JD credits towards Phd? Forum

[snichols16]

You could probably come up with some possibilities if you thought about it. One big one is that some schools do not give you the JD free with a PhD so taking them concurrently would let interest accrue for several more years on the law school debt. Not fucking rocket science to come up with that possibility, bro.

I have an idea: limit your responses to things you actually know something about, eh bro?

Interesting.

At any rate... my choice was because my priority was the PhD over the JD when I enrolled. The professor who I wanted to work with, who ended up becoming my chair (and is the most well respected professor in our field), wanted my full attention to writing and research, which paid off. I won a ton of awards and fellowships for both. I am also more mature now than I was when I started my PhD at 22 and have a better idea of the kind of law I want to practice and what interests me about law. My dissertation fully informed this and this realization would not have happened had I done a concurrent program.

Secondly -- and this likely applies to most of the prestigious JD/PhDs -- doing them concurrently doesn't cut down on the amount of time spent in the program. From what I saw, NU suggested that you can get out of there in 6 years, but that is very, very optimistic. Most rigorous PhDs in American History these days take a minimum of five years with two years of full time course work and several years dedicated to full time research. I'll have both JD and PhD done in nine years (with a year off between programs) regardless.

Thirdly: I had a full ride through grad school and am looking at the same for JD. The debt/tuition question isn't that big of a deal.

Fourthly: I was able to publish while in graduate school and, should I decide to return to the academy later in life, that will work in my favor. I am also working on turning two of my chapters into articles as we speak. Having the time to publish in a respected peer reviewed journal while enrolled in an accelerated JD/PhD program would likely be very, very difficult.

Fifthly: Focusing on my PhD allowed me to thoroughly enjoy the program and my mid 20s. This might not be a priority for the gunners, but it was great for me. I worked extremely hard, but was able to take the time to enjoy my research trips, surf six days a week, and work my schedule so I could take breaks here and there to surf all of the Hawaiian Islands, Baja, Mainland, CR, and Nicaragua. I am older now and am ready to pay my dues as I work into big law.

Sure, I could have done them concurrently. But I wouldn't change a thing about what I did or how I did it. I went to an extremely prestigious PhD program, am going to a similarly prestigious JD program. I already have the respect of several of the faculty members because of who I worked with, what I studied, what I researched, what I wrote, and the data sets that I produced. And I lived a great life during my mid-20s.

[fishdude]

As someone who is starting a J.D. after finishing a Ph.D., I didn't do them concurrently because the idea of getting a J.D. didn't come to me until very recently.
But doing them back-to-back really isn't so bad. PhD programs pay (though not much, and apparently some people pay for them -- though the logic of that escapes me). It's not a bad way to hang out with smart people and think about interesting things for a few years. Now I'm getting some generous need-based aid to do my J.D., I have a few publications under my belt, and I'm certainly far more focused than I was at 22.
Was this time wasted? I don't think so. I guess if I had been gunning for a law degree from day one, then sure. But there's something to be said about doing work that genuinely interests you. Focusing on my doctoral research was great. Now I'm ready to move on to something else. Beats having spent my twenties working 80 hour weeks for The Man.
But your mileage may vary. And that's as it should be.

[blink]

You could probably come up with some possibilities if you thought about it. One big one is that some schools do not give you the JD free with a PhD so taking them concurrently would let interest accrue for several more years on the law school debt. Not fucking rocket science to come up with that possibility, bro.

I have an idea: limit your responses to things you actually know something about, eh bro?

Interesting.

At any rate... my choice was because my priority was the PhD over the JD when I enrolled. The professor who I wanted to work with, who ended up becoming my chair (and is the most well respected professor in our field), wanted my full attention to writing and research, which paid off. I won a ton of awards and fellowships for both. I am also more mature now than I was when I started my PhD at 22 and have a better idea of the kind of law I want to practice and what interests me about law. My dissertation fully informed this and this realization would not have happened had I done a concurrent program.

Secondly -- and this likely applies to most of the prestigious JD/PhDs -- doing them concurrently doesn't cut down on the amount of time spent in the program. From what I saw, NU suggested that you can get out of there in 6 years, but that is very, very optimistic. Most rigorous PhDs in American History these days take a minimum of five years with two years of full time course work and several years dedicated to full time research. I'll have both JD and PhD done in nine years (with a year off between programs) regardless.

