(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
- Posts: 3167
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm
I can actually see the use for a JD/MPP as long as both combined are less than 50k. DC (specifically PMF) has this creepy fascination with joint degree kids. Heck, for a guaranteed 9/11/12, I'd probably even take out 70k.
- Posts: 3280
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm
gobuffs10 wrote:To academics, the JD is puzzling, and to legal employers, the PhD is the same. My contracts professor put it pretty well: "Firms are going to look at your resume, see the PhD, and have absolutely no idea what to do with you." The extra time spent working on the PhD means you aren't practicing law, and a PhD is worthless to a law firm. It adds nothing, and the years you spend not working in law might actually hurt you. In addition, I really can't see the added value of a JD to any of these degrees (and by can't see, I mean it makes absolutely no sense to me).
Yeah, I think this is right, plus the PhD suggests that you're a dabbler and might have your head in the clouds, or at least highly intellectual aspirations—not exactly the kind of person who can be relied on to grind out hours doing diligence.
The main exception is having a science PhD if you want to do IP law. But that's a whole other story entirely.
You might also come across some people with social science or humanities PhDs in law firms, but from what I've seen, they generally got the PhD first, then went back to get a JD as a career switch. They don't generally pursue both simultaneously—again, because it isn't really much of a coherent track to be on.