修讀JD 短時間獲法律學位
【明報專訊】中港兩地交流日漸頻繁，港人除要了解內地情�，報讀某些相關課程以考取內地資格外，還要鞏固我們一直以來的競爭優勢，包括守法精神、國際視野以及對工作熱忱和投入。當中，完善的法律制度更是令香港工商、金融業騰飛的其中一個重要原因。
在香港，現時除了香港大學和城市大學有開辦法律學士（LLB）課程以外，中文大學也計劃在明年開辦法律主修課程，相信可稍稍紓緩近年法律學士課程供不應求的情�。如果閣下已持有一個非法律學士學位，則可考慮直接報讀城市大學新開辦的 Juris Doctor（JD）。
JD主要是一些普通法制下國家如美、加、澳等較普遍的學位，課程相類於一個第二學士學位，專為本身已持有學士學位（非法律）的人士而設。要注意的是，JD並不等於博士課程，持有人也不宜將自己冠以博士名銜。修讀JD最重要的目的，是可在較短時間內完成一個本地認可的法律學位。
而法律博士課程（Doctor of Juridical Science）對學員的研究能力方面要求相當高，而且要求申請人持有法律碩士學位。選修的人士多數是抱�學術研究或個人興趣的目的，有志在法律方面深入認識。
進修途上，本是學無前後，也沒有什麼專家，希望大家拿出誠意，把自己經驗和他人分享。筆者也會繼續努力，如有錯失，還請大家不吝指教。
文﹕陳慶生（法律博士 CFP FCCA FRSA FCIB FCIM）
在香港，現時除了香港大學和城市大學有開辦法律學士（LLB）課程以外，中文大學也計劃在明年開辦法律主修課程，相信可稍稍紓緩近年法律學士課程供不應求的情�。如果閣下已持有一個非法律學士學位，則可考慮直接報讀城市大學新開辦的 Juris Doctor（JD）。
JD主要是一些普通法制下國家如美、加、澳等較普遍的學位，課程相類於一個第二學士學位，專為本身已持有學士學位（非法律）的人士而設。要注意的是，JD並不等於博士課程，持有人也不宜將自己冠以博士名銜。修讀JD最重要的目的，是可在較短時間內完成一個本地認可的法律學位。
而法律博士課程（Doctor of Juridical Science）對學員的研究能力方面要求相當高，而且要求申請人持有法律碩士學位。選修的人士多數是抱�學術研究或個人興趣的目的，有志在法律方面深入認識。
進修途上，本是學無前後，也沒有什麼專家，希望大家拿出誠意，把自己經驗和他人分享。筆者也會繼續努力，如有錯失，還請大家不吝指教。
文﹕陳慶生（法律博士 CFP FCCA FRSA FCIB FCIM）
posted by jason at 6:30 PM
4 Comments:
What you are saying is totally wrong. In fact, you don't have the facts right. Are you really a "doctor"???
Learn the facts before you make any comments, 法律博士! 要評論前,首先要把FACTS搞清楚,這是JD的基本學問,你連這都搞不清楚,光會搞些學術辯論,跟法律職業訓練一點關係都沒有.您的法律素養不過如此,難怪美國的JD學生都瞧不起這些來美國念SJD的人.
SJD多好念你知道嗎?只要有老師願意帶你,就可以申請了.
JD呢?你考得過LSAT再來這裡吹噓吧!
看你的論點很可笑,讓我來教教 你好了.
You are a "Doctor" in an "academic and research" sense. The Juris Doctor, on the other hand, is a "Professional Doctorate" degree. Your degree is NOT a "professional" doctorate degree. It is merely a "research" doctorate degree. I have read many research papers written by SJD's. They are nothing more than "observations" leading to some very shallow "conclusions." A JD, on the other hand, is required to delve into a lot more than mere "observation" and "conclusion." They need to study case laws, figure out facts/procedures, find relevant rules, apply rules and analyze the laws, THEN they'll make conclusions. This is why most U.S. jurisdictions will NOT allow 您這種人 to take the bar exam--you are simply not qualified to be an attorney. All you can be is a talker, a so-called "researcher."
