I create this discussion topic to see what the members of McGill Law think about out degree name...
My concern is that our degree name, LL.B./BCL, is incorrect, causing significant confusion and inconvenience. Instead, J.D./BCL is a more appropriate one. Here are reasons why:
Unlike LL.B. programs in other continents which is offered to students who just came out of high schools or A-levels, our program requires (most) students to have an undergrad degree upon applying. This would technically take most of us about 7-8 years to get a law degree while taking law students in other continents about 3-4 years only. Note also that McGill law students probably have larger workload than law students in other schools due to the transsystemic system. So our program should be placed in a graduate level, not an undergrad one. Oxford is the only place else that offers a silimar program and it recognizes its B.C.L. as a Master's degree, not a Bachelor one (see http://www.competition-law.ox.ac.uk/postgraduate/bcl.shtml.
Our LL.B. designation obviously causes confusion. It makes employers in other jurisdictions think that we're learning law with 18 year-old high school students. Although there's nothing wrong with taking classes with 18 year-old but employers tend to have a question regarding our employment history e.g. why we have not been employed and why we just start looking for a job when we're almost 30! I got really sick of explaining all this to other lawyers in the firms that I worked with this summer. In the end, I told them that I'm doing a J.D. and they seemed to understand right away why it takes me so long to learn law. It would be very convenient if I have "J.D." on my transcript instead of LL.B. so I don't have to lie.
A significant number of Canadian law schools has abolished their LL.B.designation and opted for J.D. University of Toronto has chaged its LL.B. to J.D. for a long time. Osgoode Hall and UBC have recently provided their 2nd- and 3rd-year students and alumni with a choice of having either LL.B. or J.D. in their diploma. First-year students at UBC, however, will graduate with a J.D. degree. Outside Canada, Australia and Japan are abandoning their undergraduate LL.B. program and instead adopting the J.D. one.
It is time for us to correct our degree designation to a term that is recognized internationally. Don't you agree?
[If some of you don't care, can you explain why you don't? Would the change to J.D. impact you negatively or you remain unaffected? Note that saying that it doesn't matter whether it's a J.D. or LL.B. does not help anyone. If the change to J.D. at least make it convenient to some students who need their degree recognized internationally, the change really does matter.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I absolutely think our LL.B should be called a JD.
ReplyDeleteI will be working in NYC, and lawyers I speak with think that I am less qualified because I will have an LL.B. I try to explain it is the same thing - but then they ask well why the different name? And why do most schools use a JD? Even Canadian schools!
I really don't understand why McGill was so against the change - I vote loud and clear to change it. What do we need to do to have a referendum?
As far as international recognition goes, I definitly agree that a J.D. is more appropriate. In the U.K. where the LL.B. prevales students don't have an equivalent to Cegep or a bachelor's degree prior to starting studies in law.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason why I would consider keeping the LL.B. is attachment to tradition. However, there are instances such as this where upholding our traditions by keeping the LL.B. title could negatively influence the recognition of our credentials, whether it be in a foreign country or by foreign officers in international bodies.
While change does not come naturally to me, I would definitely support a move on the faculty's part to offer a J.D. designation option.
I want to add a fact I've come across:
ReplyDeleteOver the past year or two I've seen a number of job postings (particularly in Asia) where salaries start at higher figures for JD's than LLB's. I've seen it enough times to remember it.
Though, I'm not convinced this in itself warrants the change, it does make the stakes higher.
I think calling the degree "JD" is a fine idea. But there's no reason that we need to get rid of the current phrase LLB. U of T allows people to put either one on their diplomas.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, there's no reason that McGill couldn't give people one Diploma with LLB-BCL written on it, and one with just JD written on it. And if people want a diploma with just BCL or LLB, who am I to say no?
By the way, I've always found the phrase Juris Doctorae is really pretentious-- yes in the US, it is a graduate degree, but there is still an LLM and an SJD to get afterwards. Only an SJD can properly be called a Doctor of Laws in the same way that you have a Doctor of Arts or a Doctor of Mathematics.
