High GPA, Avg. GRE? Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

I am applying to do joint JD/PhD.

Oh god why

It's actually quite fun (so far)

That’s the non-JD part.

[Rigo]

I am applying to do joint JD/PhD.

Oh god why

It's actually quite fun (so far)

No offense but you haven’t even started law school so are YEARS out from the end, so I can’t really take your green perspective that seriously.
gl though

[pancakes3]

I am applying to do joint JD/PhD.

Oh god why

hahahh i know right

so... don't?

Oh, I didn't realize you were seriously asking. Because I am equally passionate about two complimentary disciplines. Why?

what do you want to do with your degrees, and why? you seem to acknowledge that facially it's a bad idea, so there should be something compelling that's driving you to do this. being "equally passionate about two complimentary disciplines" is nonresponsive. it's not even accurate.

First, I mistakenly thought you were alluding to it being a difficult undertaking, which I should not have assumed nor engaged with. I absolutely do not believe it is "facially a bad idea." Second, my response is responsive, lol, and you are not the arbiter of whether or not my stated passions are accurate. I was being vague, yes, because I am not obligated to provide more information about myself. I am trying to keep this discussion within the parameters of the question I asked. I do not need advice on whether or not it's a good idea to pursue a joint JD/PhD. And if one chooses to provide unsolicited advice, I appreciate it respectfully stated - not in the form of unnecessarily combative questions.

Why do you want to do a JD/PhD?

[totesTheGoat]

I am worried that an average GRE is going to make applying pointless. Does anyone have any thoughts / intel? The apps are expensive so all input is welcome!

I am trying to keep this discussion within the parameters of the question I asked. I do not need advice on whether or not it's a good idea to pursue a joint JD/PhD. And if one chooses to provide unsolicited advice, I appreciate it respectfully stated - not in the form of unnecessarily combative questions.

Ok, I'll keep this response to the question asked. Go take the freakin' LSAT. It doesn't have math on it like the GRE, and your application isn't going to stick out like a sore thumb (well, minus the JD/PhD part) like it would if you try to get in on your GRE. I took the LSAT despite a stellar GRE score, and I have zero regrets.

Some unsolicited advice for you: Usually, once you dig through the snark, the braintrust at TLS answers a question as it needs to be answered, often by questioning your premises. That's part of the whole lawyer thing, and it's part of being "intellectual" about this stuff. People are pushing back on the JD/PhD because it's extremely hard to justify a JD/PhD unless you have no need to ever work a job for the rest of your life. (okay, that's a little bit overdramatic, but you get the point... your job prospects are not improved by the dual degree)

[KENYADIGG1T]

I am applying to do joint JD/PhD.

Oh god why

It's actually quite fun (so far)

That’s the non-JD part.

As if it's easier? *shrugs*

[A. Nony Mouse]

I am applying to do joint JD/PhD.

Oh god why

It's actually quite fun (so far)

That’s the non-JD part.

As if it's easier? *shrugs*

Nah, the JD is easier, but they’re not anything alike, so liking one doesn’t guarantee you’ll like the other. (Also if you think the PhD is fun you must not be dissertating yet.)

[KENYADIGG1T]

I am applying to do joint JD/PhD.

Oh god why

It's actually quite fun (so far)

No offense but you haven’t even started law school so are YEARS out from the end, so I can’t really take your green perspective that seriously.
gl though

hence the "(so far)"...

Right, but I work with law professors and speak to law students (much easier since my PhD program is at a law school), and I don't get the impression that law school is a challenge that is inscrutable and more difficult than what I'm doing now. Am I saying it's easy? Far from it. Nevertheless, it doesn't strike me that you've hacked it at a PhD program, so maybe I should reject your view out of hand too.

[KENYADIGG1T]

I am applying to do joint JD/PhD.

Oh god why

It's actually quite fun (so far)

That’s the non-JD part.

As if it's easier? *shrugs*

Nah, the JD is easier, but they’re not anything alike, so liking one doesn’t guarantee you’ll like the other. (Also if you think the PhD is fun you must not be dissertating yet.)

Cross that bridge when I get to it.