Further, a JD IS ALLOWED to call himself a "Dr." I can't believe that you, so-called 法律博士, can't even accurately point out what a J.D. is. You should read a recent law article on the topic appeared in the November 2006 issue of the American Bar Association Journal, entitled "Lawyers Are Doctors, Too". ABA Informal Opinion 1152 (1970) allows those who hold a Juris Doctor (J.D.) to use the title "doctor." (See also ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 2-102(E).) The North Carolina Bar Association permits the use of the title in post-secondary academic contexts in that state. Although the J.D. is not considered by some academicians (cocky people like you, for instance) as a terminal degree, the highest degree of some university presidents (which position requires a Ph.D. or similar degree)has been that of a J.D. (e.g. 1971-1991 Harvard president Derek Curtis Bok, the present president of Columbia University Lee Bollinger and the president (as of Feb 2009) of Johns Hopkins University Ronald J. Daniels ).
Lastly, a J.D. is different from LLB because of the professionalism in its training. As a so-called "法律博士," can you tell me what exclusionary rules are in the context of evidentiary laws? Can you tell me what civil procedure is? Can you engage in a live analytical, legal debate? Can you engage in socratic dialogues in a typical JD classrom? I am afraid not. You are another shy academic researher who comments on the wolrd in his tiny little bedroom. JD學生皆受過嚴苛的蘇格拉底式辯證教育,怎麼會是你這種只會在電腦前面寫廢話大論的人比得上的呢?
A J.D. should be named "Doctor of Jurisprudence," for your information.
Your degree is only a "academic" degree. It doesn't provide with you any expertise in practising law in the U.S. In fact, you are not even allowed to teach as a law professor in U.S. law schools. A J.D. graduate can be a law professor in any U.S. law schools. You, on the other hand, are not eligible to be a law professor in the U.S. Moreover, if you ever want to study in a SJD program in the US, your 指導教授 will be a JD!
Learn from JDs, that's your job if you want to finish a SJD degree!!
JD是一個"專業博士"(professional doctorate)的學位.你的學位僅僅是個研究性質的博士學位(research doctorate),你又如何比較? 沒有知是沒關係,至少要先把事時搞清楚,這是法律人最基本的觀念.你連FACTS都搞不清楚的人,還稱自己法律博士,程度真的很差.你到底懂不懂法律事幹嘛的?法律的最終目的是要拿來"practice",是在實務中進行的,不是光光像你這樣再家裡研究,就對法律有貢獻了.難怪SJD或PHD都考不上BAR,也難怪SJD或PDH反而要找JD來當指導教授!
美國的ABA已經很清楚的說了,JD可以稱自己"Dr.",因為他跟MD一樣,都是要有本科大學學歷,並且通過LSAT或是MCAT入學考,才能申請.比起SJD只要找到指導教授就可以申請,簡直是無法相比!SJD又有幾個能考過BAR的?我屁股毛數量都比他多.
若是真的要比較,也可以,那就來吧!請看如下:
補充,要讀JD,需要通過LSAT法學院入學考.
在美國,JD是唯一能讓你任執法學院教授的學位.SJD跟LLM都沒有資格.SJD還可能在大學的undergraduate課程裡面教教法學理論騙騙大學生,但是真的要在法學院理教JD,可能會嚇出一褲子尿,為什麼你知道嗎?美國JD教育遵循蘇格拉底的辯證教育,是通過不斷辯論來達成分析的目的.請問只會研究學術的你,你會嗎?你敢再50個人面前,被一個JD教授公開折騰你30分鐘嗎?
你既然沒有受過這種訓練,連FACT都搞不清楚,就來這裡亂屁一些話,你法律到底是在哪裡學的,程度真的很差,也難怪台灣總統馬英九,雖然讀到了哈佛SJD"法學博士,"卻考了個紐約律師考7年都考不上! 這就是你們這些所謂法學博士的實力...
