<p>I am interested in getting a law degree plus a history degree. Are there any schools in the US that offer a joint degree program for history and law? thank you!</p>
<p>What kind of degree? MA or PhD?</p>
<p>And why?</p>
<p>There are several schools that offer a BA/JD - as far as I am aware, NONE of them are specifically "history and law," or "philosophy and law." Rather, you spend four years at your undergrad, taking classes for whatever major you want for the BA or BS; during your last year, you start law classes. You spend the next two years taking law classes for your JD. So, if you started one this year, you would be an '09 graduate of the undergrad side and a '11 graduate of the law side. </p>
<p>I know that Washington and Lee and Emory have such programmes. I think that Columbia might as well (but could very well be wrong).</p>
<p>Oh I meant PHD/ JD. Sorry for being unclear. I was randomly searching and I am not sure, but Yale said they have one of those programs.</p>
<p>Okay, my question still stands: Why?</p>
<p>Many schools do offer this but you need to apply to both programs separately, i.e. take both the GRE's and the LSAT's, and get in to both schools at that University. NYU, Columbia, Harvard, Yale, and a few others I researched do offer this option, getting your JD cuts quite a bit of time off your PHD, but it is very rigorous and probably expensive. I'm looking into this option too, I've liked Columbia and NYU's programs the best so far.</p>
<p>well WHY you may ask. My dream is to become a public defender as well as a history professor. I have a passion for teaching. Also, I am a history fanatic. I know the work load will be overwhelming, however, I think I am able to handle it because I am determined to be a public defender/and professor.</p>
<p>I had this same question myself last year.</p>
<p>Thinking it over, though - is that really possible? If you want to teach and also practice, why not finish the PhD program, get a job at a school, and then have your university put you through LS for free? Or why not go into legal academia, where you don't need the PhD, just good LS performance?</p>
<p>What you're asking for would be an insane amount of years of school - all at once - and it would be hard to pay off the LS fee, since the combined-ness wouldn't let you do the summer jobs that earn money.</p>
<p>You don't need "just good LS performance" to break into legal academia. From what I understand, you have to either publish or have a good legal career.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want to teach and also practice, why not finish the PhD program, get a job at a school, and then have your university put you through LS for free?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is there any university that would do this? Keep in mind that from a financial standpoint, a law school is generally completely separate from the rest of the greater university. So it's not as if the university can simply 'order' the law school to educate a student for free. The law school is going to demand tuition fees from somebody, which in this case I would take to mean the history department, and it's not as if university history departments have money to turn.</p>
<p>rExRuN467,</p>
<p>Unfortunately, you're going to quickly find that you won't have time to do both. I know you think you're motivated, but how will you be a college professor and a lawyer at the same time? You need to sleep at some point.</p>
<p>^ lol, forgot about sleep. Anyways, speaking of becoming a professor... how hard is it to be a professor at a university? Does it only take a PHD?</p>
<p>Well, that's about the minimum, usually. However, besides getting into the PhD program, completing the various steps of the process, and writing a very long dissertation, you have to be granted the degree, and then look for work in what is considered to be one of the if not the hardest job market in the world. Some say you need to publish or do significant research to get a professorship. That isn't easy, either. Some "professors" aren't professors, really. There is generally a hierarchy, where the tenured, full-time professor is at the top, followed by the tenure track people, followed by lecturers, who have no guaranteed job after a certain amount of time. Most people want the coveted tenured positions, and these are the hardest to get. It is considered easier (but by no means easy!) to get a lecture position, but sometimes these people are given many classes to deal with. To become a professor at a university is no easy take, when you are facing hundreds of extremely qualified applicants after one position.</p>
<p>shoot.......</p>
<p>rExRuN467,</p>
<p>I'm currently working toward getting into academia, and let me tell you that it's not worth it.</p>
<p>And really, getting your JD if you want to be a professor is a waste of time. Getting your PhD if you want to be a lawyer is a waste of time. A PhD is a research degree, and getting a JD is just a waste of time. Unfortunately, you can't be a lawyer and a professor at the same time. If you really enjoy history, get your PhD and brave the academic market. If you want to be a lawyer, get your JD and brave the legal market. Don't bother getting both. It won't do you any good in either market.</p>
<p>You're unlikely to find a joint program. They're very different endeavors.</p>
<p>I had a professor when I was an undergrad who practiced law for a while, then went back to school for a Ph.D. in political science, and became a professor in that subject.</p>
<p>I had a professor in law school (he was an adjunct professor, not tenured) who had a law degree, plus a Ph.D. in mid-eastern studies, and taught one or two courses a year while practicing law part time. My guess is that he went to law school because of the poor market for academic positions. (That's not an unusual career path for people with Ph.D.s who can't find tenure-track positions.)</p>
<p>Choosing a career is a little like choosing a spouse. Some people find themselves torn between two prospective spouses. Some marry, divorce, and then remarry. There are even a few bigamists out there. For most people, though, the surest path for long-term happiness consists of making a definitive choice, and committing to it.</p>
<p>You don't have to give up your passion for history to become a lawyer. Historical consciousness is very useful for lawyers, of course, but you can also continue as an amateur historian. (Remember, the term "amateur" originally meant "lover". An amateur musician was one who played for the love of music, as an amateur historian was one who engaged in historical inquiry for the love of history. It's a sense worth preserving.)</p>
<p>UCLAri,</p>
<p>Which discipline of academia are you trying to get into?</p>
<p>When you say it's not worth it, you're clearly speaking from your own experience. What specifically, if it is not too personal, has led to this attitude?<br>
I, too, find myself on the fence between a legal and academic career.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And really, getting your JD if you want to be a professor is a waste of time. Getting your PhD if you want to be a lawyer is a waste of time. A PhD is a research degree, and getting a JD is just a waste of time. Unfortunately, you can't be a lawyer and a professor at the same time. If you really enjoy history, get your PhD and brave the academic market. If you want to be a lawyer, get your JD and brave the legal market. Don't bother getting both. It won't do you any good in either market.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most of your post is disputable, for I have mountains of evidence that supports the contrary.</p>
<p>Silly question... but can't you be a law professor?</p>
<p>I would second a law professor as being a good alternative. I think you would find it difficult to be a full time history professor and a lawyer. The history professor job market is exceptionally competitive. Most schools offer Ph.D.'s in history so there are typically many more job candidates than there are jobs. Some one who wanted to be a history professor would need to definitely publish during their grad program and even then would not be guaranteed anything. I've heard of job postings in history at Tier 4 universities where they've had over 100 applicants for one position. This isn't even at a highly competitive school. This is true of English Ph.D.'s as well. This doesn't mean this is an unattainable goal for you. It just means that I think a university would not be likely to hire some one who only wanted to give half of their focus to the job when they have 99 other applicants who would give their whole focus. Check out the Chronicle of Higher Education website. There are many columns (usually listed on the left hand side) that you can read without subscribing. It might help to give you a realistic picture of the higher ed job market.</p>
<p>However, if you pursued a degree in history, it's possible that you could teach an adjunct class with a university and satisfy that love of history. That's actually what I do. I have a full time job, but teach one college course a semester (although not in history). It's helps out when the department is short handed and also satisfies my desire to teach at the college level.</p>