The faculty's reluctance probably comes from one or more of these sources-
1) The fact that we allow CEGEP students to enter without a BA/BSc/BFA etc. means that we might annoy the ABA if we start giving them JDs. However, most of the CEGEP students took 3 years, whcih means they did the same number of years of school as someone who did pre-Law at a US school.
2) Not wanting to cheese-off the government of Quebec. We're already using their taxpayer dollars to subsidize lawyers being sent to the rest of Canada. The faculty might not want to remind them that we also export lawyers to the United States. I'm pretty sure the minister of education would need to approve the chagnes to the degree.
I've spoken to the Dean about this and he has absolutely no intention of following the anglo-american trend towards a J.D. McGill's program is distinct and its degrees preserve a unique identity and niche for the school. One result of the dual tradition is that exceptional cegep students can enter law school directly and obtain a common law degree to accompany their civil law. You cannot give out JDs to people without prior bachelor degrees.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I do not think that having an LL.B. as opposed to a JD prejudices McGill students. The only reason to convert to a JD would be to cater to the American legal market, but as a Faculty we have proven our competitiveness with American law schools.
Eytan's point, however, is quite valid. Outside the north american context, such as in Asia where people are less familiar with McGill, there may be disadvantages.
The only feasible option I could see is to provide students who have completed a prior bachelor degree the option of LL.B. or J.D., while denying cegep students this option. Unfortunately, this could end up prejudicing cegep students seeking jobs.
As I have discussed with the LSA and the Associate Dean Academic, I have a few responses to the comments above:
ReplyDeletePROCEDURES -- We will have a referendum but the LSA wants to set up a research committee to find out how other Canadian law schools have dealt with the change before the referendum takes place. Hope this doesn't take too long.
DEAN'S REACTION -- The LSA has also discussed this issue with the Dean. Obviously, the Dean can't just approve the change right away. The LSA President said the Dean doesn't have a strong opinion on this but the change is pretty much students' choice. The degree name indicated on the diploma affects students, not the Dean!
PRIDE OF THE TRANSSYSTEMIC SYSTEM -- In the JD/BCL name, the "/BCL" still strongly indicates our transsystemic tradition. We're not abandoning our unique tradition in any way.
JURIS DOCTOR PRESTIGE -- Some might think that "juris doctor" pretentiously makes the degree sound more prestigious. We should not even care about the prestige issue as our transsystemic degree is prestigious too. We're requesting for the change to gain international recognition and eliminate confusion, not to fool ourselves that we have become a Doctor of Law.
CEGEP ISSUES -- There is nothing wrong with allowing CEGEP students to earn JD. They're taking the same courses and handling the same workload, which is as tough as the graduate level of education. Some exceptional students in ON can do 2 years of undergrad and be accepted to the JD program at U of T. The fact that we have CEGEP students at McGill Law is a matter of admission policy which has nothing to do with the value of the degree. However, it's important that CEGEP students show their preference. If they say nothing and the school decides to give them LL.B., they'll have to stick with that.
BRAIN DRAIN TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS -- If McGill is afraid that its students will leave the province to practice elsewhere, why does it teach common law to begin with?
AMERICAN BARS -- We're not annoying the ABA because, as mentioned, our degree is equivalent to American degree (regardless of who's doing it, CEGEPers or students with prior undergrad degrees). Plus, the Bar Association of each state has set up a hurdle against Canadian law students anyway e.g. in order to write a Californian Bar exam, a candidate graduating from a Canadian law school must obtain another American Bar (probably New York). The fear of an influx of Canadian students to the US shouldn't be an issue given these preventive measures that the American Bars have.
According to the Associate Dean academic, there is no difference between JD and LLB as they both an indication of the first degree in law. If there's no difference, wouldn't you prefer to have the one that corrects our status and the whole world recognize?
"PROCEDURES -- We will have a referendum but the LSA wants to set up a research committee to find out how other Canadian law schools have dealt with the change before the referendum takes place. Hope this doesn't take too long."
ReplyDeleteIf this does take too long (which it probably would), would those graduating in 2009 be able to have their LL.B. Changed to a JD? Or would it be only on a go forward basis?
Laurie-Ann, as other schools have done, alumni should have an option to change their LL.B. change to J.D. Some schools charge a fee but some don't.
