"..growing number of law schools .. around the world that have moved to a JD.." (2 Viewers)

[RogueAcademic]

"... to replace the current LLB."

Growing number? Anyone have any numbers on this? Interesting that they mentioned Uni of Melb and Monash as well.

Western law debates change of LLB to JD

 

[lionking1191]

there seems to be a general shift towards grad entry in search of more 'mature' and 'rounded' students with life experience. this goes for med as well as law.

 

[KFunk]

there seems to be a general shift towards grad entry in search of more 'mature' and 'rounded' students with life experience. this goes for med as well as law.

Aye, so it does, but you achieve such things by altering entry criteria or changing the course from undergraduate to graduate, not by including 'doctor' in the degree title.

The article presents a fairly hollow debate (for JD vs LLB):

- There may be a (very) modest effect on employment prospects
- Maybe it will help law students to be treated like post grads +/- med students
- Everyone else is doing it (let's join them!)

Bastion of reason.

 

[circusmind]

As far as I can see, all it does is reduce access to legal education. By the time we have graduated, the only difference between me and a JD student is one year's university study. We both have non-legal undergrad degrees.

 

[RogueAcademic]

As far as I can see, all it does is reduce access to legal education. By the time we have graduated, the only difference between me and a JD student is one year's university study. We both have non-legal undergrad degrees.

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.

 

[circusmind]

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.

Of course. It would be a mistake to channel all of us into post-grad law though. It would be fair to say that there is a need for both the enthusiasm of youth and the cunning of old age amongst law grads, yes?

(my main objection to a shift towards post-grad legal education is being forced to listen to the interminable questions, demands and pointless anecdotes of mature-agers. Of course, that also means less undergrad punks text messaging, giggling and watching dvds during lectures. Swings and roundabouts....)

 

[RogueAcademic]

Of course. It would be a mistake to channel all of us into post-grad law though. It would be fair to say that there is a need for both the enthusiasm of youth and the cunning of old age amongst law grads, yes?

(my main objection to a shift towards post-grad legal education is being forced to listen to the interminable questions, demands and pointless anecdotes of mature-agers. Of course, that also means less undergrad punks text messaging, giggling and watching dvds during lectures. Swings and roundabouts....)

I don't know if it's a mistake, but Harvard being one of the top law schools in the world is based in the US and they don't seem to have had any problems with it, along with the other law schools there, Ivy League or not.

Your second paragraph though, I believe are broad stereotyping and inaccurate generalisations. Are you seeking to use that reasoning as your main argument against the JD?

 

[circusmind]

I don't know if it's a mistake, but Harvard being one of the top law schools in the world is based in the US and they don't seem to have had any problems with it, along with the other law schools there, Ivy League or not.

One could say the same thing for Oxford and Cambridge. I think both approaches have merit, I'm just concerned that we may find ourselves going down the American path of eliminating undergad law altogether. It is of course a good thing if people come to their law studies with prior experience, knowledge, academic skill etc etc. But this could be said of any discipline. I'm sure accountants would be well served by being forced to do a B.A before they learn their trade as well. I think the issue is requiring people to jump through excessive (and expensive and time consuming) hoops before they can sit down in that first torts lecture.

Surely as (aspiring) lawyers we should be concerned that, as a matter of access to justice, legal education is made available to those who want it?

Your second paragraph though, I believe are broad stereotyping and inaccurate generalisations. Are you seeking to use that reasoning as your main argument against the JD?

It was a joke. Lighten up .

As an aside, though, this is another reason to keep both undergrad and post-grad law degrees going. I've enjoyed mixing with the different crowds that are present in my lectures, where JDs, LLBs, and LLB(G)s all interact. I've also noticed that no one group has a monopoly on insight or academic success. There are brilliant undergrads and dull JDs, and vice versa.

 

[RogueAcademic]

One could say the same thing for Oxford and Cambridge. I think both approaches have merit

Well that's where I'm coming from, I don't have a particularly strong opinion as to whether the LLB should go or not. It just is, and it's not an issue that bothers me particularly.

I think the issue is requiring people to jump through excessive (and expensive and time consuming) hoops before they can sit down in that first torts lecture.

Surely as (aspiring) lawyers we should be concerned that, as a matter of access to justice, legal education is made available to those who want it?

But there is one example where I have a strong opinion on, and that is graduate medicine. I am a firm supporter of grad med, the grad med student cohort are generally more focused on what they want, they seem to have made a more informed choice on medicine as a life-long career and have worked hard to get there, and they have the life experience to be able to develop (or already have developed) doctor-patient (or just simply human-to-human) interaction. Generally speaking of course. It is from this perspective that I view the JD cohort with some similarity in regards to the issue you brought up about legal education being made available to those who want it.

Access to justice is a separate matter to access to legal education and a legal qualification. It's like saying access to medical treatment is akin to access to medical education and a medical degree. That's irrelevant.

 

[circusmind]

Access to justice is a separate matter to access to legal education and a legal qualification. It's like saying access to medical treatment is akin to access to medical education and a medical degree. That's irrelevant.

