As a person who didn't start the discussion, but certainly encourged it, I
feel I should defend it, at least from my perspective.  I am looking at it
as an American working in Europe.  In Europe one can get a undergraduate,
masters, and Ph.D. in law just as one can for sociology, economics and so
on.  And I'm working in academia.  That naturally leads to the question of
how an American JD fits into the European system.  Europeans say that since
a JD takes classes, does not write a dissertation, and does not have a
masters degree, it is comparable to a masters degree.  I say that since it
qualifies one to be a law professor it is equivilent to a Ph.D.  I might
add I have not been very successfull with this argument.  Saying that I can
call myself "Doctor" would help, as would other arguments such as the ones
others have advanced during this discussion.  I'm always on the lookout for
help in this argument, which has a direct effect on how competent Europeans
perceive me to be.




Larry Landman







>This thread exemplifies what I perceive to be one of the most frustating
>aspects of academia.  I would urge that the academic world often concerns
>itself far too much with the niceties of  "form" at the expense of its much
>more interesting and rewarding converse.
>
>Does it really matter whether or not a JD or LLM is called "Dr."?  Taken out
>of the context in which most of us work, the answer is no, of course not.
>It seems to me that our concern with this issue arises from the perception
>(real or imagined) that someone with that particular title in front of her
>moniker is (pick one) smarter, more educated, more respected, cooler, less
>redolent, more redolent or  better looking than the next person.  (Alright,
>maybe not better looking.)
>
>In any event, it's elitist, anti-egalitarian, archaic and even barbaric.
>Why did we in the US abandon all the old titles like baron, lord, sir, your
>excellence, etc., etc.?  I believe it was Monty Python that had a skit in
>which some laughably pompous character was repeatedly and with mock respect
>referred to by his underlings as "your [expletive deleted]ness."  The bearer
>of this title didn't seem to notice its disparaging connotation--presumably
>he was too absorbed with his own importance, and only knew that he was
>properly being referred to as "your" something or another.  Not to belabor a
>sophmoric point, but titles like these rail against the idea that a person
>should be judged on who they are and what they can do, rather than what we
>are required to call them.  Most of us teach in business schools, in which
>we are charged with training students to be better citizens of an
>increasingly democratic and capitalist world.  Yet we are ourselves caught
>up in a feudalistic title-grubbing.
>
>Perhaps we lawyers should be the first group of academics to insist that we
>be judged on what we can do, not what we're called.  It wouldn't be the
>first sacred cow toppled by lawyers in the interest of improving society.
>
>My favorite "Dr."?  Dr. Suess.
>
>
>
>Kent Schenkel
>University of North Carolina at Wilmington
>[log in to unmask]



--

Lawrence B. Landman
Roskilde University
Management Studies
Department of Social Sciences
P.O. Box 260
DK-4000, Roskilde, Denmark
Tel. +45 46 74 25 04
Fax  +45 46 74 30 81
[log in to unmask]