Why Mostly PhDs and Not JDs in University Political Science Faculties?

[SOG25]

"Why would a JD with a BA be qualified to teach political science? If you want to teach why don't you go back to school and get a MA or PhD? All you are doing is driving down salaries for a job you really don't need and harming people who have gone to graduate school 6 to 8 years."

This comment posted was in response to a question as to whether someone can teach political science with only a JD instead of the normal PhD. I have always believed that the JD is sufficient but have heard other perspectives about the topic. Would you mind considering some of my thoughts and sharing your perspectives?

In the past, I have received feedback indicating the JD is not sufficient to teach political science but the reasons given always left me, perhaps, unconvinced. I am trying to research further into why universities may consider one course of study (namely the PhD) more qualified than the JD. The study of law should provide an adequate knowledge about American government, at the very least. In fact, I feel that with the study of law, one might even have a better understanding of government than in any other field, since American government is primarily based on the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution. This then begs the question, why would any other field of study be more adequate (in terms of ability) to teach undergraduate students about political science?

Furthermore, I've been told in the past that a PhD would have read more than a JD or perhaps that there are complex research (perhaps statistical) skills that a PhD receives which a Juris Doctor does not get in law school. While that may be the case, I still personally do not see what bearing the disseration or research tools of a PhD in political science has on the education of an undergraduate. While I'm sure all that knowledge is useful in research for public policy (and interpreting political literature), I don't see an undergraduate student using or needing that level of statistical analysis. In my experience, most undergraduate courses in political science are essentially basic.

Finally, what about some of the masters programs offered in the Law (LL Ms). The international law and comparative law seems to me fairly academic than technical, why would it not also be the equivalent of a Masters of PhD in political science?

.I have asked these questions more on the basis of the reasons behind them. Until now I have not really heard good reasons (in terms of capacity to teach), so my search continues. Look forward to your thoughts.

[repatriate]

I am not in political science, so I cannot speak to the specifics of the field. However, I gather that you are asking about teaching positions at the university level. In general, professorships are not solely (sometimes not even primarily) teaching positions. Rather, they involve some mix of teaching and research and are appointed based on skills in each of these domains. Though the degree to which each of these skills is emphasized varies from institution to institution, both will be seen as important in some degree at almost all four year degree-granting institutions. Thus, if a JD has no research training, he or she may be judged as unsuitable for a position which demands research as a principal responsibility.

Of course, not all post-secondary teaching is done by tenure-track professors at universities. Adjunct professors and lecturers can teach courses at such institutions without the expectation of research commitment and these positions may not require the same credentials. However, these positions are generally temporary and poorly paid in comparison to tenure-track positions. Professorships at community colleges, likewise, will not face the same expectations for research. If your goal is to teach in one of these positions, a lack of research training may not be such a hindrance.

[Tufnel]

There are two questions at play in your post, they are probably best understood if separated.

1) Are JDs competitive in the academic job market? (Are they perceived as qualified?)

2) Do JDs deserve to be competitive on the job market? (Are they in fact qualified?)

I think the answer to both is no but you seem to be treating each simultaneously.

Your conviction that the JD should be sufficient has no bearing on the first question. All else equal, a JD is not as competitive on the academic market as a PhD. And frankly, our opinions on the first don't matter. Even if you convinced every poster on this forum that JDs are qualified for tenure track employment, you've convinced an irrelevant segment of society - those without academic employment (save a couple exceptions). If you want a job as an academic, play your hand in response to the market as it is rather than responding to your normative opinion about how it should be.

The latter question is the one you seem to be addressing. Though it's irrelevant (given the fact that none of us can do anything about it), perhaps it's interesting.

You base your argument around the idea that JDs know American government and are thus qualified to serve as professors. This belies a misunderstanding of most elite universities. JDs learn how to be lawyers. That is the intent of law schools, the signal provided by the degree represents that intent. A JD says "I ostensibly know how to be a lawyer."

