Jump to content
coyote

JD vs LLB

Recommended Posts

coyote    0

What is the difference between a JD and an LLB? Academically, financially, reputation-wise, career-wise, etc.?

 

Which Canadian schools offer a JD program? Are they any different/better than Canadian LLB programs?

 

Please, anyone add your thoughts to what the following blog article (from 2005) says: JD versus LL.B.[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diplock    9514

There are arguable differences between the sort of education and career prospects you might gain from the various Canadian law schools. I won't rehash the debate, which continues ad nauseum here and elsewhere. Those differences have nothing at all to do with whether a particular school calls their program a JD or a LLB.

 

Quite seriously, it's complete bullshit. And I'm speaking as a current U of T student, so you can avoid analyzing my motives as potential sour grapes. It's certainly worth considering what a particular school will mean for your future, but any attempt to render that analysis in terms of what the degree is called is simply stupid. That's like debating the merits of red cars vs. green cars. While it might be reasonable, in a narrow context, to talk about what colour you'd like to paint a car, it's inane to pretend the colour of the paint actually alters the substance of the vehicle.

 

All this topic will ever do is distract you from things that actually matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have heard a JD, or Juris Doctor, is a professional degree. The LLB, Legum Baccalaureus is the first degree in the study of law. A JD traditionally is awarded where the student has already successfully completed an undergraduate degree prior to entering law school. The LLB is given to those with a minimum of 2 years of university prior to law school. Though many Canadian Law students have an Undergrad prior to law school people of other countries, such as South Africa for example, can go directly from secondary to a law degree. While here in Canada LLB is regarded to be the same level as that of a JD, outside North America it has somewhat of a lower "rank"

If anyone has more correct information please feel free to add/correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lawjunky07    0

It means this

 

1. JD programs have greater standing internationally

 

2. No one will be admitted to a JD program without a completed undergraduate degree (the reason why it has greater standing than the 2 years minimum LLB).

 

3. Nothing in Canada outside that the new degree standing has been seen as a means to raise tuition rates and acceptance standards (Plans of this nature are at least being talked about at Queens, UBC and Western).

 

Schools who have a JD program: UofT and Queens

Schools who are in a serious process of switching over: UBC and Western.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kas    0

The Canadian LLB is a bit different than most LLBs. In New Zealand or some other countries you can start the LLB program straight after High School. In Canada you need 2 years undergrad experience before you can officially enter the LLB program. So the Canadian LLB program might be considered to have higher standards in some ways. The American JD, however requires the full undergrad experience (4 years bachelors), and hence it is an official graduate degree. The Canadian LLB version, although having the additional 2 year requirement of undergrad, is not an official graduate degree, and hence does not deserve the JD designation.

 

But you can kind of see where the tension lies. Some Canadian schools believe they deserve the JD designation because they require the additional 2 year requirement as opposed to the UK where you go straight from High School. However, others love the tradition, and don't really see it as an actual graduate program.

 

There's no real benefit I don't think. Why? High End employers know what they're doing, they'll know what the schools up here are doing anyway. They'll know it's not a true graduate program anyway, but they'll also know that it holds a bit more weight than the UK equivalent.

 

From my understanding at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slick_nick    2
The Canadian LLB is a bit different than most LLBs. In New Zealand or some other countries you can start the LLB program straight after High School. In Canada you need 2 years undergrad experience before you can officially enter the LLB program. So the Canadian LLB program might be considered to have higher standards in some ways. The American JD, however requires the full undergrad experience (4 years bachelors), and hence it is an official graduate degree. The Canadian LLB version, although having the additional 2 year requirement of undergrad, is not an official graduate degree, and hence does not deserve the JD designation.

 

But you can kind of see where the tension lies. Some Canadian schools believe they deserve the JD designation because they require the additional 2 year requirement as opposed to the UK where you go straight from High School. However, others love the tradition, and don't really see it as an actual graduate program.

 

There's no real benefit I don't think. Why? High End employers know what they're doing, they'll know what the schools up here are doing anyway. They'll know it's not a true graduate program anyway, but they'll also know that it holds a bit more weight than the UK equivalent.

 

From my understanding at least.

 

Surprisingly, there are a number of US law schools that do not require a student to have completed their bachelor's degree before entering. Not so surprisingly, most of these are crap schools, but Tulane is one solid school that has such a policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woodchuck    5

I really don't understand what the name change means ........