Thirdly: I had a full ride through grad school and am looking at the same for JD. The debt/tuition question isn't that big of a deal.

Fourthly: I was able to publish while in graduate school and, should I decide to return to the academy later in life, that will work in my favor. I am also working on turning two of my chapters into articles as we speak. Having the time to publish in a respected peer reviewed journal while enrolled in an accelerated JD/PhD program would likely be very, very difficult.

Fifthly: Focusing on my PhD allowed me to thoroughly enjoy the program and my mid 20s. This might not be a priority for the gunners, but it was great for me. I worked extremely hard, but was able to take the time to enjoy my research trips, surf six days a week, and work my schedule so I could take breaks here and there to surf all of the Hawaiian Islands, Baja, Mainland, CR, and Nicaragua. I am older now and am ready to pay my dues as I work into big law.

Sure, I could have done them concurrently. But I wouldn't change a thing about what I did or how I did it. I went to an extremely prestigious PhD program, am going to a similarly prestigious JD program. I already have the respect of several of the faculty members because of who I worked with, what I studied, what I researched, what I wrote, and the data sets that I produced. And I lived a great life during my mid-20s.

1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th are credited. Although for most people, the cost would be an issue to do it the way you did (but good for you to get the scholarships/fellowships that enabled you to do it this way).

[snichols16]

You could probably come up with some possibilities if you thought about it. One big one is that some schools do not give you the JD free with a PhD so taking them concurrently would let interest accrue for several more years on the law school debt. Not fucking rocket science to come up with that possibility, bro.

I have an idea: limit your responses to things you actually know something about, eh bro?

Interesting.

At any rate... my choice was because my priority was the PhD over the JD when I enrolled. The professor who I wanted to work with, who ended up becoming my chair (and is the most well respected professor in our field), wanted my full attention to writing and research, which paid off. I won a ton of awards and fellowships for both. I am also more mature now than I was when I started my PhD at 22 and have a better idea of the kind of law I want to practice and what interests me about law. My dissertation fully informed this and this realization would not have happened had I done a concurrent program.

Secondly -- and this likely applies to most of the prestigious JD/PhDs -- doing them concurrently doesn't cut down on the amount of time spent in the program. From what I saw, NU suggested that you can get out of there in 6 years, but that is very, very optimistic. Most rigorous PhDs in American History these days take a minimum of five years with two years of full time course work and several years dedicated to full time research. I'll have both JD and PhD done in nine years (with a year off between programs) regardless.

Thirdly: I had a full ride through grad school and am looking at the same for JD. The debt/tuition question isn't that big of a deal.

Fourthly: I was able to publish while in graduate school and, should I decide to return to the academy later in life, that will work in my favor. I am also working on turning two of my chapters into articles as we speak. Having the time to publish in a respected peer reviewed journal while enrolled in an accelerated JD/PhD program would likely be very, very difficult.

Fifthly: Focusing on my PhD allowed me to thoroughly enjoy the program and my mid 20s. This might not be a priority for the gunners, but it was great for me. I worked extremely hard, but was able to take the time to enjoy my research trips, surf six days a week, and work my schedule so I could take breaks here and there to surf all of the Hawaiian Islands, Baja, Mainland, CR, and Nicaragua. I am older now and am ready to pay my dues as I work into big law.

Sure, I could have done them concurrently. But I wouldn't change a thing about what I did or how I did it. I went to an extremely prestigious PhD program, am going to a similarly prestigious JD program. I already have the respect of several of the faculty members because of who I worked with, what I studied, what I researched, what I wrote, and the data sets that I produced. And I lived a great life during my mid-20s.

1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th are credited. Although for most people, the cost would be an issue to do it the way you did (but good for you to get the scholarships/fellowships that enabled you to do it this way).

I totally get the cost issue. But I go back to what someone said earlier: you should never, ever, ever, ever pay to get a PhD. Some programs require you to pay for your first year, but after that, they should be paying you. If you're paying for it, that becomes a signal of many things bad about your ability as a researcher, the prestige of the program, and the amount that the program and your mentors are willing to invest in you.