JD呢?不用7年,一年以內絕對考得上!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mr. Jay, I am responding to your comment.
With due respect, I must say that I am impressed by your substantial knowledge in the US JD system.
But it could not be more obvious that this Dr. Chan was really referring to the "JD", if not also the "SJD", in the HONG KONG context. CityU itself offers both degrees. In fact, he only mentioned the US, accompanied by Australia and Canada, in illustrating the popularity of degrees branded "JD" around the common law world. Apart from sharing the same name (JD), and also being an entry qualification for the legal profession in a common law jurisdiction, no reasonable person would seriously believe that JDs in Hong Kong and the rest of the world, and JDs in the USA are any where similar or comparable in content and structure.
At the very least, JDs in Hong Kong are not under the supervision of the American Bar Association, and according to the regulations of CityU and CUHK which offer Hong Kong JDs, holders of this kind of JD are indeed, not allowed to call themselves "Dr". Despite its name, the Hong Kong JD is officially classified as a taught masters degree. Thus, it is very defensible a position to declare that JDs in Hong Kong are effectively a rebranding of the graduate LLB program, instead of being a transplant of the US degree.
By comparing Hong Kong JDs with US JDs, you are really not too different from comparing a "hotdog" with a "dog", or an "apple" with a "pineapple" which is merely, a fruitless exercise of attacking a strawman.
I was shocked to see your readiness to assault on academic researchers and those who hold the SJD degree. This is definitely not a fair evaluation. Obviously, your understanding of the law is overtly narrow as being the esoteric stuff of the lawyers, a set of sui generis black letter rules. Are laws-in-action really administered and operated in the way you talk and apply the rules as recited? Do you think the Socratic method really teaches you the real dynamics in the courtroom? There are already debates in the American legal academia as to the value of this method. Stanford law professor Mark Lemley openly criticized the Socrates method as “trapping people” and he “don’t teach” with this method, in the school’s JD prospectus. The fact that this prestigious school allows the publication of this harsh comment on its advertising brochure implies that things are changing. Judicial politics could not be taught in the doctrinal or debate manner, no matter by professors holding the JD and/or SJD alike. Practical law could only understood in practical experiences.
In addition, academic law is much wider and sophisticated than vocational legal technical trainings, which you apparently favour and praise as the best form of legal education - its a collection of beautiful knowledge which overlaps much with philosophy, the humanities and social sciences. Are there really "analytical" "legal" debates, or are they just analogical or even common sense arguments packed with legal jargons? Do judges really identify the relevant rules and apply the law, or are they influenced by social norms, psychological biases, political and economic rationale, or institutional practices? People who simplistically see the law as just the training of legal craftesmen who allow black letter rules to dominate their common sense, could hardly appreciate the beauty of academic legal research, and dismiss its complexities as "impractical" only because it could not help you to earn more money in the legal market.
In addition, I can already name a number of law professors who do not even possess a JD, not to mention a SJD degree in prominent law schools. Martin Shapiro from UCB Boalt Hall Law School, Alec Stone Sweet from Yale Law School, James Hunt from Georgetown, Phoebe C. Ellsworth, Bruce W. Frier, Donald Herzog from Michigan, to name just a few. Their very existence indicate that your claim that people without the JD could not teach in US law school does not stand. A huge number of SJDs from the US also teach in leading law schools in the UK, Asia, Australia, and more.
By the way, I am not saying that this Dr. Chan who wrote the article is entirely accurate, for instance, his Chinese translation of SJD is not correct.
But I would like to remind you, this Dr. Chan neither holds a US or even Hong Kong SJD. In fact, he merely holds a doctoral degree from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, as well as an LLB from an unmentioned school. Have you really met and talked to someone who holds the SJD degree? Are you sure their knowledge in black letter law is any where lower than JDs?
Please kindly refrain from setting up strawmen and beating them. Its meaningless.
Post a Comment
<< Home