On Fri, 10 May 1996, David Reitzel wrote (in part):
 
 . . .
 
> I have always maintained that the J.D. is the functional equivalent of
> the Ph.D. as a basis for collegiate teaching.  This view was
> reinforced by my own study and by my review of my old dean's survey
> materials.  The occasional lawyer with a Ph.D. argued that the Ph.D.
> was "tougher," but more lawyers with Ph.D.s argued the opposite--that
> the law program was tougher.  Such comments miss the point.  The J.D.
> degree is valuable because it represents an immersion in a unique
> field of study of major importance to business and to most other
> disciplines.  Because of their law study and experience, J.D.s have
> knowledge and insights unlikely to be possessed by non-J.D.s, yet
> critical to a full understanding of the other disciplines.  Moreover,
> J.D.s have qualities that are extremely valuable for developing
> critical thinking:  A sense of facts and procedure, an analytical
> objectivity, often not possessed by others, as attendance at almost
> any general faculty meeting will quickly reveal.
 
 
As one who has a JD and is presently a PhD student, I can state that there
are very close parallels between law school and graduate programs.
Approximately 3 years of coursework is required, followed by a
comprehensive exam (bar exam vs. field exam).  The difficulty of a law
education versus a graduate program is dependent upon the quality of the
school, department, and faculty.  One difference, though, is that
doctorate requires the preparation and defense of a dissertation.  Given
the quality (or the lack thereof) of some dissertation presentations I have
seen, this may be a distinction without merit.  However, it is difference
that will be raised and would need to be addressed by those with JDs.