ReplyDeletePost #10Daniel Drabkin wrote17 hours ago
ReplyDeleteManow, this is very interesting. When I spoke with the Dean on the issue, I was still contemplating whether to go to law school at McGill or another institution in the US. The Dean's position must have changed since 2006. At that time he expressed to me that he was against a change to a JD. I was unaware that we could simply have a referendum and change the degree we receive. Personally I am in favour of converting to a JD/BCL, but this may be a personal bias.
On the issue of pretentiousness: the reality is that a law degree is a professional degree, and "Juris Doctor" reflects the professional nature of the degree more than "Bachelor of Laws". I agree that international recognition and reduced confusion would be the ultimate advantages.
One other caveat: only Massachusetts and New York recognize our law degree as equivalent. But the ABA does not have and should not have any influence on what a foreign law school calls its law degree.
With this, I rescind my prior point about cegep students; you are right Manow, there is no intrinsic reason why cegep students should be precluded from obtaining a juris doctor, although most american jurists would be perplexed by the idea.
Thanks for raising this issue and I commend the LSA's initiative. I look forward to developments.
Post #10Daniel Drabkin wrote17 hours ago
ReplyDeleteManow, this is very interesting. When I spoke with the Dean on the issue, I was still contemplating whether to go to law school at McGill or another institution in the US. The Dean's position must have changed since 2006. At that time he expressed to me that he was against a change to a JD. I was unaware that we could simply have a referendum and change the degree we receive. Personally I am in favour of converting to a JD/BCL, but this may be a personal bias.
On the issue of pretentiousness: the reality is that a law degree is a professional degree, and "Juris Doctor" reflects the professional nature of the degree more than "Bachelor of Laws". I agree that international recognition and reduced confusion would be the ultimate advantages.
One other caveat: only Massachusetts and New York recognize our law degree as equivalent. But the ABA does not have and should not have any influence on what a foreign law school calls its law degree.
With this, I rescind my prior point about cegep students; you are right Manow, there is no intrinsic reason why cegep students should be precluded from obtaining a juris doctor, although most american jurists would be perplexed by the idea.
Thanks for raising this issue and I commend the LSA's initiative. I look forward to developments.
I think having a J.D. is a great idea. Med students from CEGEP get to have an M.D. so I don't see why law students from CEGEP shouldn't get a J.D. And more to the point: J.D. does reflect the professional nature of a law degree. And the international recognition point is a solid one as well.
ReplyDeleteThat's all I have to say about that.
It's a shame that we assume so much about a program given the designation awarded when these names are not even used that consistently. Université de Montréal, UQAM, Université Laval and Université de Sherbrooke all award an LL.B. for their civil law only programs. The University of Ottawa's civil law stream awards an LL.L.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, it's not obvious that a BCL refers to civil law. More importantly, however, our transystemic program is certainly distinct from those of other Quebec universities so we should recognize the difference by awarding a JD.
I think we should get a J.D./LL.B/B.C.L.
ReplyDeleteNow that would be cool!
I actually have no opinion on this whatsoever as I plan to work in Canada and assume most employers here will recognize a law degree from McGill whatever it is called. However, I wrote part of my first year foundations exam on this subject and thought you might be interested in some excerpts of what I found...yep....that's all...i'll leave out the part about chthonic legal education...
ReplyDelete*****************************************
In 2001, the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law voted to cease offering an LLB and shift towards offering the JD as the standard degree for law students. Each year, a handful of students are still admitted without an undergraduate degree. Since that time, other Canadian faculties have engaged in prolonged, often bitter debate about not only the title of the degree, but the implications behind the tradition of the LLB and the JD. Students in law at the University of British Columbia, Queen’s University and the University of Western Ontario have voted in plebiscites, urging their faculties to change the designation of the degree they will receive. The debate over a few letters has sparked an ongoing dialogue about whether Canadian law faculties trace their lineage back to the United Kingdom, or the United States, whether law should be a humanistic field of study like a social science, or an elite vocational school for a profession. This controversy draws attention not only to the argumentative nature of lawyers and law students in Canada, but the very real concerns the legal profession holds about where its history comes from, and what values it should accentuate when educating future jurists.
