Top Law Schools

What PhD programs will you be eligible for if you only have a B.A. & a J.D.--but no M.A.?

you do not necessarily need a Masters to pursue a PHD, you can pursue a PHD w/ a Bachelors in some instances.

The first question that comes to mind is why?

If you can answer that I'd do the PhD first for a number of reasons. For one, you'll likely be debt ridden after law school, and PhD programs typically leave graduates with much less debt (though usually less employable too). And PhD programs, even in the sciences, don't have incredibly strict degree requirements as far as I've seen. Most important is your academic/work experience, GRE scores, and future interests. As a professional degree, I don't think a JD will give you a huge edge for PhD programs, unless maybe if you go to Y/H/S and do some serious academic writing there. But then why would you go on to a PhD program thereafter?

There's a Poli Sci at my school who got a Cal PhD after HLS JD. She (tragically) discovered that law wasn't for her after a few years in practice. I think she entered her PhD program only with her JD and BA.

For strong candidates, PhD programs accept students w/o a Master's. For iffy applicants, schools would rather extend the Master's spot, and let the student rise to PhD if the student proves himself.

Precessional wrote:For strong candidates, PhD programs accept students w/o a Master's. For iffy applicants, schools would rather extend the Master's spot, and let the student rise to PhD if the student proves himself.

Not my experience at all.

First, most PhD programs award either a masters along the way for the hell of it or you can get a masters as a consolation prize if you fail to complete the PhD for whatever reason.

Second, I know that a lot of people will get a masters degree in field X if that's where they want to pursue their PhD but did their undergrad in field Y - but I don't really think the application processes overlap much, i.e. you either apply to the masters program or the PhD program, a school won't "estend the Master's spot" if you're an iffy candidate.

I've done less research here than on LS so I might be off, but that's what I thought based on my own research and that of friends who traversed the path.

disco_barred wrote:Not my experience at all.

First, most PhD programs award either a masters along the way for the hell of it or you can get a masters as a consolation prize if you fail to complete the PhD for whatever reason...

That assume acceptance into the PhD program outright.

Resources are finite. Funding for PhD students are limited by the department and/or whatever research grant the professor or PI has been able to secure. Limited resources. Qualified but iffy candidates may admitted into depart. via masters as a sort of trial run rather than being allocated funding outright.


To make things worse, the recession's impact on PhD programs are two-pronged:
(1) Drying up of funds. Less money for research --> less spots for incoming students.
(2) Increased number of applicants. Increased competition for those fewer spots.

drdolittle wrote:The first question that comes to mind is why?

If you can answer that I'd do the PhD first for a number of reasons. For one, you'll likely be debt ridden after law school, and PhD programs typically leave graduates with much less debt (though usually less employable too). And PhD programs, even in the sciences, don't have incredibly strict degree requirements as far as I've seen. Most important is your academic/work experience, GRE scores, and future interests. As a professional degree, I don't think a JD will give you a huge edge for PhD programs, unless maybe if you go to Y/H/S and do some serious academic writing there. But then why would you go on to a PhD program thereafter?

In many fields, getting a JD first is actually hindrance for admissions--PhD adcomms are sometimes reluctant to admit JD grads who can jump ship for a lucrative career (this is even more true if you take a year or two in biglaw, i.e. you are making six figures). In contrast, someone with only undergrad experience (and possibly an MA) really won't have many opportunities outside the PhD, so they are much more committed to the program. There is of course, something a little ugly about the whole thing. On top of that, the JD is not even close to as relevant for practice after you've spent 6 years in a PhD program.

The above is a paraphrase from a humanities Professor I know who deals with admissions, but I've heard similar stories from grad students as well. A PhD post JD, especially for those with JD debt, should really be a very very small market--those who are already competitive for academic jobs but want to do interdisciplinary work.

the time it will take to complete a PHD after getting your JD makes me shiver. is there any benefit to doing this? especially since you dont have a specific program in mind...

Precessional wrote:

disco_barred wrote:Not my experience at all.

First, most PhD programs award either a masters along the way for the hell of it or you can get a masters as a consolation prize if you fail to complete the PhD for whatever reason...

That assume acceptance into the PhD program outright.

Resources are finite. Funding for PhD students are limited by the department and/or whatever research grant the professor or PI has been able to secure. Limited resources. Qualified but iffy candidates may admitted into depart. via masters as a sort of trial run rather than being allocated funding outright.


To make things worse, the recession's impact on PhD programs are two-pronged:
(1) Drying up of funds. Less money for research --> less spots for incoming students.
(2) Increased number of applicants. Increased competition for those fewer spots.

Anecdotal, but heard there were 600 applications for fewer than 10 funded spots in a UC Economics dept.

General Tso wrote:

Precessional wrote:

disco_barred wrote:Not my experience at all.

First, most PhD programs award either a masters along the way for the hell of it or you can get a masters as a consolation prize if you fail to complete the PhD for whatever reason...

That assume acceptance into the PhD program outright.

Resources are finite. Funding for PhD students are limited by the department and/or whatever research grant the professor or PI has been able to secure. Limited resources. Qualified but iffy candidates may admitted into depart. via masters as a sort of trial run rather than being allocated funding outright.


To make things worse, the recession's impact on PhD programs are two-pronged:
(1) Drying up of funds. Less money for research --> less spots for incoming students.
(2) Increased number of applicants. Increased competition for those fewer spots.

Anecdotal, but heard there were 600 applications for fewer than 10 funded spots in a UC Economics dept.

The program I'm aware of had a similar number of applications for 15 funded spots (though acceptances were higher than 15 obviously). PhD programs are certainly more competitive than JD admissions, and it has gotten much worse the last two years.