I agree Flayva with MTU responding to Mr. Vascianna's article. Some of his facts appear questionable:

"The strongest point against treating the JD as a Ph.D turns on course content. To obtain a Ph.D..., the candidate is required to present a thesis or dissertation."

As far as I am aware, some disciplines don't always require either to get the Ph.D, e.g Accounting. By the same token, the JD does not lend itself to writing a thesis or dissertation with the same ease as, say, going for a Ph.D in History. So if the issue is course content, then comparison should be made on the basis of what is covered in all courses over the seven years it takes to get the JD and not just the thesis or dissertation that is written at the end. It is certainly on this basis that many JDs choose to teach at the university level in this country as opposed to doing other work. Do they need other qualification to be tenured? I don't know.

There is no mention of having to pass the LSAT to get into law school here. This is critical because the LSAT has the same effect as Common Entrance, albeit at a higher level.

Try de flu shot nex year Sis RR...not that this is of any help now, but I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that a flu shot is indispensable.

Rich, I don't see the electorate putting the JLP in now given the bickering and questions surrounding our leader's solvency!! When they rejected us last time, nothing like what is going on now was going on then!!