Law school vs. grad school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The big difference in kind of course is the dissertation. And grades don't really matter in grad school, while in law school they do.

But I'm curious if anyone can speak to the experience of both law and grad school in say, political science or history.

What's the difference in reading load like in the courses? And is law school as conceptually difficult as grad school? Law is interesting in that it is a first degree in the subject, not advanced study, but the learning curve is obviously higher than in undergrad.

Is it fair to say the knowledge base of the law degree and bar exam is similar to the PhD student up to the level of qualifying exams and without the dissertation?

Reading load is high in both, but the variety of reading done for the PhD is tremendously varied. If you are pursuing a PhD in PS or Hist, you are going to read law cases, but also a ton of other materials and texts from different time periods. In History, there's a good chance you'll need to master reading in a foreign language or two.
Law school is conceptually specific. It's mastering an elite trade. The PhD is conceptually varied and more creative. To successfully defend your dissertation, you need to have generated original research.
Knowledge base of the law degree is more than an MA but less than qualifying exams.

I'd say the first year of law school is kind of like a 30-credit undergraduate major in one year that brings everybody up to speed. The third year of law school is like maybe the second year of graduate school where the student is just barely beginning to learn how to do meaningful research. Legal education stops there, so 3L is at the level of the masters' student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law school is much more of a grind than grad school. You seem very confused OP.

I think it is the opposite. Do law students have teaching responsibilities in addition to full time class loads?

Not sure what people mean by 'grind.' Law classes are more like undergrad classes-- memorization, reading non-scholarly work. PhD is much more intellectually challenging-- learning theoretical frameworks and empirical papers with advanced statistics. The objective is for the student to master the current state of the art (intellectually) and then to contribute knowledge beyond the current frontier. It's much more challenging, intellectually, and more work. But I wouldn't call it a 'grind.'

One difference is that if you're getting a PhD in something, you're generally interested in the subject matter. In law, the classes can be hit or miss as far as whether they interest you or not. For example, PhD with a dissertation on literature from the American South over a certain period of history versus Cotracts, Tax, Civil Procedure, etc.

If you're a PhD student, you still need to pass comprehensive exams, which are quite broad. So a philosophy PhD might be interested in writing her dissertation on Kant, but would need to take comprehensive exams in logic, philosophy of science, aesthetics, etc.

[Anonymous]

Is the bar exam for law what the comprehensive exams are for Ph.D.'s? If so, the J.D. is kind of like the Ph.D. candidate without the dissertation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the bar exam for law what the comprehensive exams are for Ph.D.'s? If so, the J.D. is kind of like the Ph.D. candidate without the dissertation.

Thr Bar questions are tricky. I don't know that PhD exams in the humanities are designed to be tricky.

[Anonymous]

If "tricky" is the standard than being the CPA exam may be a bigger deal than the Ph.D. qualifying exam.

[Anonymous]

How many people actually did both a PhD and a JD and can legitimately answer this question? And PhDs are incredibly varied so the comparison is impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If "tricky" is the standard than being the CPA exam may be a bigger deal than the Ph.D. qualifying exam.

I found the CPA exam harder than the bar exam (CA).

-- tax attorney

[Anonymous]

Law school is strange. It's mainly the interpretation of texts. It's like Talmudic studies, where one writes commentary on commentary. Or it's as if the English Ph.D. just read random sonnets ahistorically.

It pleases neither the intellectuals or the purely vocational minded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many people actually did both a PhD and a JD and can legitimately answer this question? And PhDs are incredibly varied so the comparison is impossible.

I have a JD, my father has a JD, my mother, husband and grandmother have PhDs. This is fairly normal in my (academic) world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Law school is strange. It's mainly the interpretation of texts. It's like Talmudic studies, where one writes commentary on commentary. Or it's as if the English Ph.D. just read random sonnets ahistorically.

It pleases neither the intellectuals or the purely vocational minded.

Or to put it another way, law school is a lousy trade school and a lousy graduate school.

[Anonymous]

I remember the ABA a few years ago putting out a statement claiming that the JD and PhD were equivalent because of the "credit hours." For an organization representing a profession known for logical thinking, it was embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many people actually did both a PhD and a JD and can legitimately answer this question? And PhDs are incredibly varied so the comparison is impossible.

I have a JD, my father has a JD, my mother, husband and grandmother have PhDs. This is fairly normal in my (academic) world.

But none of you did both. Not that many people do both. You can only compare your experience with that of others.

[Anonymous]

Law school can be hard, especially for that first year (or if you are an idiot). But unless you are gunning for a prestigious clerkship or got locked out of the 2L summer job market, at least a third of your legal education can be completed with your eyes closed. The “big scary test,” the bar exam, you take after you get your J.D.

https://abovethelaw.com/2011/11/any-lawyer-who-calls-himself-doctor-like-a-ph-d-should-get-punched-in-the-mouth/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Law school can be hard, especially for that first year (or if you are an idiot). But unless you are gunning for a prestigious clerkship or got locked out of the 2L summer job market, at least a third of your legal education can be completed with your eyes closed. The “big scary test,” the bar exam, you take after you get your J.D.

https://abovethelaw.com/2011/11/any-lawyer-who-calls-himself-doctor-like-a-ph-d-should-get-punched-in-the-mouth/

Agreed. I think I read nothing during my third year, lol. Except study aids right before the exam. First year I did read everything, and I briefed every case and read all of the note cases. I got over that, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many people actually did both a PhD and a JD and can legitimately answer this question? And PhDs are incredibly varied so the comparison is impossible.

I have a JD, my father has a JD, my mother, husband and grandmother have PhDs. This is fairly normal in my (academic) world.

But none of you did both. Not that many people do both. You can only compare your experience with that of others.

I have a MA in one of the fields mentioned, so I guess I have somewhat of a grasp. You have to come up with some new knowledge, idea, research, theory, or perspective in grad school. You're not supposed to be rehashing what someone else has already discovered and written about. You're using texts and citing to them, though, so that part is similar to law.