LACProf

I obviously can't speak for every institution that's ever hired, but at my institution (a good, but not tippity-top LAC) we simply don't care about what region of the country your Ph.D. institution happens to be in--we just want to see that you've been well-trained!

Yes, but people with PhDs in political science can also "study law" and produce original scholarly research that advances our understanding of how law works in society. Why does the knowledge acquired by a JD better qualify one to teach undergraduates than the knowledge acquired by someone with a Ph.D. in Political Science who writes his/her dissertation in public law? Or American government (when there are loads of people who have written dissertations on aspects of American government)? Or international organizations (when there are loads of people who have written dissertations...)? As another contributor to the thread said, why on earth should a college that may have only have 3-5 tenure-track lines in political science devote one of those lines to a JD?

Well, I have spent some of my afternoon looking at the websites of good liberal arts colleges and other types of schools so that I can examine the degrees held by their tenure-track faculty. In the vast, vast number of cases (I'm pretty sure the finding is easily statistically significant, though I don't have SPSS on this computer) those faculty hold a Ph.D. In some cases they also hold a JD, but as far as I can tell, these individuals weren't hired until they earned their Ph.D. There's also the fact that virtually all advertisements for jobs in political science express a preference for the Ph.D. I think that if the collective wisdom of the academy was that JDs were as adequate as Ph.Ds, then the ads would be more inviting and we might see more JDs in tenure-track positions (though there's always that possibility that JDs would turn down such positions because of salary disparities). Ah, this represents an advance in the discussion. On what specific grounds is it wrong? In answering this question you will need to explain what you feel the total scope of the discipline of political science should, in your opinion, contain.

The fact remains that the academy, in its collective wisdom, believes (in most cases) that candidates who wish to attain full time, tenure-track employment in political science departments at research universities and good liberal arts colleges as professors who teach American politics (institutions, APD, behavior, whatever) or public law (including, but not limited to, the study of the political-sociological effects of law in American politics and culture; how law affects the interaction among different institutions; how law protects liberty and provides for justice; how appointments to judicial offices are made; the effects of criminal laws and punishment on political access and participation; etc., etc.) need to have a Ph.D., not a JD. Leave me as an individual aside--are you saying the collective wisdom of the academy is incorrect?

I said I was not comfortable speaking for all American politics scholars as a professional courtesy and in deference to any of my colleagues in American politics who might read this discussion. However, like many political theorists, I also took qualifying exams in American politics and have taught American politics courses. As for the theories, fine, I named them and briefly suggested how some might work together and be useful, but I did not discuss them in extended detail. So your contention is that political scientists--who consistently hire PhDs over JDs and do not regularly offer the type of courses that you feel are indeed political science courses--do not understand their own discipline?

In my posts from my earlier appearance in this rather Sisyphean affair, I discussed some of the major theories of American institutions, so I'm pretty sure that I understand them, thanks much. I don't know the intricacies of law school education, but never claimed I did. However, you have presented absolutely no specific evidence in this thread that proves that a law school education makes one as qualified as a Ph.D. in these areas. Others who have experience with law school have added evidence that meshes with the testimonial evidence I have obtained from friends who practice law and students in law school and suggests that the law school curriculum does not adequately prepare 99.9999...% of those who complete it to be a TT professor. By the way, I have been searching liberal arts college websites looking for the types of courses (esp. in administrative law and international law) you have cited as being a 'regular' part of the political science curriculum and I haven't found a single institution that offers said courses regularly (I suppose some places might offer them as a topics course, but the catalogs have limited information on those courses). This isn't to say that there aren't college that do offer such courses, but I don't think you can claim that such courses are taught in "most" political science departments, particularly political science departments at institutions that serve undergraduates.

OK, I grant that I'm not familiar with the curriculum of EVERY college or university in the land (and I really don't feel like looking it up), but none of the ones I am familiar with even have classes like "intro to american law," "administrative law" or "international law" (I'm assuming these courses are based largely on the study of cases). I should forward this to my lawyer friends who pick up adjuncting gigs every now and again--I'm sure they'd get a total kick out of it.

If we're talking about 99.99999...% of JDs versus PhDs, without question (assuming that we're defining public law as the theoretical and empirical study of the interaction of law, courts, etc. with other political institutions).

The fact that all the scholars I've listed have published some sort of original research (with leading presses or in leading journals) on various aspects of the law?

The best liberal arts college in this country--institutions that are devoted to providing a quality education to exceptional undergraduates--seem to believe (if we can take their hiring practices as an expression of their preferences) that professors who hold a Ph.D. are well suited to teach all aspects of political science, including public law.