[A. Nony Mouse]

“Easiness” or “hardness” aren’t really the applicable metrics here anyway.

[mcmand]

People are emphasizing it's a professional degree because JD classes actually aren't very "academic," and arguably not very intellectual. It's very mechanical. Understand how the law is applied, learn the law, then apply it on exam. Repeat ad infinitum until your head explodes.

You could change a few words in this and describe most STEM disciplines. The navel gazing you are equating with "intellectualism" is mostly contained within the humanities. Anyway, not trying to bust your balls, but I think that the reason law feels unintellectual has less to do with the mechanical nature of the learning and more to do with the fact that most of the rigor comes from professors playing hide the ball.

Regarding the OP, the only time a JD/PhD makes sense is when the PhD is in BioChem and the JD is accompanied with a USPTO reg. number. Beyond that, either you're either extremely naive about your job prospects or you're hiding from the real world on on your parents' dime.

You're right, I was focusing on non-STEM PhDs with my comment.

My point was that intellectual pursuit for its own sake without a game plan for what happens afterward isn't very valuable and does not jive with how the legal field works, which is what everyone is trying to say anyway. I'll shut up now.

[totesTheGoat]

You're right, I was focusing on non-STEM PhDs with my comment.

My point was that intellectual pursuit for its own sake without a game plan for what happens afterward isn't very valuable and does not jive with how the legal field works, which is what everyone is trying to say anyway. I'll shut up now.

Just want to emphasize the highlighted part.

[cavalier1138]

“Easiness” or “hardness” aren’t really the applicable metrics here anyway.

For real.

I know PhD students who absolutely bombed their first semester of law school and detested the exam format because it was so antithetical to everything they had been doing in academia up to that point. Nothing to do with it being easy or hard. It's just a radically different experience.

[KENYADIGG1T]

I am applying to do joint JD/PhD.

Oh god why

It's actually quite fun (so far)

That’s the non-JD part.

As if it's easier? *shrugs*

Nah, the JD is easier, but they’re not anything alike, so liking one doesn’t guarantee you’ll like the other. (Also if you think the PhD is fun you must not be dissertating yet.)

My claim requires no "guarantee." I argue that even with regard to where I am on the JD/PhD path, I've done enough work and talked to enough people with relevant experience/credentials/vantages to make the probabilistic claim that I can get a lot out of law school even if my reasons for attending are primarily academic. Conveying that to the law schools I've applied to, the ones that have responded don't seem to mind.

[A. Nony Mouse]

That’s great, I hope you do. Again, though, law school isn’t designed as an academic experience in the same way that a PhD program is. (Also I never said the schools would mind. They frequently like to think of themselves as more academic.)

[mcmand]

Conveying that to the law schools I've applied to, the ones that have responded don't seem to mind.

Why would they? They want your money, stats, or both.

[totesTheGoat]

My claim requires no "guarantee." I argue that even with regard to where I am on the JD/PhD path, I've done enough work and talked to enough people with relevant experience/credentials/vantages to make the probabilistic claim that I can get a lot out of law school even if my reasons for attending are primarily academic. Conveying that to the law schools I've applied to, the ones that have responded don't seem to mind.

Legitimate question out of curiosity, not trying to be snarky: Why not save 3 years and gobs of money and just do a bar prep class? You could easily supplement to learn some additional subject matter and be done in a semester. This isn't meant as an insult, but getting a JD for 'academic purposes" has always had a whiff of credentialism to me.

[KENYADIGG1T]

“Easiness” or “hardness” aren’t really the applicable metrics here anyway.

For real.

I know PhD students who absolutely bombed their first semester of law school and detested the exam format because it was so antithetical to everything they had been doing in academia up to that point. Nothing to do with it being easy or hard. It's just a radically different experience.

I'll grant your point. It's not about ease or difficulty, rather it's about the difference of experiences.

Here's where I'm stumped: what's the value of saying that they are vastly different? I don't think that fact escapes PhD students, and I definitely don't think they're more prone than the general population to ignore that fact.

