`:The dispute tag is inappropriate because your comments are already represented in the article (``debate`` section at end), and because you offer no source which directly contradicts the content of the article.  :It is clear that you have not studied the article in its entirety and are kind of just throwing out comments from your armchair without really researching the matter.  I do wish you would read the article closely, but as a starter, I think you would find this source particularly insightful: Hall, James Parker, [American Law School Degrees], Michigan Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Dec., 1907), pp. 112-117.  Particularly page 2 (pg. 114).  It is cited in the wiki article.  It was written by one of the creators of the J.D. around the time of its implementation.  :Other references used in this wiki article include peer reviewed scholarly works published by prestigious universities such as Oxford (a U.K. university of course), and written by some of the very individuals who played a hand in developing the degree, who are world reknown scholars of law.  :There are no authoritative references which support your point of view, and all of the best references directly contradict it.  Googling on the internet is no substitute for research in the libraryI encourage you to do so.  :I'm not sure which references you are discussing when you state: 1st, 2nd, etc.  Based on the context of your comments, I've guessed.  :First reference: does not cite answers.com as authority, but merely for more information.  Other definitions do not use any authority.  The Association of American Universities Data Exchange is an authoritative source in and of itself. :Second reference: don't know to what website you are referring.  But if it is the U of Melbourne, USC, Berkeley or the National Science Foundation (the only other citations in that range), I'd love to see their reply to you, if they reply at allI'm sure it would be entertaining. :Third reference: Whose bar association?  It is merely representative of an opinion expressed by other bar associations in the U.S., after research by that entity.  Even though they are a professional organization and might represent a vested interest, their official opinion is not irrelevant and represents common knowledge in the profession. :Fourth reference: Again it is unclear to what website you are referring, but I hope you'll share their response (see note to second reference in this comment). :Fifth reference: The german article is the result of research and cites authoritative sources published in the U.S.  One of the reasons imperfect sources such as this have been used is because they are one of the few that can be viewed on the internet.  It is useful because it cites to other useful sources.  Ignorance of German is no excuse (no offense intended in the tone, just a play on a common latin phrase). :Sixth reference: Again, imperfect sources were sometimes used because of their availability on the internet.  I'd like to learn more from you about the M.D. not being a requirement to practice medicine.  :I'm not sure if you are familiar with the discussion in the archives, which thoroughly discuss all the points you have raised here.  An attempt to represent all of those arguments (plus others made in other fora) was made in including the section of this article titled ``Debate about Academic Status.``  Please explain why this is not sufficient.  :Examples of a professional doctorates offering degrees after the doctorate include the D.D.S. and the M.D.  Again, this has already been discussed, with citations to sources, in previous discussions (see the archives).  :Arguably, it is possible to pursue a doctorate in almost any field without a certain undergraduate majorit is the discretion of the department to admit such students.  Some common examples include: history, political science, sociology, etc.  :The J.D. is in fact a unique degree that was carefully engineered to fit the needs of the field.  Comparing degrees across disciplines is problematic and not useful.  There are some graduate degrees that do not require four years.  Please see the archives for discussion.  :The term ``graduate entry`` is not a universally understood term and it is not used in U.S. institutions.  :Your citations (in order): :Georgetown: why did you cite this?  Relevant content is not apperant. :Kinsella: Just the unsupported opinion of one attorney.  But if we examine it, we note the following: the principle problem with ``juris doctorate`` is that it's grammatically incorrect.  This lawyer is, as he admits in the last sentence of his entry, ignorant of the history of the J.D., and his comments 