 

 

What "new" things can you do with the Canadian JD?

 

Nothing....

 

So, isn't this switch gonna confuse alot of people in Canada and the U.S?

 

yup.....

 

What are the benefits?

 

I still don't know the answer to this question....I am not against the switch per say, but I haven't heard any substantial discussion of the benefits. Mostly, I read catchy "buzzword" responses that are more suited to career-networking websites......Where's the meat in this sandwich? What's in it for numero uno?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kas    0
3. Nothing in Canada outside that the new degree standing has been seen as a means to raise tuition rates and acceptance standards (Plans of this nature are at least being talked about at Queens, UBC and Western).

 

Looks like Osgoode is looking into it right now too eh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
widget    623
I really don't understand what the name change means ........

 

 

What "new" things can you do with the Canadian JD?

 

Nothing....

 

So, isn't this switch gonna confuse alot of people in Canada and the U.S?

 

yup.....

 

What are the benefits?

 

I still don't know the answer to this question....I am not against the switch per say, but I haven't heard any substantial discussion of the benefits. Mostly, I read catchy "buzzword" responses that are more suited to career-networking websites......Where's the meat in this sandwich? What's in it for numero uno?

 

You get to call yourself doctor! That means if you ever stumble upon an accident scene, you can push through the crowd shouting "Step aside, I'm a doctor!" Once you get to the victim, you can pass him your card and ask him if he's thought about his legal options in relation to his situation, while all us poor LL.B.ers are jumping up and down at the back of the crowd trying to see what's happening.

 

Big sell for personal injury law.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rwalker130    1

One of the things that seems to get lost in this debate all too often is the difference between a US (ABA approved) JD and the U of T (or Queen's, et al) JD. The ABA requires that all admitted 1Ls at ABA accredited Law Schools have a full 4 year undergraduate degree. U of T still allows students who have only completed 2 years of their undergrad degree, into their first year class.

 

Until the Canadian schools offering JDs make the change and require the completion of a full undergraduate degree prior to admission there is still a HUGE difference between a US JD and a Canadian JD. Canadian law schools grant undergraduate degrees whereas US law schools grant graduate degrees.

 

Even if this change occurred, a person holding a Canadian JD would still only be allowed to write the bar exam in MA and NY. Again, this is the restriction in each state to ABA accredited JDs. Now, if you want to work in the US, these might be the only states in which you want to practice, but you could already do this with a regular old LLB.

 

It doesn't seem like the ABA will be accrediting U of T or Osgoode any time soon.

 

When it comes to International law firms, these are smart businesses and they understand the difference between a Canadian JD and a US JD. Lipstick and rouge won't disguise the fact that a Canadian JD is just an undergraduate LLB in disguise (albeit different from other commonwealth LLBs). Many overseas employers use Legal recruiting firms and you can bet they understand the difference too.

 

I will grant the "Go JD" crowd that the small NGOs or small niche firms overseas may not understand the subtleties of the North American legal academia, but are they really looking overseas for talent?

 

It seems to me the name change is hardly the issue. Until the entrance requirements are beefed up, the Cdn JD will not stack up on paper with a US JD and that's the bigger concern.

 

RW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diplock    9514

Look, I was perfectly willing to say "it doesn't matter" earlier, but to call U.S. law degrees "graduate degrees" as some spectacular contrast with Canadian "undergraduate" degrees is just silly. It's almost sillier than JDs trying to call themselves doctors.

 

You chose to use U of T as an example. It's the one I'm most familiar with, so let's run with that. About five students a year get in with less than a full undergrad. That's less than 3% of the class, and that includes mature students who have applied partly on the basis of life experience, etc. I'm going to assume U.S. schools have similar entrance categories. So it's incredibly rare for students to get straight in out of university with less than a four-year degree. The fact that two people on this board received offers from that position this cycle is just incredible. And amusingly, both have elected to defer and finish their degrees anyway.

 

By contrast, over 20% of the U of T class have completed graduate degrees prior to law school. By "graduate" degree (since you've muddied the term) I mean either a Masters or PhD in an another field.

