Quote:
Originally Posted by daycart1
Right. Sometimes they are called "comprehensive" exams. They usually constitute a test on coursework and subject matter before one begins putting together a proposal for a PhD dissertation.
|
This is how it works in Canada as well. I just finished my comprehensives for both of my programmes and am I guess an ABD
Now onto the next stretch. We'll see how long it takes to write these babies. I'd like to graduate before I'm 40!
As for the JD bit. There was confusion regarding the term doctor in the early bit of last century I guess. In reality, the oldest known acredited programme of study was Canon Law which following 2, 5 and 8 years I believe one would achieve Bachelor, Master or Doctor status respectively. Soon after, Philosophy degrees and Civil Law degrees were also conferred in this manner (University of Bologna was the first to use this system if I'm not mistaken) Pretty well everyone in the world confers an LLB for a first law degree. The switch to JD was perhaps to stroke egos since the majority of US lawyers never achieve beyond the bachelor level. The move to JD was also a way of distinguishing between the European programme which would accept students straight from high school, as the US used to do. In this instance a JD or an MD for that matter, are known in the US as first professional doctorates. The JD was used to fall more closely in line with the MD degree which had followed the same moving on from the European MB BS I think it is. In essence they are merely recognized as undergraduate degrees by every other country in the world, and ironically enough, by US academia as well, since the LLM and SJD still exist. The SJD being the Doctor of Juridical Sciences (I believe some US schools may have "anglophonized" it to JSD, however that is bastardizing the latin
).
No lawyer with a JD refers to themselves as a doctor, as in: "Hi I'm Dr. Soandso." But rather, they only do so if they hold an MD or a PhD. What is odd is the obfuscation of doctor when referring to an MD, in reality, they are physicians with an additional bachelor degree, though an intense one, but somewhere in antiquity (or perhaps just in the past 100 years or so) a praxis was established to consider them doctors, and not physicians. Yet, is medical school more difficult than say...engineering physics? Not very likely, perhaps only in volume of work, but not even remotely close in terms of level of difficulty. So why the distinction between an MD as a doctorate and a BEng as an undergraduate? It goes to that confusing time of mixing physician with doctor.
Not that I'm trying to downplay anyone's achievements, this information is simply that, information on the various level of degrees. Though it does make for some interesting conversation for those not in the know when I tell them I'm pursuing my doctorate in juridical sciences and they ask if I don't already have one of those since I'm a lawyer? Then I go into a quick spiel on the differences. It doesn't really matter as long as a given university is able to properly assess the level of degree one has before admitting one to the next level. Since the JD is very well known abroad (at least amongst university administrators and admission departments) holding one is seen as the equivalent to an LLB or an LLC and thus easily accepted as qualification to pursue an LLM.
