Jump to content
CanadaLawStudent

Is a dual JD/MA in History useful for anything?

Recommended Posts

So Western University offers combined/dual JD programs with four other master’s programs - MBA, MSc Geology, MSc Geophyiscs, and MA History. The reason for the dual MBA/JD’s existence is obvious, and I understand why there would be a dual JD with geology/geophysics (mining law; though someone correct me if I’m wrong), but what would be the use for a combined JD and MA in History? I’m curious - I’m an undergrad history student and I’m really interested in history, though I might only consider this program if it opens up opportunities (as a history degree by itself isn’t really useful in terms of the job market).

Edited by CanadaLawStudent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be for those who want to go the legal historian/academic route. And even then, you may not even need the MA. The handful of legal history professors I’ve heard of all had law degrees, but none had a MA in history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sure it would be good for fulfilling a Passion for studying history, and maybe you could jump ship to become a history professor if laws not for you. Only two practical applications I can imagine, besides being a interesting (if not excessive) talking point for your resume. Like more pure art graduate degrees I imagine it’s mostly a passion project. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a history professor in undergrad that did his LLB and MA in History at Queen's. He later went on to do his PhD. He's a legal historian and says that law school was invaluable for helping him understand the content. That said, I'm not sure it has much of a use outside that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any idea if legal historians are in demand? Apparently the job market for historians (in general) is oversaturated - is it different for legal historians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, CanadaLawStudent said:

Any idea if legal historians are in demand? Apparently the job market for historians (in general) is oversaturated - is it different for legal historians?

I do not know, I have done no research to look into it, and I do not work in any field that would give me any insight into the question, but I would bet a large amount of money that legal historians are decidedly not in demand. 

But as a general comment, law in an academic sense is very historic; you can't start writing a legal textbook in nearly any subject without starting your story centuries ago. 

Edited by BringBackCrunchBerries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CanadaLawStudent said:

Any idea if legal historians are in demand? Apparently the job market for historians (in general) is oversaturated - is it different for legal historians?

Legal historians are likely fighting for the same jobs as other historians. For example the legal historian who I took classes from taught history of the prairie west, and Roman history on top of one or two legal history classes. His research was exclusively legal history, but the market is saturated and budgets are so low he has to be a Jack-of-all trades historian. Legal history is such a niche that I doubt there is a huge job market for them. That said I was involved in a history graduate program at a prairie university, so I cant speak to the demand elsewhere. 

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.


  • Recent Posts

    • $110,000. Calculator here: https://www.eytaxcalculators.com/en/2020-personal-tax-calculator.html Even if you drop down to the $105 some shops are still at, you're at $79k takehome.
    • I'm surprised. What's the associate gross at that calculation, and what are the assumptions being fed into it? Unless the marginal tax rate is as low as 20% (again, would surprise me, but I'm not a tax guy) then associate salaries on Bay are higher than I've noticed recently.
    • ^  A first year associate would take home $81k after taxes in 2020 (not including any bonuses), according to EY’s tax calculator. 
    • Let's reset this conversation a bit. When I see a title that refers to "good" money, my first question is what the poster means by "good." Fortunately, OP clarified that, and says he currently nets $5-7k/month. That's $60-84k/year. In order to take that much home, we're talking about a gross pre-tax income of $100k+. There are definitely areas of law outside of Bay and large firm practice where you can earn a good living. But if you hope/expect/need to make that much out of the gate, I have two warnings for you. First, you won't make that much even on Bay as an articling student or immediately as an associate, though you'll progress there soon if you stick a Big Law position and manage to hold it. And second, no, you won't be there right away anywhere else, aside from a few positions elsewhere that make a point of basically indexing to Big Law incomes in order to compete for the same people. Someone else would have a better summary of those (relatively few) examples. "Good" is a relative term. Clearly your sense of what "good" money looks like is pretty extreme. I'm not criticizing that, right now. I'm just saying you'll have a hard time satisfying it doing anything other than large, corporate law.

×
×
  • Create New...