In the twenty-first century, what is the function of the law faculty? In this age of globalization, most scholars would agree training budding jurists to act only in the interests of securing and stabilizing the nation-state might be short-sighted. Law students at Queen’s University have lobbied to shift their degree’s name because they claim “global law firms typically pay law grads with JDs substantially more than Canadians packing LLBs,” when these firms assume that Canadian LLBs are the equivalents of British programs, which students may enter directly from secondary education. When Queen’s began publicly discussing changing to the JD, irate alumni wrote to the university and the press, with retorts like “Never has the importance of remaining distinct from the U.S. legal market been of more value” (McNish, B10). The Dean of Law at the University of Toronto, initiator of the Canadian jaunt towards the JD defended the move, saying she was “puzzled by lawyers' emotional attachment to the LLB designation that stems back to Canada's days as a British colony,” and adding “Sometimes we prefer our old colonial masters to our new ones” (ibid).
Yet for the supporters of the LLB designation, the meaning of the British tradition is less about colonial ties and more about accessibility. John G. Kelly argues that by following the American pattern of requiring an undergraduate degree followed by three years of legal studies, Canadian law faculties are “mimicking what their American counterparts did in the 19th century” and transforming their schools into “a preserve for the well-heeled” (Kelly). Kelly advocates a system of legal training more like the UK’s, where law is a “true baccalaureate” program and considered to be a social science. He warns that shifting from an LLB designation to a JD “will be a continuation of the closing of the door to accessible and affordable legal education” (ibid). Indeed, with a skyrocketing level of tuition fee increases at many law faculties in Canada, the question of who can gain access to the classroom has once again become as important as what is taught within it.
Also, I notice that most people seem to be supportive of a JD/BCL. It seems like the reaction is pretty uniform (this isn't a bad thing). For argument's sake, here is really the only argument against the JD I've seen:
ReplyDeleteJOHN G. KELLY
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071120.wlaw_webcolumn/BNStory/robLawPage/
November 20, 2007 at 5:57 PM EST
Canadian law schools need to take a step forward with the LLB and not a step backward by embracing the JD degree. The JD law degree was developed in the U.S. to respond to a unique problem in the legal services market in the immediate post civil war era. Unlike Canada, the American legal profession was virtually unregulated. Legal education was a paltry affair in comparison to other common law jurisdictions like Canada with its formal articles under the auspices of provincial law societies.
In this regulatory void the university system emerged as the vehicle to produce the professional lawyer. Law, shunned by elite universities as a trade, was reinvented as the rigid scientific-like discipline of jurisprudence to give it the credibility needed to be accepted among the learned faculties. It's eventual elevation to juris doctoral status under the umbrella of a select family of American Association of Law Schools (AALS) and approved by of the American Bar Association (ABA) for state bar accreditation had more to do with the politics of racism and exclusion of immigrants from the profession than the pursuit of education. Blacks and immigrants couldn't afford to attend these "approved" universities for seven years to obtain the coveted J.D.
"Bachelor of Legal Laws" is the full elucidation of the LLB moniker. In all other common law countries, with the exception of Canada, its history and present day status is a true undergraduate degree program of study directly out of high school. In a classic Canadian compromise, provincial law societies surrendered their control over the training of lawyers through five years of articled clerkship to universities who developed three year LLB degree programs of study for students who successfully completed two years of undergraduate university study; a well rounded blended five year program of general and specialized education for high school graduates. No accredited Canadian university law school requires a baccalaureate degree for admission.
However, Canada has the dubious distinction of having the lowest per capita ratio of accredited law schools of any comparable British Commonwealth country; 16 law schools for a population of 32 million versus 25 law schools for a population of 20 million in Australia and 5 law schools for a population of 4 million in New Zealand. A crowded pool of applicants - only one in 10 gets admitted - has enabled Canadian law schools to artificially inflate entry standards and make the baccalaureate degree a de facto admissions criterion.
The U.K. has retained its status as the locus for some of the best law schools in the world with its undergraduate LLB model. Look at the teaching roster of the top five law schools in Canada and you'll find that, on average, 35 per cent of the faculty list LLM degrees from U.K. law schools as their preeminent academic qualification. While embracing the undergraduate model, comparable countries like the U.K. and Australia have developed innovative modifications which permit students with baccalaureate degrees to obtain an "accelerated" LLB degree in two years of study eliminating the dreaded dead third year. They recognize that students with undergraduate degree have demonstrated competency in general education, as well as another discipline in some instances, and let them devote two years of study to acquiring competency in the core half dozen courses associated with the practice of law.
