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

[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]

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]

Forgive my ignorance--PAE?

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

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

 

[xeuyrawp]

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]

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]

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.

 

[xeuyrawp]

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:

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]

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.

- 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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[xeuyrawp]

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]

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.

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.

 

[xeuyrawp]

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]

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...

 

[xeuyrawp]

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]

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.

 

[xeuyrawp]

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]

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.