I don't want to open up yet another can of worms, but I was intrigued by Ken's
observations regarding the Ph.D. vs. the J.D. and especially the dissertation
vs. the law review article.  One observation of mine in viewing Ph.D.
colleagues' dissertation work: the candidate is much more concerned with
satisfying the idiosyncratic demands of his/her Ph.D. committee than the
academic/intellectual demands of the dissertation topic.  Moreover, it seems
to me that the egoes (sp.?) of the committee members need serving more than
the rigors of research.  This type of "sucking up" seems less evident in legal
academia (i.e. the pursuit of a J.D.); however, I am clearly in a cynical mode
as I write this note.  Conseuqently, I question the rigor of Ph.D.
dissertations and especially the whole process' applicability in creating
collegiate-level teachers and researchers.
 
OK....have at me!
Dan Herron