In addition, because the LLB is a true baccalaureate degree, U.K. law schools have taken the lead in opening up its masters level legal studies programs, the prestigious LLM degrees, to holders of a broad range of undergraduate degrees, who aspire to become legal specialists in the burgeoning professional services fields that are law related but not confined to the practice of law.
Canadian law schools remain stuck in a bygone era of LLB degree program of study. The average mandatory curriculum consists of nine courses which students complete by the end of their second year; just like the U.K. and Australia. However, they persist in retaining the dreaded dead third year forcing the now overwhelming majority of students with undergraduate degrees to "broaden" their horizons with a wide range of optional courses that combine law with the social sciences.
The LLM continues to be restricted to LLB degree associated programs and a career option closed to those wanting to become legal specialists. In the process Canadian law schools, with what is now seven years of prescribed study, are doing an excellent job in the 21st century of mimicking what their American counterparts did in the 19th century: transforming law schools into a preserve for the well heeled. The shift from LLB to JD degrees will be a continuation of the closing of the door to accessible and affordable legal education. This is the direction that Canadian legal education should be heading away from, not heading towards.
John G. Kelly is the Principal of Canada Law from Abroad which facilitates entry of Canadian residents to U.K. law schools for LLB and LLM degree programs and provides consulting services to foreign law degree holders intending to apply for accreditation with Canadian law societies. He can be reached at johng@canadalawfromabroad.com.
Great job Manow, keep up the great work!
ReplyDeleteI think it's great that this question is coming up. I am very much in favor of the name change - not at all to cater to the US market, but in order to cater to the world.
ReplyDeleteI already have a Bachelors and work experience, like almost everyone else at the school. I am an international student from Europe, and people don't understand why I am doing "another" bachelor's degree.
I don't think people should be able to choose however - that would create confusion on the market in my view - it's probably best if all McGill graduates have the same degree designations.
Thanks for the effort - I really hope the change will come along before I graduate...
I think offering students the option of calling their LL.B. a JD is a great idea. But like most initiatives for change at our school, they get caught up in a web of bureaucracy, rules and regulations, and often die before any change can happen. The administration wants its students to be happy with their degree, and it is with a unified and strong student voice that they will be able to understand what we want. However, I have too many papers to write, so I'm hoping someone else will take charge... ;-)
ReplyDeleteResponse about bureaucratic problem: Someone told me that McGill's bureaucracy has just been graded a D-dog (which is the lowest grade). I don't have time to find the source but we all know that it's kinda true! This is why this initiative must be taken seriously. Although it might take long, IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE!
ReplyDeleteThanks so much, Alexandra, for your input. Don't forget that John G. Kelly is a liaison between Canadian and British law faculties. He might not like anything that sounds American!
ReplyDeleteI consider the term J.D. neutral. The term has no nationality. It is neither American nor Canadian. LL.B. is also neutral as it's not British, Canadian, or Thai. The need to switch to JD is simply to reflect that our degree is a professional degree and nothing more.
Laurie-Ann wrote on Oct 30:
ReplyDeleteHow many students need to vote? Turnout is often low for votes on most things...
Daniel Drabkin wrote on Nov 1:
ReplyDeleteA very interesting preface from the wikipedia article on BCLs:
Bachelor of Civil Law or BCL is the name of various degrees in law conferred by English-language universities. Historically, it originated as a postgraduate degree in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, but many universities now offer the BCL as an undergraduate degree. The reference to civil law was not originally in contradistinction to common law, but to canon law, although it is true that common law was not taught in the civil law faculties in either university until at least the second half of the 18th century. However, some universities in English-speaking countries use the degree in the former sense.
What is most interesting is that the name "Bachelor of Civil Law" does not have civilian roots. Its origins are in England, and the designation was not originally used to distinguish from common law (as we do at McGill), but rather canon law.