I'd point out that the average, well-informed, responsible citizen should probably consider themselves an actor (no matter how minor) in the political/legal system, and by contrast a consumer of medical services. Further, that opening up the legal profession is an important influence on the accessibility of justice in the long term.

But then, I am procrastinating. I should be getting back to my LLB, as it were. Hah.

 

[RogueAcademic]

I'd point out that the average, well-informed, responsible citizen should probably consider themselves an actor (no matter how minor) in the political/legal system, and by contrast a consumer of medical services.

Sorry, what do you mean by that? Can you elaborate?

Further, that opening up the legal profession is an important influence on the accessibility of justice in the long term.

But see, you're not taking into account the fact that there are now more law students than there are legal jobs available in the system. Far more. Accessibility to justice, if we're talking from a community legal or Legal Aid point of view, is already at its peak at this stage (whether accessibility is actually, well, accessible or not). Public funding is not going to increase simply because there is an increase of law graduates. In that circumstance, people don't generally go through all that trouble to get into and complete an LLB simply with a goal of having 'access to justice'.

And this argument for access to justice doesn't take into account the vast area of law that doesn't actually involve 'justice', but rather lawyering in an everyday commercial or corporate sense, keeping the wheels turning so to speak.

And in fact, while we're on the topic of justice, I've found more law students who are genuinely passionate* about justice and human rights in the JD cohort than the LLB students. The LLB students are more likely to be interested in vague concepts of working in a private commercial law firm with a 'high salary'.

*With personal and professional reasons and life experience, and history leading up to how this passion came about, whether because they've had human rights or justice issues themselves in the past or because they've worked for human rights/justice-based organisations.

 

[circusmind]

Sorry, what do you mean by that? Can you elaborate?

That your comparison of access to justice/access to medical services is flawed. I think in the broadest sense, access to justice and the success of our civil society depends on the law remaining in the hands of the many, rather than a privileged few. I don't have any problem with medical knowledge being concentrated in a class of experts whose services must be relied on by laymen. On the other hand, I think it is dangerous to entrust a large amount of political and social power to an expert class of lawyers. Therefore I'm wary of any move which might further insulate legal education from the masses.

But see, you're not taking into account the fact that there are now more law students than there are legal jobs available in the system. Far more. Accessibility to justice, if we're talking from a community legal or Legal Aid point of view, is already at its peak at this stage (whether accessibility is actually, well, accessible or not). Public funding is not going to increase simply because there is an increase of law graduates. In that circumstance, people don't generally go through all that trouble to get into and complete an LLB simply with a goal of having 'access to justice'.

I mean accessibility in the broadest possible sense. Not in terms of how many lawyers are produced, but in terms of who has the option of becoming legally trained, or who is put off legal training by cost/time/etc.

And in fact, while we're on the topic of justice, I've found more law students who are genuinely passionate* about justice and human rights in the JD cohort than the LLB students. The LLB students are more likely to be interested in vague concepts of working in a private commercial law firm with a 'high salary'.

*With personal and professional reasons and life experience, and history leading up to how this passion came about.

I think that's a generalisation, but you may well be right. Certainly, the social justice aspirations of LLB students often melt away after a hard slog in law school. A mature-age student may well be more inclined to stay the course. If you have spent 10yrs working in the community/public/charity sector, you're probably unlikely to jump ship for corporate law after a few contracts tutes, after all.

The main thing I'm trying to get at is that law should be accessible as a generalist, and therefore undergraduate degree. I'm doing an LLB not necessarily to become a legal profession, but as a complement to my B.A. I want to work in government/policy. I'll probably not ever practise law in a formal sense.

I think it's a positive thing for people with legal training to be working in a diverse range of areas, and 'professionalising' the study of law into a grad discipline probably defeats this.

 

[RogueAcademic]

I think it is dangerous to entrust a large amount of political and social power to an expert class of lawyers. Therefore I'm wary of any move which might further insulate legal education from the masses.

Is that what's happening in the US where it's all graduate legal education only?

I think it's a positive thing for people with legal training to be working in a diverse range of areas, and 'professionalising' the study of law into a grad discipline probably defeats this.

On the contrary - I would argue that you'd see more people from diverse backgrounds and more importantly diverse life experience in the JD cohort, who are able to contribute with more focus and depth of understanding based on their backgrounds or history. Most LLB students are straight out of school with limited life experience, when talking about a 'diverse range of areas' in that sense.

 

[neo o]

Personally, I wish that I'd waited and done a JD instead of doing a straight LLB. Coming straight out of school though, with a high UAI, it isn't easy to "throw it all away" and tell your parents that you're going to do graduate law and an undergraduate arts degree in the mean time. I know I tried.

The thing is, I don't see much benefit in the JD in an of itself. At least at ANU the only difference between the old LLB(Grad) and new JD are three research courses. The real benefit to doing the JD is the added maturity and life experience you acquire before starting law.

 

[hfis]

I was going to chime in and say pretty much the same thing. 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. 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. But not before they've paid for the privilege, of course.

 

[RogueAcademic]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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..