PhDs are, by and large, taught a different professional skill - academic research in Political Science. For all the puffery surrounding academia, PhDs are professional degrees as well. You learn to research and you're expected to utilize those skills. Yes, you teach too. But at elite universities, tenure hinges on research productivity. Teaching is well and good but it is rarely the priority.

JDs are qualified and often fill jobs as instructors. They teach con law, judicial process, etc. That doesn't mean they are at all prepared to conduct sound scholarly research in the social sciences. Since they were never trained to do research in political science, to expect as much is to misunderstand either the difference between the two degrees or the expectations of a poli sci professor.

Just my $.02. I'm no insider though so take it with several grains of salt.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Tufnel

[Sparky]

Don't be confused by the anachronistic use of "Juris Doctor." In modern academia, a law degree is the equivalent of a master's degree, not a Doctorate of Philosophy.

Saying "A JD could do it just as well!" is the same as saying "But you only need an MA in poli sci to know what you're doing! Why should I have to spend four whole big extra years..." Possibly true, but entirely beside the point, because, as Tufnel said, a university position is not only about teaching.

[cogneuroforfun]

Why would someone trained to be a practicing lawyer be qualified to teach political science at a university?

[SOG25]

Thanks for your thoughts.

I also want to clarify that my point is not to denigrate the merit of the PhD; I think it is clearly a worthy and valuable education. At the same time, I have tremendous respect for the study of jurisprudence, also a worthy endeavor and no small accomplishment. My point is to challenge the idea that only PhDs are qualified to teach political science, when JDs are clearly qualified as well.

As to the comment about who deserves to be “doctor”, that designation, in my opinion, appears to be completely arbitrary or conventional. A simple look into the etymology of Doctor or “docere” reveals that it simply means teacher. Therefore, the standards by which one earns the title of doctor is completely arbitrary (e.g., it could be earned by completion of a dissertation or by passing a bar exam). Our academic institutions could very well tomorrow say: “From henceforth, doctors/professors are those who spin around three times in their underwear.” It’s completely arbitrary and irrelevant to my question.

My premise is that a Juris Doctor attains a firm grasp on government institutions and public policy through their studies; therefore, they are qualified to teach political science courses.

Your comments, so far, seem to revolve around the fact PhDs are more qualified to teach political science because they do more than teach and have secondary (insofar as they have nothing to do with teaching) skills:

“ PhDs are, by and large, taught a different professional skill - academic research in Political Science. For all the puffery surrounding academia, PhDs are professional degrees as well. You learn to research and you're expected to utilize those skills. Yes, you teach too. But at elite universities, tenure hinges on research productivity.”

“Teaching is well and good but it is rarely the priority.”

Really!?!?

I would argue that if the primary purpose of the university is to teach students, which it is, then it probably makes sense to evaluate teachers based on their capacity to teach, rather than a secondary skill set. If teaching were not the primary purpose of the university, then why have students there?

I’d also point out Juris doctors are also trained in research skills, but again my focus is their qualification to teach political science courses as a result of their education. Look forward to your thoughts.

[Wesson]

There are various points to consider. A J.D. is a trade degree. It prepares one for the practice of law. People who receive a J.D. typically receive no training in teaching. People who receive a Ph.D. typically have to take one or more courses on how to teach, and also typically are assigned to teach discussion sections to help prepare them to become professors. Thus, the J.D. will, on average, be much less prepared to step into the classroom than will be the Ph.D.

Beyond that, there is the matter of substantive preparation. You seem to think that the entirety of political science is about U.S. law and policy. The J.D. would have no substantive qualification to teach the vast majority of courses on political theory, comparative politics, international relations, or political behavior, and only would be qualified to teach a portion of courses on U.S. institutions and policy. Even within the realm of law and politics, keep in mind that a lot of law students are busy taking courses on contracts, antitrust, etc.--matters that are relevant for politics, but that hardly are central to what political science departments teach.

Another point is that people with J.D.s do get hired to teach some political science courses. There are some tenured and tenure-track political science faculty who hold J.D.s as their highest degrees, and there are many, many people with J.D.s who are hired as adjuncts to teach courses on law and politics, Constitutional law, etc. Of the offerings in any given political science department, I'd guess that a J.D. might possess the substantive qualifications to teach 5-10%.