The J.D. was established to reflect the advanced study required to be an effective lawyer. It was not a conversion of the LL.B. degree, but a graduate degree to be distinguished from undergraduate programs. It was established by the faculty of law at Harvard first, and while it was pending the approval of the administration, the degree was introduced at all the best law schools in the nation, such as Stanford, Berkeley, and Pennsylvania. Subsequently, other law schools tried to also implement the degree in order to boost the prestige of their universities, but the programs did not meet the rigorous standards of those at the better law schools.
ReplyDeleteThe LL.B truly lacks currency in the US, but
perhaps Kashmere is afraid we wont meet these "rigorous standards"...
I would be very disappointed if McGill were to switch to awarding JDs. We are a Canadian school, and we pay tuition fees that are heavily subsidized by the Canadian and Quebec governments (in contrast to U of T, where students pay over $20 000/year for their JDs). I think that a switch to the JD would constitute a clear symbolic rejection of Canada and its traditions. Those in favour of the switch claim that they are motivated not only by the fact that the JD is recognized in the US but also by the fact that an LLB implies a only first bachelor's degree. However, everyone in Canada knows that an undergraduate degree is usually required in order to study law here. It is only non-Canadians who might not know this, so it seems that all of the concerns do come down to foreign marketability after all. Rather than reinventing ourselves to suit all of these foreign misconceptions, I think that we should be proud of our traditions and our LLBs and assume that our training and ability will speak for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI think the comment written above is ridiculous. To say that "everyone in Canada knows that an undergraduate degree is usually required in order to study law here" is to completely ignore the fact that the only reason the Faculty will not switch to a J.D. seems to be because it would prevent cegep students, who do not have an undergraduate degree, from being able to enter the Faculty. Why should students who have done more work by getting an undergraduate degree be penalized because the Faculty wants to accept cegep students? Those who have completed another undergraduate degree should have the option of putting J.D./BCL on their transcript while those who have entered from cegep should just not be given the option. Considering what's going on in the economy right now, I think the Faculty should be doing all that it can to help open up job opportunities for its students.
ReplyDeleteI really oppose the notion of giving a JD to people who hold a BA and an LLB to people who hold a DEC.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, it's just procedurally unfair. We all complete 105 credits, and it's not fair that for the exact same process and same work, the rewards be different.
Second it would stigmatize and isolate CEGEP students unnecessarily. It will already show on their resumes if they don't have a BA and the same goes for the few students that get in with two years of undergrad. Imagine how it would look on the walls of McGill in our graduate photos - all the CEGEPiens isolated at the bottom under the LLB column...
I wonder how this change to a JD will impact our ability to take electives in areas like the faculty of arts. I know for example of several students graduating in 4 years who hope to do minors in areas like Spanish, or economics. Could they still do this if we were not a bachelor's program? Or is the proposal to continue to designate us as undergraduate students but with a doctoral degree?
I agree with the last poster - it would be totally unfair to single out Cegepers in this way - especially since doing so would erroneously imply that an LLB is worth less than a JD, which is clearly not the case, since even those suggesting a switch to the JD haven't suggested that the content of the degree be modified.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to respond to the posting above the last one, which said "Why should students who have done more work by getting an undergraduate degree be penalized because the Faculty wants to accept cegep students?"
The fact that McGill does not specify whether or not we have completed prior degrees in the degree designation that they give us does not in any way constitute "penalization."
The point of a completing a law degree is not to get credit for degrees that we've done in the past which are completely unrelated. To follow your logic, a student who has completed a master's degree should have a different designation than the JD to show that he's done a master's degree.
There is no reason to be so concerned with whether everyone knows that you've completed an undergraduate degree or not - the point of studying at university is to learn, not to flaunt the letters after our names. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be proud to have completed an undergraduate degree, but come on! Any interviewer will see immediately on your resume whether you've completed another degree or not - or you can bring it up in your cover letter, when you are introduced to the potential hirer, etc.
Futhermore, I hope that you are wrong when you say that "the only reason the Faculty will not switch to a J.D. seems to be because it would prevent cegep students, who do not have an undergraduate degree, from being able to enter the Faculty."