As for your anecdotes, did the students who bombed their first semester of law school do so because they were PhD students? Even on the most charitable read (that they had certain expectations about law school that didn't pan out), the problem isn't that they are PhD students; rather, like most disillusioned law students, they just needed to "do their research as it were." In short, I don't see much in support of PhD students being somehow more prone to being unfit for law school.

[KENYADIGG1T]

That’s great, I hope you do. Again, though, law school isn’t designed as an academic experience in the same way that a PhD program is. (Also I never said the schools would mind. They frequently like to think of themselves as more academic.)

And I don't think that PhD students as PhD students are blind to that fact.

[cavalier1138]

I'll grant your point. It's not about ease or difficulty, rather it's about the difference of experiences.

Here's where I'm stumped: what's the value of saying that they are vastly different? I don't think that fact escapes PhD students, and I definitely don't think they're more prone than the general population to ignore that fact.

As for your anecdotes, did the students who bombed their first semester of law school do so because they were PhD students? Even on the most charitable read (that they had certain expectations about law school that didn't pan out), the problem isn't that they are PhD students; rather, like most disillusioned law students, they just needed to "do their research as it were." In short, I don't see much in support of PhD students being somehow more prone to being unfit for law school.

I mean, it's impossible to say for sure, but their PhD experience trained them to think a specific way. Law school required a different way of thinking about things, and that's not always the easiest transition to make.

I don't think that PhD students are necessarily more "vulnerable," but they're more likely to have become entrenched in specific thought patterns and methodologies.

[totesTheGoat]

In short, I don't see much in support of PhD students being somehow more prone to being unfit for law school.

IMO it's not a fitness issue beyond the whole doing law plus another degree at once thing, same as JD/MBA students. The question is of value. JD is a professional degree in the sense that you spend 3 years putting up with the BS that is law school so that you can get a license to practice law. Without the mandatory licensing schemes that exist across the country, nobody would sit through 3 years of law profs trying to make easy concepts harder than they actually are and grading on the stupidest of minutae. Folks (myself included) are scratching our heads about why somebody would put themselves through that BS voluntarily. You can learn most of the same material in 8 weeks with BarBri or Themis for a couple grand. Get on a CLE mailing list or two and you can get your fill on whatever your subject matter of interest is.

[A. Nony Mouse]

No one said PhD students were more unfit for law school than anyone else (plenty of people who go to law school are unfit for it!). But frankly PhDs are trying to train you as a scholar and to develop an independent research agenda that contributes original thought to the world. The JD is a professional degree intended to prepare you for practice by instilling the same basic information/ways of thought in all students. There isn’t really anything original about it. Sometimes creative, but that’s not quite the same thing. There is also often a distinct anti-intellectualism in the student body (some of that may be my school but there are plenty of people on this forum from top schools who embody that).

I also have know PhDs who struggled with the transition - some STEM people (engineers) struggle with the gray area bits and with reading a great deal that isn’t especially concrete, some humanities people overcomplicate or get lost in theory/policy (i.e. think it’s about their insights). I also know PhDs who waltzed through law school and found it easy peasy. (I was somewhere in between - I did well and didn’t think it was hard so much as a grind at times, though I didn’t float effortlessly to the top of the class by any means.)

Also of course you know it’s going to be different, but it’s not always possible to see how until you experience it. I knew it would be different, but it was still a bit of a surprise actually to live it.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'll grant your point. It's not about ease or difficulty, rather it's about the difference of experiences.

Here's where I'm stumped: what's the value of saying that they are vastly different? I don't think that fact escapes PhD students, and I definitely don't think they're more prone than the general population to ignore that fact.

As for your anecdotes, did the students who bombed their first semester of law school do so because they were PhD students? Even on the most charitable read (that they had certain expectations about law school that didn't pan out), the problem isn't that they are PhD students; rather, like most disillusioned law students, they just needed to "do their research as it were." In short, I don't see much in support of PhD students being somehow more prone to being unfit for law school.

I mean, it's impossible to say for sure, but their PhD experience trained them to think a specific way. Law school required a different way of thinking about things, and that's not always the easiest transition to make.

I don't think that PhD students are necessarily more "vulnerable," but they're more likely to have become entrenched in specific thought patterns and methodologies.

