<p>Anyone else trying to decide between the two?</p>
<p>I thought about it for a while, but it really depends on what you want to do with your life, and is as fundamental a question of “business, music, history, or engineering” was back in your undergrad days.</p>
<p>If you want to go and practice some type of law, you get the JD. Enjoy the money.</p>
<p>If you want to research and perhaps teach a little, you get the PhD. Enjoy the innovation.</p>
<p>If you want to research and perhaps teach the law, you get the JD, then perhaps later go back for a M.LL. or a S.J.D. or similar, but its not necessary - the JD is the requirement.</p>
<p>But no one else can tell YOU what you want to do.</p>
<p>Yes, as cosmicfish says, it really depends on what your interests are and what you’re looking to do down the road. While it’s possible to be involved in academic research as a JD, and it’s possible to be involved in law as a PhD, and there are some superficial similarities between the subject areas covered in the standard JD program and some PhD programs, the difference between a JD and a (related-area) PhD is really as large as the difference between a MD and a biomedical PhD. The entire focus behind the training (grad vs. professional school) is different, and the degree programs have different fundamental objectives and are fundamentally aimed at different sorts of people.</p>
<p>If you primarily want to practice law, get a JD; if you primarily want to practice medicine, get an MD.</p>
<p>If you primarily want to do research, get a PhD.</p>
<p>If you really primarily want to do both (practice law and do research), you can consider a JD/PhD program.</p>
<p>Get a JD if you want to practice law.</p>
<p>Get a PhD if you want to conduct research or advance in research/administrative positions that require it.</p>