I really hope that the Cegep issue isn't the only one that the Faculty is taking into account. Surely some of the Faculty's resistance to changing the name stems from a respect for the generations of Canadian lawyers that have gone before us who have been perfectly happy with their JDs.
If we're going to pander to the Americans by switching to the JD just because they can't be bothered to ask how the Canadian system works, why not start writing "color", "honor" and celebrating Thanksgiving in November?
Manow great job on bringing this up and really putting the process in motion.
ReplyDeleteBefore sharing my opinion, there are a few things I would like to disclose. Firstly, I intend to practice law in Montreal for the foreseeable future and therefore do not have a vested interest in the JD. Secondly, I am a CEGEP student. I was not aware that was seen as a pejorative description by some but I'll deal with that in a moment.
I strongly support the switch to a JD/BCL degree.
One of the main characteristics of McGill is that our students are supposed to be prepared to practice law anywhere in the world. The transystemic dual-degree nature of our program allows us to practice in virtually any jurisdiction in the world. This significantly distinguishes McGill from other Quebec faculties and other Canadian faculties as well.
The reality therefore is that McGill students will undoubtedly end up working in markets where the LLB is subservient to the JD. As such, a faculty that gives us the tools to be lawyers to the world should recognize that a JD will further empower us.
Onto the CEGEP issue, I do my best to not take offence when the term "CEGEP student" is used pejoratively as it a rare event. The suggestion that we CEGEP students should be segregated to the LLB pool while students with undergrads can opt for a JD does offend me.
Entering McGill Law from CEGEP is extremely difficult. Our acceptance ratio is significantly smaller than the undergrad ration, as only about 1/6 of entrance spots are allocated to us. Furthermore, we have to undergo an interview process, which the vast majority of undergrad students entering the faculty are not subjected to.
The CEGEP students that have entered this faculty have done so because they were exceptional both in and out of school and this is an achievement that should at the very least be respected.
Furthermore, we complete the exact same 105 credits as the undergrad students. In doing so, our first year is often more arduous as this is our first foray into the University world and we have to hit the ground running.
CEGEP students historically perform very well both academically at the faculty and in professional recruitment. To be blunt, if the top law firms in the country do not have a problem with us being "CEGEP students", why should you?
Lastly, do not assume that a CEGEP degree is infinitely easier than an undergrad. I have many intelligent friends who were not, forgive the expression, "exceptional enough" to be accepted into the faculty and are now in various undergrad programs. They have told me on many an occasion that they worked as hard or harder at Marianopolis than they are in their undergrad. I recognize that this may not always be true but the reality is that some CEGEP degrees were more challenging than undergrad degrees and some were easier.
JD's make our degree more marketable, and do not lessen the educational value. How could this possibly hurt us?
ReplyDeleteAgreed, precautionary principle...
ReplyDeleteAlso, if we do not offer JDs, think about potential applicants deciding between McGill Law and elsewhere. Surely at least some will prefer the JD-granting institutions to McGill, and as such not granting JDs will decrease the caliber of our future student body and, with it, McGill Law's reputation.
I agree with your reasons totally, I think that this program should be really weighted to justify why is convenient to change to JD. McGill Transystemic has everything to be called JD: workload, an integrated BCL, most have completed undergraduate studies or higher grades.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a prejudice against CEGEP students, but a recognition that it is their first (undergraduate) degree.
ReplyDeleteIt's not preferable but if there is a refusal to offer JDs to CEGEP students, then I'm not against it.
I don't have a Master's; if I did, I would probably say so on my CV - it's not a matter of "flaunting letters" but a matter-of-fact reflection of education experience.
It seems to me that the problem we're talking about is primarly that we haven't properly communicated the content or the value of our degree.
ReplyDeleteChanging the name of the degree is the easiest way to fix that, but I'm not sure that it's the best way, for the reasons articuled by Josh Krane in the comments on the alumni post.
One of the jobs of the Faculty (either the CDO or another office) should be to advertise -- to educate potential employers about the program, and sell the fact that McGill grads lineup well with people coming from U of T, Osgoode, and the big US law schools.
A lot of graduates end up having non-traditional careers in all corners of the world, working at times for non-legal employers. The instant recognition inherent in a "J.D." is a necessity for these people, and no amount of advertising by the CDO will ever reach all potential employers.