Let's turn this around--if the Ph.D. and J.D. are as interchangeable as you have suggested, should we permit people with Ph.D.s in political science to practice law? I would think not. Yes, there is a tiny bit of overlap between training in law and training in political science, but we're talking about two mostly different disciplines.

[SOG25]

Well, here’s just a sample of some of those courses you obviously agree that JDs are qualified (or more qualified) to teach, which also fall within political science:

Constitutional law (learned a great deal about institutions simply by understanding judicial decisions)

International law (clearly a part of international relations); let’s not forget about International Organizations.

Administrative Law (A growing area of concern in political science)

Intro to American law

All of these courses could fall under the field of Public Law, which, correct me if I’m wrong, is a subfield of the political science discipline. They could also be dispersed throughout other subfields, including American, IR and Public Administration.

Consider that all Phds by virtue of their coursework and dissertation choose to specialize (e.g., political theory, IR, comparative, public law, etc). The Juris Doctor then, in the context of political science, is a specialist in public law due to the nature of his/her training.

If PhDs are assumed qualified to teach a vast array of law-related courses, generally outside their specialty (e.g., con law, judicial process, administrative law), even though many lack the JD, why not also extend the same recognition to Juris Doctors? In other words, why not recognize that JDs are competent for other non-law related courses as well, including political theory and international relations.

The fact is that many tenured PhDs teach subjects outside their area of training, and no one seems to challenge the integrity of that practice, so why not equally recognize the competence of JDs for tenured professorships?

To the point about Juris doctors not having taken teaching courses, I find that almost moot. By the time a Juris Doctor graduates from law school, s/he is very familiar not only with the relevant issues but with a very effective pedagogy. This form of teaching is so highly regarded that Socrates swore by it, hence the name “Socratic method.”

By virtue of their substantive understanding of government through the volumes of case studies they read in order to examine institutions, judicial philosophy, political philosophy, thinking like a lawyer is certainly great preparation for teaching government/political science.

Of course, PhDs have their specialties, particularly in comparative politics, but that does not nullify the competence of the Juris Doctor.

“Let's turn this around--if the Ph.D. and J.D. are as interchangeable as you have suggested, should we permit people with Ph.D.s in political science to practice law?"

While that’s a question for another topic of discussion, I would argue perhaps we should permit it. Unless there is empirical, conclusive evidence showing why a PhD would not succeed in legal practice, though I highly doubt that!

P.S. With a background in political science and public policy, I’m very familiar with what political science departments teach.

[Wesson]

Well, again, I agree that there are some courses the J.D. could teach. In my department, we have just over 100 undergrad courses on the books. If I really stretched it, there are 20 that I probably could teach. There are about 10-12 that I am very comfortable teaching. Depending on the breadth of the person's training, it looks like there are as many as 8-10 that a J.D. could teach, and 4-5 that most J.D.s should be able to teach. So, consistent with my earlier claim, I'd say the J.D. can teach something in the neighborhood of 5-10% of what my department offers. And, for what it's worth, we bring in some J.D.s to teach some of those courses.

As to your other points, first, I don't think it's moot at all that the J.D. has had no teaching experience. My kids have watched me drive their whole lives, but I wouldn't put them behind the wheel with no added training. Sitting there watching just isn't enough. Now, if the J.D. is willing to take a semester or two to enroll in some courses on how to teach, and to lead some discussion sections, this deficit could be rectified.

Second, as to your claim that political scientists teach law and politics courses outside of their specialties, this isn't so in my experience. The people who teach such courses are faculty who either hold both a Ph.D. and a J.D. or who quit law school after a year or two before moving to a Ph.D. program. Also, there are several Ph.D. programs with strong law and politics concentrations, and they produce a large number of the judicial politics faculty. These faculty aren't teaching law courses, they're teaching on the intersection of politics and law, and they possess direct training in that area.