I'm procrastinating because I don't feel like grading. You say you care about undergraduate education? Let's look at some of the best liberal arts colleges... Amherst College: https://www.amherst.edu/people/facstaff/adsarat Yes, he has a JD (from YALE), but he received that degree years after he earned his Ph.D. (Dr. Sarat has been at Amherst since finishing his Ph.D. in the 1970s). Williams College: http://polisci.williams.edu/faculty/jec3 He holds his Ph.D. from Princeton and does not have a JD Wellesley College: http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/Scherer/index.html She earned her Ph.D. after her JD and did not become a tenure-track professor UNTIL she had received her Ph.D. Grinnell College: http://www.grinnell.edu/academic/polisci/faculty/hamlin She holds a Ph.D. and does not have a JD. These are just some examples. There are many, many more.

At institutions like mine, they sure do, which is why we are damn sure to hire TT professors who hold a degree that provides rigorous grounding in an entire discipline and requires the production (and evaluation) of original scholarly research. To do otherwise would be to cheat our students out of their tuition dollars.

I'd just like to jump back in here to reiterate that many of us who "only" teach undergraduates are also expected to produce research so that we may both contribute to the scholarly conversation AND also be better teachers.

Well, a course in political theory is a political science course--there should be a focus on the way that the central texts help address political questions. This is a primary goal of such a course, but not the only goal. You have to help students see that those ideas and perspectives influence contemporary ethical and/or political positions, and you have to help students decide what ideals they want to privilege in their own ethical and/or political positions. You also have to get students to see that going with the set of normative assumptions that you find in one particular group of theorists tends to lead to a set of political institutions with specific qualities (i.e., if you buy classical liberal assumptions you'll want one set of institutions, but if you buy social assumptions you'll want a set of institutions that looks different). It's this second part--the part about institutions--that tends to fall out when people equate political theory to the history of ideas. However, the study of institutions is so critical to the discipline of political science as a whole that I think it is really important for political theory classes to emphasize the link between normative concepts and the form of institutions. I don't know anyone who uses secondary texts [by this I mean textbooks or other readings designed to "simplify" classic texts] in anything but the most minor way in their intro to political theory courses. The primary texts are always at the center and there are too many primary texts to go through [whether those texts are in a reader or otherwise] during the course of a semester. Contextualization comes from the professor. This type of resource isn't that common. I'm not even aware of anything like a "textbook" for political theory that isn't just a reader (and since I haven't had some goddamned textbook rep incessantly calling me, showing up unbidden at my office door, or wasting precious natural resources by mailing me copies of a book I will never use, it wouldn't surprise me if there isn't one). There are two major secondary sources for helping students understand the entire Western canon as a whole--the books by Sabine and Strauss. However, both of those books are sophisticated works in their own right, and since both Sabine and Strauss were writing from very particular interpretive perspectives the guidance of a Ph.D. with knowledge of the history of the subfield is necessary, even if you use these secondary sources. ETA: I actually found two "Introduction to Political Theory..." books that are like standard textbooks. Both are fairly recent, and, as far as I can tell, not commonly used. Sometimes they are on a "recommended" list or suggested for students who are struggling (an Ohio State Intro to Theory syllabus uses one of the texts this way). A number of political theorists have written "Introduction to..." or "History of..." books, but I am of the opinion that people who read those books and are not acquainted with the subfield of political theory would still benefit from the contextualization that a Ph.D. in the classroom can provide. I'm still not willing to concede this. Well, you should tell that to the folks at Harvard where they cover Kingdon's theory of public policy and various theories of public opinion and political behavior (in the Classics... reader) and the folks at Berkeley (the Principles and Practice of American Politics reader is full of works that contribute to our understanding of the theories I listed in my previous post). I'm pretty sure if I asked my colleagues in American politics if the theories I listed were "useless" for the understanding of American government, etc. that they would literally laugh in my face and tell me that they were, in fact, central to that understanding.

Going against my better judgment/previous promise to be silent... I think that if you asked most political theorists, you would find that many of them believe that teaching a good intro course is the biggest pedagogical challenge that a political theorist faces. OP, you don't seem to understand that political theory =/= history of ideas/study of great ideas. You just can't call reading Plato and discussing whatever comes to mind "political theory." The texts in an intro to theory course need to be specifically organized and presented to students in such a way that the students understand (among other important things) the content/context of the texts; how the competing definitions of concepts like justice and equality were generated; and how political theory connects to other subfields in political science. In order to accomplish these goals (and more), you need to have a knowledge of political theory and the questions that are important to political science as a discipline as well as a strong command over the content/context of the Western canon. One learns these things by earning a Ph.D. in political science and taking political theory as the major subfield. As for American government and its theories--while my primary subfield is not American politics so I cannot speak with the highest expertise, it seems that my colleagues in American draw upon a number of theories when they lecture in their intro courses, such as the median voter theorem, Mayhew's theory of Congressional re-election behavior, Kingdon's theory of public policy formation, Mancur Olson's theory of collective action, various theories about how public opinion works, and maybe some political psychology theories about political behavior.