ReplyDeleteColin, I'm not sure how our school is going to succeed in competing with other programs that give a JD when it takes students the same or longer amount of time to finish a degree at McGill but getting only LL.B.
ReplyDeleteMcGill might be popular in Canada but most people outside of the country have never heard of our name. Having LL.B. makes us look like other undergrad law faculties that accept students coming right out of high school. Maintaining LL.B. doesn't help promoting our transsystemic feature but actually degrades it.
Anonymous(es):
ReplyDeleteThe thing is that you're thinking of it as "JD > LLB", which might be what some potential employers think, but it isn't true (or else we wouldn't be talking about a simple name change).
So, yes, having a JD might be competitive advantage, but a *better* competitive advantage would be to change the fact your potential employers have never heard of McGill.
If Harvard decided they wanted to call their degree a B.Law, I don't think HLS grads would be at a disadvantage, even in far corners of the world in non-traditional careers.
Quote: "Unlike LL.B. programs in other continents which is offered to students who just came out of high schools or A-levels, our program requires (most) students to have an undergrad degree upon applying."
ReplyDeleteFirst off, what exactly do you mean by "most"? Not "most" students, because most students at McGill are from Quebec, and Quebec applicants to McGill Law do not require an undergraduate degree (whether or not most of them have one anyway is irrelevant). The most you can mean by "most" is "most" candidates, i.e. most Canadians (from outside of Quebec). Either way, this is deliberately and entirely misleading.
Quote: "...our program should be placed in a graduate level, not an undergrad one."
Changing the name of the degree won't place the program on a graduate level at the school. This has not been the case at any of the Canadian schools that have made the switch, where the "J.D." programs are still regarded as undergraduate programs with regard to funding, housing, etc. And in the case of Quebec the name change is inappropriate because you DON'T NEED PREVIOUS UNDERGRADUATE WORK if you go through CEGEP!
Quote:
"Oxford is the only place else that offers a silimar [sic] program and it recognizes its B.C.L. as a Master's degree, not a Bachelor one."
This made my jaw hit the floor. This is really incredible.
The B.C.L. at Oxford is entirely different from the B.C.L. at McGill. The latter is literally a Bachelor's degree (a first degree) in the study of civil law, i.e. the Civil Code, Quebec French law. It is equivalent to an LL.L. at any other law school in Quebec. The former is a Master's-level graduate program. The use of "Civil Law" in the Oxford nomenclature is, in fact, in reference to English Common Law, the "civil" (secular) Law of England as distinct from/opposed to Canon Law. Either you are too stupid to realize this or you are deliberately trying to deceive people.
Quote:
"Our LL.B. designation obviously causes confusion. It makes employers in other jurisdictions think that we're learning law with 18 year-old high school students."
The Oxford B.C.L. also causes some confusion among less-knowledgable employers: did this make it any less attractive to a man like Justice Thomas Cromwell? No because it's frigging OXFORD. Yale didn't change their LL.B. designation until the late 1970s, almost twenty years after every other law school in the United States. Want to guess how they got away with that? They're YALE. McGill students should show some more pride!
Quote:
"I got really sick of explaining all this to other lawyers in the firms that I worked with this summer. In the end, I told them that I'm doing a J.D. and they seemed to understand right away why it takes me so long to learn law. It would be very convenient if I have "J.D." on my transcript instead of LL.B. so I don't have to lie."
Considering that as recently as ten years ago the only Canadian school awarding a J.D. was the University of Toronto, and a handful have made the switch only THIS YEAR, I have to ask who and where these employers are that you had to lie to? You know, at firms where EVERY PARTNER has the an "LL.B." after their name?
Maybe you just like to lie. Your blog post is certainly just a pack of them.
A switch to J.D. designation would, in the case of McGill, be both inaccurate (because of the CEGEP exemption) and incongruous with the equality of French legal education, where the civil law degree remains a first-entry degree (as it is in the entire Latinate world). This ill-thought out idea wouldn't improve the quality of your degree at all and it would really leave French students out in the cold. I'm glad the administration at McGill has decided to stand against it.
Any recent developments on the designation change?
ReplyDelete