Third, political scientists generally do not teach very far outside of their areas, nor would they feel they possess the competence to do so. My case, as outlined in the first paragraph, exemplifies this: stretching matters as far as absolutely possible, I still wouldn't feel competent to teach over 80% of what my department offers. So, sure, with some remedial work on how to teach, the J.D. can teach a few courses, but it's a long way from there to claiming that the J.D. can step in and teach more than a small segment of political science courses.

All of that said, the other posters also are right that a large part of what we do is research. In my department, research is, by contract, defined as a larger portion of my responsibilities than is teaching. For nearly every tenure-track job in political science, the person will need to publish something, whether a little or a lot. What passes for research in law schools is very, very different from what political scientists do. It's quite hard to imagine many J.D.s finding this to be a smooth transition. And note that there's an important trade-off here. The sort of department that could most easily hire a J.D. would be a large department, one that is large enough to have one or two faculty devoted to law and politics. That probably will mean a faculty with a minimum size of at least 15 to 20. Well, departments that large usually are the ones with the highest bars in terms of research expectations. Thus, the dilemma for the J.D. is that the sorts of departments where that person is most qualified to teach will, as a general rule, be the ones where the person is worst-suited to meet the research requirements for tenure.

[SOG25]

Wesson,

While your experience may be different, at least from my limited research, I’ve seen a sizable number of departments with faculty teaching courses outside of their PhD focus.

I don’t suggest that this is necessarily a bad thing. In my opinion, a good teacher is a good teacher, regardless of specialty of focus, consistent with my position that a Juris Doctor will be a good political science professor. Of course, having a focus helps, but does not guarantee expertise or greater competence; in any field, I would argue, expertise is developed by practice in a given area over a number of years.

“Depending on the breadth of the person's training, it looks like there are as many as 8-10 that a J.D. could teach, and 4-5 that most J.D.s should be able to teach.”

I’m curious which of these courses you had in mind?

Thanks for the very informative comments.

[Sparky]

SOG25, if your entire purpose is to say "But a law degree is SO MUCH BETTER!!eleventyone!!," why are you slumming on a poli sci message board?

What are you trying to accomplish here?

[cogneuroforfun]

In my opinion, a good teacher is a good teacher, regardless of specialty of focus, consistent with my position that a Juris Doctor will be a good political science professor. Of course, having a focus helps, but does not guarantee expertise or greater competence; in any field, I would argue, expertise is developed by practice in a given area over a number of years.

1) "A good teacher is a good teacher." Nice idea, but no. I don't want an English PhD teaching math, I don't want a math PhD teaching biology, and I don't want a biology PhD teaching English. The background of the instructor matters immensely. If you don't care what the instructor knows, why even have one? You'll learn as much from a book on differential equations as you would learn from the same book + an English PhD instructor.

Obviously instructors can learn new material, though, which brings us to...

2) "Expertise is developed by practice in a given area over a number of years." This is completely true. This is exactly why someone who has spent 5+ years in a political science program will be better in general than a 3 year JD with a smattering of relevant classes. The poli sci PhD did not simply take all their classes in poli sci, they also read and researched extensively. If you are trying to say that JD's have as much expertise in political science reading, research, and teaching as political science PhDs, then I don't know what to say to you.

Your entire premise is absurd. If political science = law, then yes, JD's can teach political science (although this is even debatable; how does the proportion of JD's who enter academia as law school faculty compare to the proportion of poli sci PhD's who become faculty?). But that is clearly not the case, or there would not be separate political science departments and law schools, and a JD and political science PhD would be equivalent degrees.

[SOG25]

I disagree cogneuroforfu. My premise is not “absurd.” Let me restate it since you misunderstood.

“My premise is that a Juris Doctor attains a firm grasp on government institutions and public policy through their studies; therefore, they are qualified to teach political science courses.”

Given the context of my earlier post, I think it’s clear that I’m not at all implying, as you claim, that any teacher can or should teach subjects significantly outside their field of education. Whether or not that is a good idea, I clearly was obviously pointing to the fact that a good professor of political science, PhD or JD, can effectively teach a course outside his or her specialty/focus, though still within political science. In this respect, a Juris doctor, whose specialty is law, can effectively teach political science courses.

