aside regarding general changes that I have observed (in Australian universities - I know very little about the ivy league world). Your ivy league-related points have little to do with this, and nothing to do with the core argument, i.e. 'a rose by any other name...'

[RogueAcademic]

Originally Posted by KFunk

But it's a faulty generalisation since there exist graduate LLB programs. The relevant search would be between undergraduate and graduate programs. Surely they could limit applicantions to (1) those coming from universities offering graduate law and (2) those from students who commence in year X and graduate in X +2, or X + 3 (using the information made available in cvmail profiles).

cvMail does not differentiate between undergrad LLB and grad LLB. It's just "LLB". Try registering (if you haven't already if you're a law student) in cvMail and enter your academic details, it does not differentiate between undergrad or grad LLB. So the smaller number of grad LLBs are lumped together with the much larger undergrad LLB cohort.

Originally Posted by KFunk

As I have stated above, I dislike the smoke and mirrors approach to selling education. A JD does not make you better in bed.

That is a fair enough comment to make, but as I've been saying throughout this thread, it is the only way the JDs can distinguish themselves and their professional experience from the LLBs. Either way, you can't argue that the JD has been a system that's worked very well for decades at Harvard and Yale. IIRC, they had an LLB system as well many years ago before dumping it for the JD system.