I think this is correct. The PhD absolutely entrenches certain modes of thought that you don’t even realize until you’re not surrounded by them.

[KENYADIGG1T]

No one said PhD students were more unfit for law school than anyone else (plenty of people who go to law school are unfit for it!). But frankly PhDs are trying to train you as a scholar and to develop an independent research agenda that contributes original thought to the world. The JD is a professional degree intended to prepare you for practice by instilling the same basic information/ways of thought in all students. There isn’t really anything original about it. Sometimes creative, but that’s not quite the same thing. There is also often a distinct anti-intellectualism in the student body (some of that may be my school but there are plenty of people on this forum from top schools who embody that).

I also have know PhDs who struggled with the transition - some STEM people (engineers) struggle with the gray area bits and with reading a great deal that isn’t especially concrete, some humanities people overcomplicate or get lost in theory/policy (i.e. think it’s about their insights). I also know PhDs who waltzed through law school and found it easy peasy. (I was somewhere in between - I did well and didn’t think it was hard so much as a grind at times, though I didn’t float effortlessly to the top of the class by any means.)

Also of course you know it’s going to be different, but it’s not always possible to see how until you experience it. I knew it would be different, but it was still a bit of a surprise actually to live it.

I haven't experienced law school yet, so I am not disagreeing with that part your argument. Again, the anecdotes aren't doing the explanatory work you want them to. Some people succeed; some people don't. That can be said of someone who is a K-JD, has WE--that can be said of people in every challenging endeavor. But I don't think (and forgive me if I am a broken record at this point) that there's anything about being a PhD student in particular that blinds someone to the realities of law school. There's close to no chance in hell that I'll be learning about the metaphysics of law in law school, but I can 1) know that and 2) still find it a fruitful exercise to use what I do learn in law school to further my professional ambitions moving forward.

[KENYADIGG1T]

I'll grant your point. It's not about ease or difficulty, rather it's about the difference of experiences.

Here's where I'm stumped: what's the value of saying that they are vastly different? I don't think that fact escapes PhD students, and I definitely don't think they're more prone than the general population to ignore that fact.

As for your anecdotes, did the students who bombed their first semester of law school do so because they were PhD students? Even on the most charitable read (that they had certain expectations about law school that didn't pan out), the problem isn't that they are PhD students; rather, like most disillusioned law students, they just needed to "do their research as it were." In short, I don't see much in support of PhD students being somehow more prone to being unfit for law school.

I mean, it's impossible to say for sure, but their PhD experience trained them to think a specific way. Law school required a different way of thinking about things, and that's not always the easiest transition to make.

I don't think that PhD students are necessarily more "vulnerable," but they're more likely to have become entrenched in specific thought patterns and methodologies.

I think this is correct. The PhD absolutely entrenches certain modes of thought that you don’t even realize until you’re not surrounded by them.

Even granting this, how does this put a PhD student in a materially different position relative to a non PhD student looking forward to law school? Also, does this claim admit of differences as it relates to particular disciplines?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Again - I don’t think anyone has said there’s anything about being a PhD student that blinds you to the realities of law school. No one has said that PhD students are doomed to struggle in law school. People are saying only that 1) it’s very very hard to get legal academia and 2) doing a JD doesn’t generally add much for someone who already wants to do a PhD. I am saying that if you’re going into it because you want it to be genuinely useful to your academic/PhD path you are going to have to be very self-directed because it’s just not designed to work that way. It’s not a PhD program except you’re studying law. There are lots of other actual academic programs that study law as a subject.

Really I guess for me the issue is this: there is no real reason to get a JD unless you want to practice law; there is no real reason to get a PhD unless you want to be a prof/academic researcher; and it’s not because no one can ever get anything else out of those programs, but because that is what those programs are designed to do. Even if you’re doing them purely out of personal passion. Neither program is about satisfying personal passion.

Edit to add (and I’m sorry, I know I’m rambling): re: how a PhD student is different from other non-law students approaching law school - academia entrenches a particular view of the world that non-academics don’t have. Google “academia is a cult.” My sense is that there is some difference between disciplines in which the PhD offers legitimate non-academic/industry job options and those in which it doesn’t, but some of it is universal.