“Obviously instructors can learn new material, though, which brings us to...”

Well said!

2) "Expertise is developed by practice in a given area over a number of years." This is completely true. This is exactly why someone who has spent 5+ years in a political science program will be better in general than a 3 year JD with a smattering of relevant class”

So a PhD who has spent 5+ years in a political science program is already a better teacher in every political course (which I think you understand includes public law courses) than a Juris Doctor? Please explain how that works. Additionally, which are the "smattering of relevant classes," and which law courses do you deem irrelevant to the overall substantive knowledge of government/political science?

[Pamphilia]

Short answer: the study of law is not the same thing as the study of political science. In many ways law and poli sci are very different animals, and equating one with the other is, in my humble (humanities-steeped) opinion, shortsighted.

[SOG25]

Thanks for your thoughts. I initially meant to post this topic in the political science forum, so if you wish to see my responses to some of your ideas, please join the discussion there. Thanks!

[Wesson]

As to what JDs could teach, in my department the obvious ones are Con Law, Supreme Court, Law and Policy, and International Law. Other options would depend on the person's focus in law, but could include courses such as Ethics and Politics, Intro to Policy, Federalism, International Organizations, etc. Someone with a focus in international law presumably would have a different 3-4 courses than someone with a focus in Constitutional law or someone with a focus on law and policy.

[SOG25]

I would add to the list, American national, state and local government courses as well as a political philosophy course. Which of these would you contend with and why? Thanks for the follow-up.

[Charlie2010]

JDs are not trained to do social science research. If one believes in this premise of the university model, that students benefit from being taught by active researchers, then a pure JD is not the best choice.

Also, what JDs study is law, not politics. They are very focused on the texts of the law and the formal institutions and procedures. But that means they do not generally devote much time to other core topics of political science, such as why coalitions do or don't form within legislatures to pass certain laws, or why citizens elect legislators of one type or another. One cannot understand or teach US local, state, or national politics without having a grasp of these topics.

[SOG25]

I would agree that for some courses the JD might not be the best choice, just as there are some courses for which a PhD in poli sci may not be the best choice either (it depends). However, in such circumstances either one may still be a good choice.

You said:

”…. they [Juris Doctors] do not generally devote much time to other core topics of political science, such as why coalitions do or don't form within legislatures to pass certain laws, or why citizens elect legislators of one type or another. One cannot understand or teach US local, state, or national politics without having a grasp of these topics.”

You raise a very interesting point, but allow me to challenge that idea a little. I think you were arguing that because JDs don’t focus or specialize on core “political science topics” such as political coalitions or the political behavior of voters (certainly important parts of US local, state and national government), then they cannot understand or teach those government courses, since didn’t specialize in that area.

Well, it seems to me that by that same logic, since PhDs don’t focus on the court systems, judicial philosophy, the appellate process or judicial review (also important parts of US local, state and national government), then PhDs in political science might as well not understand or teach US local, state or national government courses either, since they didn’t specialize in that area.

I, however, would argue that both the PhD in political science and the JD, despite their specialties, can effectively teach those basic courses in political science, which primarily deal with institutions of government. We also established earlier that a JD could teach an intro to policy course, which would deal with many of topics you bring up.

You also said: “Also, what JDs study is law, not politics. They are very focused on the texts of the law and the formal institutions and procedures.” It is precisely because of their focus, as you rightly point out, on law and the formal institutions and procedures that they would have a firm grasp of these topics.

Let me also note that that a thorough study of how coalitions are formed is usually, and perhaps best, done at the graduate level, such as in a course on the public policy process.

[poli90]

Lot's of JD's teach political science...they just have PhD's as well. While a JD may be basically capable to teach large, introductory public law classes, they would be entirely unable to teach more substantive political science courses or upper year courses that orient senior undergrads or grad students to major problems in the academic literature. When would a JD learn about political behaviour? Electoral systems? Legislative bargaining? Social movements? Democratization? Institution theory? The history of political thought? These sorts of topics are the bedrock of political science education. Given the over-supply of PhD's, virtually every institution in America can find people with PhD's to teach these courses. Finally, learning how to practice the law (or politics, etc) is very different from learning how academics study a topic, and unless they are in professional program, that is mainly what undergrads have signed up to be exposed to.

