"..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 RogueAcademic

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.

If you are really that worried about that one problem in that one (of thousands) recruitment method, why not put your degree as LLB (Graduate) or something where it says 'Other Title (if not listed)' instead of selecting the normal LLB?

If employers think that your graduate law program is as important as you do, then I'm sure they'll understand why you put it in that section. That being said, I honestly doubt many would care at all.

Alternatively, shoot cvMail a note that they should add LLB (Graduate) to the list. If they think it's as important as you do, they can easily add it. Like I said above, though, I doubt they care either.

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.

But what we'd like to know is what professional experience they have as apart from an LLB student... Do you really think that employers are going to hire a BA, JD student over a BA, LLB (Graduate) student?

Either way, you can't argue that the JD has been a system that's worked very well for decades at Harvard and Yale.

I assume you wanted to put a double negative in there somewhere...?

[KFunk]

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

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.

I realise that cvMail doesn't directly distinguish between undergraduate and graduate degrees. I did register, which is why I was able to provide an algorithm which would more effectively identify graduate students, i.e. limit applications to:

(1) Applicants from universities offering graduate programs (since cvmail includes a 'university' field)

(2) Applicants commencing in year X and finishing in X + 2, or perhaps X + 3 as well (since cvmail includes such fields)

Large firms will have the IT capacity to perform such a search - and if it more effectively identifies graduate students why wouldn't they?

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

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.

And as I have been replying - no, 'JD' is not the only way to distinguish oneself. It takes very little imagination to come up with alternatives.

You're falsely equating LLB with 'undergraduate' to show that LLB (the degree label) should be rejected. This is an equivocation fallacy and does not show why graduate LLB programs should be ditched in favour of JDs (especially in the absence of an argument showing that a JD is the only way to distinguish oneself).

[RogueAcademic]

Originally Posted by KFunk

I know very little about the ivy league world).[/i]

That's probably where you've been going wrong.... you're arguing that the UMelb changes are:

Originally Posted by KFunk

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

As I described, the UMelb changes are based wholly around the US JD system. The application requirements for the UMelb JD are now the same for Harvard and Yale and the other US universities, going as far as having to complete the US-based LSAT test. So your accusations of 'fancy degree titles' and 'fast-tracked degrees' etc, well it's system that's been tried and tested, and has worked well in the top tier US universities for decades, including the top tier law schools of Harvard and Yale.

[KFunk]

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

That's probably where you've been going wrong.... you're arguing that the UMelb changes are:

No, you're incorrect. It was a loosely connected observation which had very little to do with the core argument.

[PwarYuex]

Originally Posted by KFunk

I realise that cvMail doesn't directly distinguish between undergraduate and graduate degrees.

Like I said above, you can put it in the 'Other title (if not listed)'. Problem solved.

However, I honestly think this is all irrelevant. Is anyone really worried that employers will only want graduates, or somehow think that the alternate pathway into the same final product (ie an accredited law degree) is going to make a difference?

[RogueAcademic]

Originally Posted by KFunk

Large firms will have the IT capacity to perform such a search - and if it more effectively identifies graduate students why wouldn't they

Under the LLB system, applications for grad LLB did not take into account professional work history as part of the application process, unlike the JD at UMelb (and Monash) which makes it one of the main criteria. From my conversations with law recruiters and HR personnel at law firms, because of this it was simply not considered in the LLB system.

Originally Posted by KFunk

You're falsely equating LLB with 'undergraduate' to show that LLB (the degree label) should be rejected. This is an equivocation fallacy and does not show why graduate LLB programs should be ditched in favour of JDs (especially in the absence of an argument showing that a JD is the only way to distinguish oneself).

So where did I say the LLB should be dumped? If nothing else, I support the simultaneous existence of the LLB and JD.

[RogueAcademic]

Originally Posted by PwarYuex

Is anyone really worried that employers will only want graduates

Again, I never said that law firms only want graduates, far from it. Law firms recruit from the LLB cohort because they want fresh graduates with no prior work history so that they can train and mold in their own image.

On the other hand, JD graduates potentially come with professional achievements and work history with which to add and enhance the work of the law firm, amongst other things.

[PwarYuex]

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

Under the LLB system, applications for grad LLB did not take into account professional work history as part of the application process, unlike the JD at UMelb (and Monash) which makes it one of the main criteria. From my conversations with law recruiters and HR personnel at law firms, because of this it was simply not considered in the LLB system.

Okay, look that's an immensely practical issue that stems from conversations that you had. I personally think that recruiters know how to get the best deal for themselves...

So where did I say the LLB should be dumped? If nothing else, I support the simultaneous existence of the LLB and JD.

Er, but you're constantly bringing up Harvard and Yale as an ideal model. You even suggested that one of us email them with regards to their system. And now, what...?

(I personally think that talking about these schools is irrelevant to us, but since you bring it up)

[RogueAcademic]

Originally Posted by KFunk

No, you're incorrect. It was a loosely connected observation which had very little to do with the core argument.

I've already addressed your proposition that there is no difference between JD v LLB. But having another look at your previous post:

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).

As I was saying, some med schools are now openly stating that they prefer students who have a healthcare/biomed background. These students transition much easier into the medical profession and the patient-doctor relationship, and they are more familiar with the healthcare profession and are more likely to last through the medical degree and the subsequent career in medicine. A similar argument is being made for the JD. You can't dispute that after UMelb started offering the JD, JDs started popping up in a number of other Australian universities. So we'll have to see whether UMelb's MD will affect the Australian medical education landscape as well in the years to come.

[RogueAcademic]

Originally Posted by PwarYuex

I personally think

What you personally think? I've given you clear examples of how cvMail works, and I've explained and explained again the reasons for UMelb's move to the JD, all of which are well-known. What you think clearly has no bearing on reality.

Originally Posted by PwarYuex

Er, but you're constantly bringing up Harvard and Yale as an ideal model. I personally think that talking about these schools is irrelevant to us, but since you bring it up)

Here's where you're going wrong. Kfunk has been making accusations that UMelb's changes are nothing but fancy titles and fast-tracked degrees at the expense of lowering the quality of education. UMelb has been openly stating that they are following the US model which has been in place for decades. Clearly it's a system that's working for Harvard and Yale, amongst others. That's the flaw in kfunk's argument (you ended up supporting the point I was making!) that it's only going to lower the quality of education. UMelb is already a top-ranking university in Australia, they are clearly and openly pushing to compete with the top US universities.

[KFunk]

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

Here's where you're going wrong. Kfunk has been making accusations that UMelb's changes are nothing but fancy titles and fast-tracked degrees at the expense of lowering the quality of education.

Straw man argument: I never stated this, I have stated explicitly that I did not intend to convey this message, and still you argue this point. Are you reading my posts??

[RogueAcademic]

Originally Posted by KFunk

Straw man argument: I never stated this, I have stated explicitly that I did not intend to convey this message, and still you argue this point. Are you reading my posts??

I'm certainly reading your post here.

[PwarYuex]

Originally Posted by KFunk

Straw man argument: I never stated this, I have stated explicitly that I did not intend to convey this message, and still you argue this point. Are you reading my posts??

Yeah... To be honest I can't even follow what he's going on about. Good luck with it.

[RogueAcademic]

Originally Posted by PwarYuex

Yeah... To be honest I can't even follow what he's going on about.

That says more about you than anything else.

[KFunk]

Originally Posted by RogueAcademic

I'm certainly reading your post here.

A post into which you are reading specifics about Melbourne uni and ivy league institutions. I mention no such thing. It largely relates to universities I am in close contact with like UNSW and USyd - simple as that. It is not a universally observed trend.