 

I'm not hung up on some artificial distinction behind my JD. I couldn't care less what it's called. But please, don't tell me I'm in some kind of jumped up undergraduate program when the guy next to me already has a PhD. Canadian law schools are what they are. Changing the name of the degree won't matter one bit, in my opinion. But if employers are as smart as you say they won't arrive anywhere near the conclusion you've somehow jumped to that Canadian JDs/LLBs are somehow inferior to U.S. JDs just because there might be a couple students per hundred in my class that didn't complete their previous degrees. There may be other differences in quality, between one vs. the other. There may be other factors to weigh. But if you're going to hang your argument on a thread so thin, I don't even know why you bothered to offer it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diplock    9514

P.S. I am aware that Canadian law programs are undergraduate in a technical sense. I want to state that, lest I appear ignorant. But the same is true of teaching, medicine, dentistry, architecture, etc. Most professional programs fit this bill. Engineering is the one glaring exception. All of these programs are considered undergraduate. Some, I believe, absolutely demand a completed undergraduate degree before entrance. Nevertheless, they are technically undergraduate.

 

Personally, I'm not fussed about this fact. It's a little annoying to belong to UTSU (the undergraduate students' union) but that's about all. Still, I don't think it's remotely accurate to compare Canadian law schools, on this technical basis, to true undergraduate law programs in the English sense, where students enter straight from high school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woodchuck    5

Why can't I have a degree with some written distinction for my 4 years undergrad, plus 3 years law? Like some latin phrase that says "studius 7 yearius" next to my LLB

 

I would settle for that.

 

People would just get extra distinction for extra work.

 

I'm serious.

 

You get a LLB (not a complete 4 year undergrad)

or

LLB Studius 7 yearius---------or call it JD (if you don't like my stupid faux-latin title)

 

Why not create some distinction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the things that seems to get lost in this debate all too often is the difference between a US (ABA approved) JD and the U of T (or Queen's, et al) JD. The ABA requires that all admitted 1Ls at ABA accredited Law Schools have a full 4 year undergraduate degree. U of T still allows students who have only completed 2 years of their undergrad degree, into their first year class.

 

Until the Canadian schools offering JDs make the change and require the completion of a full undergraduate degree prior to admission there is still a HUGE difference between a US JD and a Canadian JD. Canadian law schools grant undergraduate degrees whereas US law schools grant graduate degrees.

This is false. As pointed out above, several ABA schools such as Tulane and Cooley admit students who have not completed their undergraduate degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LFishman    0

This debate is even more inane, because really, these letters are just a degree. Nothing more. They do not entitle you to practice law, and certainly do not afford you the experience required to be a successful professional lawyer.

 

You can get your JD from Harvard and still fail the bar a hundred times and never practice law. And you can get an LLB from Ottawa, pass the bar in New York, and work in NYC and make the big bucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rwalker130    1

Diplock,

 

Please, I was not trying to insult you or your "JD". I will concede that practically speaking the vast majority of 1st years at Canadian law schools have completed an undergraduate degree, and many have also completed Masters and PhD work. This doesn't change the stated admissions policy of the schools and the status of the LLB as an undergraduate degree.

 

True, some ABA accedited schools do allow exceptional students to enter their first year class having not completed their undergraduate work (Tulane and Cooley do advertise this on their admissions pages). However, the vast majority of US state bar admissions requirements mandate the completion of an undergraduate degree + a JD prior to taking the bar exam.

 

My point was that changing the name is one step in the right direction, but that should not be the only step. To really make the change more than cosmetic Canadian law schools should become truly "graduate" and require a full, completed undergraduate degree prior to admission.

 

I agree the academic rigor of the Canadian law school experience is roughly on par with the US experience. I also agree that the degree should be "worth" the same on the international market. However, until the admissions requirements are fixed, there is still a difference.

 

There you go Diplock, have at it, you seem to be pretty interested in "winning" this non-argument.

 

RW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diplock    9514
There you go Diplock, have at it, you seem to be pretty interested in "winning" this non-argument.

 

RW

 

How about we call it a tie? I make my points as well as I can (don't we all?) but I'm hardly that invested in the outcome of an Internet debate. As long as would-be law students, reading this board, get an accurate picture of what's going on in factual terms I feel no particular need to force my opinion about what it all means on anyone. It's important to agree on the facts. Agreement on consequential meanings of those facts is entirely optional, and quite unlikely. =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×