[Troll]

As alawyer in a political science graduate program, I am not sure I would agree that the rigor law school quantitative classes is less than in social science programs. In fact I think the statistics classes I took in law school were farmore intensive than in graduate school. Moreover, the level of editing and fact checking in law reviews is higher by several orders of magnitude than anything in political science journals.

The distinction is likely the difference in duration. Law school is three years and doctoral programs are 5+ years. The difference is creative research and being a teaching assistant – two things one does not do in law school. Finally, if academic jobs were opened up to lawyers, it would add substantial competition to the already scarce academic job market – something social science departments have a vested interest in avoiding.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Troll

[AuldReekie]

As alawyer in a political science graduate program, I am not sure I would agree that the rigor law school quantitative classes is less than in social science programs. In fact I think the statistics classes I took in law school were farmore intensive than in graduate school. Moreover, the level of editing and fact checking in law reviews is higher by several orders of magnitude than anything in political science journals.

The distinction is likely the difference in duration. Law school is three years and doctoral programs are 5+ years. The difference is creative research and being a teaching assistant – two things one does not do in law school. Finally, if academic jobs were opened up to lawyers, it would add substantial competition to the already scarce academic job market – something social science departments have a vested interest in avoiding.

Not to mention students might like to be taught by political scientists... I don't care whether my IR professor can teach Intro to American Government for example, I would much prefer the expert in the topic to teach me.

[SOG25]

Lot's of JD's teach political science...they just have PhD's as well. While a JD may be basically capable to teach large, introductory public law classes, they would be entirely unable to teach more substantive political science courses or upper year courses that orient senior undergrads or grad students to major problems in the academic literature. When would a JD learn about political behaviour? Electoral systems? Legislative bargaining? Social movements? Democratization? Institution theory? The history of political thought? These sorts of topics are the bedrock of political science education. Given the over-supply of PhD's, virtually every institution in America can find people with PhD's to teach these courses. Finally, learning how to practice the law (or politics, etc) is very different from learning how academics study a topic, and unless they are in professional program, that is mainly what undergrads have signed up to be exposed to.

Poli90,

First, I want to ask what is the evaluative criteria by which you determine "more substantive political science courses" or "upper year courses"? If you look at the political science programs at most departments, the courses I referenced earlier (e.g. constitutional law, admin law, etc) are upper division courses, so JDs hardly teach only "introductory public law courses."

Second, regarding your point that "political behaviour, electoral systems, legislative bargaining, social movements, democratization, institution theory, and political thought" are the bedrock of political science education. It's more accurate to say that these topics are among the offerings of potitical science education, and a JD may very well teach some of these courses well, political philosophy or electoral systems, for example. However, if the course is geared towards imparting the theories and perspectives of political scientists, then a PhD (political scientist) would be the one to teach such a course and perspective.

Third, in reality, most political science students don't sign up for the major just to learn or "be exposed to" the underlying theories and perspctives of political scientists (PhDs); when they sign up they probably don't yet fully understand what the discipline is all about, initially. Rather, it is more accurate to say that most students sign up for the political science program because they are at least inquisitive about how government works, or how societies organize themselves and the institutions through which they do this. This is supported by the fact that a large portion (probably the majority) of them continue on to law school rather than PhD programs to become political scientists trained in that tradition.

In teaching various topics of the political science program (a.k.a government/ politics/ political studies) juris doctors will teach these courses from the perspectives and approaches of their academic background, perhaps while introducing different theories, and will ultimately teach how society works--the purpose of undergraduate political science education.

[rustytrix]

This is supported by the fact that a large portion (probably the majority) of them continue on to law school rather than PhD programs to become political scientists trained in that tradition.

Seriously? I think you just answered your own question.

Edited October 21, 2010 by rustytrix

[SOG25]

Seriously? I think you just answered your own question.

Please elaborate. How did I answer my own question?