If you're a McGill Law alum, we would like to hear your opinion/preference regarding to the change to J.D./B.C.L.
Please click "comment" to post you words.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To McGill J.D./B.C.L.
Posts
Comments
I would not support a change to the title of the degree.
ReplyDeleteThe LL.B. is a first degree in law, despite the fact that most McGill students have completed a previous undergraduate degree program.
I feel that McGill, being one of Canada's oldest law schools, would lose its connection to its British roots. The J.D. is an American designation and considering (1) the importance that the McGill program places on studying the British legal tradition, (2) the limited focus on U.S. law, (3) the lack of ABA accreditation, and (4) the irrelevance of the designation in the U.S. job market, I feel that it would be inappropriate to change the title of the degree.
Furthermore, McGill's program has a strongly civilian component to it. The first 3 letters in the title of the degree are : B.C.L. (not LL.B.).
As every McGill student studies in the same, unified, trans-systemic program, the degree should remain consistent. Perhaps if McGill obtains ABA accreditation and greater emphasis is placed on American law, I would support a change to the title of the degree.
Josh, it's good to hear from you again.
ReplyDeleteLL.B. is a first degree in law, and so is J.D. A crucial difference between them is that most LL.B. schools around the world don't consider a prior undergrad degree of applicants as one of the admission criteria whereas J.D. schools do. McGill adopts the J.D. approach in terms of admitting a large number of students who obtain an undergrad degree. Some people got in McGill without a prior undergrad degree but they're not the majority.
If a J.D. title for McGill is justified by the inclusion of more American law courses or getting ABA accreditation, McGill will turn itself to be just an American school. Our purpose of having a JD is not that we want to become an American school but to reflect that our degree is a second-entry level of education. I don't think that other Canadian law schools that changed to J.D. wanted to Americanize themselves either.
If you argue that LL.B. should be maintaind to preserve the British root, I would say that LL.B. doesn't do that job at all. As we all know, Canadian common law and British common law have become divergent. Some schools in other parts of the world give LL.B. for their civil law degree. The first thing that people will think of when you tell them that you're doing an LL.B. is not related to the legal tradition but to the idea that you enter a law program right out of a high school. This will have a significant impact on employment oppornitites in countries where employers prefer to employ candidates who have a Master's degree or above. However, by having JD, we're not deceiving employers that we're doing a Master's degree as there is LL.M. that exists as the 'real' Master's degree. Having J.D. will simply tell employers that we're a separate category and we can offer them our experience in seeing other field of study before coming to law.
We'll not lose a strong civilian component as we're keeping the B.C.L., whether or not it's written before or after the JD .
I'm a 2006 grad. I prefer to remain anonymous.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, I think this trend is absolutely silly. LL.B. is the recognized Commonwealth designation. I have found absolutely no difficulties with recognition during my legal career thus far. There are very few large firms in New York (or, I imagine, in London) who do not know that a Canadian LL.B. is a law degree you do after having done some prior unversity. It is simply not an issue.
Still on that first hand, I agree with Josh Krane. If we want degrees with an American designation then, for God's sake, let's get some ABA-accredited coursework in there. At least then a JD would begin to make sense. And, no, as long as McGill teaches Canadian law it will not be an "American" school. If anything, providing qualifications in Canadian common and civil law and American law would make it one of the more internationally-minded law schools out there.
On the other hand, if all the other Canadian schools are jumping off a br--I mean, are switching over to the JD, then I guess we might as well do it, too. I am actually serious about this. As to the degree/non-degree issue (aka the Cegep issue), that does not seem like a big stumbling block: allow those with prior degrees to earn JDs, but not those for whom law is a first degree. That is, I believe, how the Australians who have begun doing this have done it.
That said, I do like the idea that in HK at least you have to do something more for the JD, i.e. a thesis. In fact, there is something charming about the idea from an alum's point of view. If an alum wanted to convert their LL.B. to a JD, why shouldn't they be required to do a thesis or essay, too? It would actually be a good hurdle that would fit nicely into many of our professional lives. I can certainly see some of the senior lawyers I work with supporting my extracurricular effort in that direction, especially if it advanced my knowledge as a lawyer.
Bottom line: I don't really support it in the abstract, but I guess it's worth doing something about if JDs are popping out all over Canada. In which case the thing worth doing is: allow the JD to replace the LLB for enrolled and graduated students who hold an additional university degree and are willing to write a research paper of some kind to earn it.
Most Canadian schools that offer it don't require an additional paper or thesis, why should McGill students be any different?
ReplyDeleteRemember we have to write a paper that's worth at least 75%?
ReplyDeleteAlso, most Canadian schools don't require common and civil law. Or transsystemia. Or bilingualism. Oh, wait...
ReplyDelete(The shorter answer: to make it mean something and to increase the value of your degree.)