JanuaryHymn

Yes I am. Social science methods are completely distinct from the legal 'case study' approach. Being trained in one gives you no grounds for practicing, let alone teaching, the other.

Notice here that you dropped your earlier claim that political science courses are mainly fact-based. You don't want to defend that claim any further?

This is just not true. Students should be learning how social scientists think, make arguments, and explain the phenomena they observe. For example, should you teach the facts of the civil rights movement, or instead use it as an opportunity to introduce students to framing, the collective action problem, the relationship between economic and social change, etc? Should you teach the facts of the 1992 LA riots, or use them to introduce theories of ethnic conflict? Should students memorize the political parties behind each president, or understand the theories of political party chance over time?

If most of what you learn in a political science course are substantive facts, either you got very little out of the course, or the professor failed you as a teacher. And THAT is why JDs' role in political science instruction is extremely limited at best.

I couldn’t have said it any better myself, and it’s refreshing to see that you’re paying attention to what’s actually been said and the reality in political science departments.




I agree that political science departments do not regularly take on JDs, though I think they should. Being reasonably familiar with the field, I would disagree with the notion that political science is principally about understanding the causes at a theoretical level and conducting research into the causes rather than substantive facts. Your definition of political science seems more like a description of political science research, rather than teaching at the undergraduate level.

Courses like American government, state and local government, constitutional law, judicial process, administrative law, federalism, international law, etc, are indeed primarily about understanding substantive facts about “law, institutions, or political/legal ideas.

But even going with your description of political science, I don’t see a reason why a JD would not be sufficient to lead undergraduate students in the discovery of the “causes at the theoretical level and conduct research into the causes and empirical influence of those things.” Aren’t students required to conduct their own research and present papers on appropriate policies to various issues?

Take the international law course you mentioned, as an example. Isn’t it accurate to say that in such a course, a JD will not only teach about the substantive facts of international law (e.g. nation-states, sovereignty, sources of international law, passive personality principle, etc), but also about the theoretical causes of war, or theoretical issues of human rights, etc? I guess I don’t see a sensible reason why a JD could not ‘possibly manage’ the theoretical aspects of political science, and I’m interested in your perspectives on that.


Well, those are some interesting points and questions. I would definitely say much of the status quo in the academic system is indeed flawed, most certainly the priority on research rather than teaching (even at LACs where there is no graduate program). As I’ve said before, the primary purpose of the university has (at least historically been and ought to be) to teach, not to research; that is why there are students. Undergraduate students are cheated when they’re not taught by professors (JDs or PhDs) but TAs and others who are not as educated (simple). Bare in mind that there is no system in place to evaluate TAs to ensure the quality of teaching; they may be cheap but that’s not fair to the students.


I certainly think many ‘masters only’ can teach very competently, in fact, even better than some PhDs (who would be better off researching for some think-thank or other organization), since such “doctors” are not interested in teaching undergrads. They only pursue the profession because there’s this silly notion out there that the professorship is about researching, and adjuncts or TAs will do most of the teaching.

I don’t know any other professional programs other than JDs who would be as qualified as a JD or a PhD. I also don’t understand the big deal attached to the dissertation as a qualification to a faculty. Yes, it’s hard, rigorous work, but so is writing several books, which is what many JDs, MAs, etc, have done post graduation.

I wonder, would Jeremy Bentham (masters only), if he were alive today, be denied a tenured political science faculty position, for lack of a PhD?

Also don’t forget another unique value a JD brings to the table is his or her specialty in public law, which is only acquired in law school and from which undergraduates benefit when there is a JD on faculty. Diversify the faculty with those (JDs and PhDs) who want to teach undergrads is my argument, not replace PhDs who are passionate about teaching.

You're making the positive claim, the burden of proof is therefore on you.

Let me give you an example of what you're doing: "This morning I ate an entire sheet cake. Prove that I didn't."

Prove it.

Being a law professor (which in most cases is a pure JD) is academia but everything else is not? That doesn't seem to make sense, and you're still not explaining the reasoning behind that.

Law school is not academia. Being a law professor is academia. Law school is a vocational school where lawyers train to become professionals.

Law school is not academia? Please explain that one.

Okay, since that is your view, why then do colleges and universities allow JDs to teach such courses "for poli sci undergrads (whether as adjuncts or full time faculty)? By such courses I mean American national politics, intro to poli sci, state and local government, judicial process, constitutional law...you know..institutions. "...are you saying the collective wisdom of the academy is wrong?"

Also your history of the field in most departments is very suspect, at best. I can safely say Havard's "Government" program has as many offerings in political science as any department.
Again, borrowing someone's earlier style of argument, how are you going to say Wesson, a PhD in political science and a college professor, is wrong when you don't have one?

I would seriously ignore PSJR. Half of what you see on there is completely false. Another third is just whining from people who's advice you are better off not taking.

Some of you have held out hope for applying again next year. I wouldn't rule it out, but for your application to do much better, something major has to change. For instance, you did a great senior thesis this year and now have a prof who says you walk on water. Or you pursued advanced Arabic study in Egypt and also made a bunch of friends while hanging out in Tahrir Square. Or you did a very techy MA program like the Columbia QMSS program and stood out.

If, by contrast, all you'll have done is polished your application essays and pumped up your GRE scores by a hundred points with a tutor, don't expect a drastically different outcome. You might get lucky, because there is always a lot of randomness in this process, but probably you'll just do a little bit better. You might also do worse, if your activities this year were not that impressive, or if we recognize your application and realize this means all of our peer institutions must have rejected you last year, too.

My intention here isn't to be mean, but poli sci is a tough field to get ahead in so if you fail this year you should really consider whether there is something else in the world you might enjoy doing.

Realist, what program are you at.

You may be joking, but I think that's a valid point. Who were the people that developed the weapons of mass destruction? Not the English majors or historians. So many things in the world were just developed to harm each other. It's really sad.

Here's the dirty secret: there is no focus on pedagogy in any PhD program. Some departments allow for (and some require) more teaching than others. Some require that all graduate students take one semester of 'teaching methods', some have mentoring programs where professors oversee and advise on graduate teaching. But the PhD is 100% about research. Don't enroll in one if you want to learn how to teach - there is nothing more than on-the-job training. It is a real disconnect, but that's the way it works...

In another nerve-wracking step, I just submitted two papers of mine for publication in journals. We'll see how that goes!

Of course you would say that.

And that is great, for you! Not everyone prefers or finds it necessary to pursue the same path, and simply telling a JD, who already has the requisite knowledge base and skills to teach, to also get another doctorate because it is the 'norm', is simply irrational.

Maybe in a few years time, the argument might be that if you want to teach political science at the university level, you MUST have a PhD and a JD (or other additional doctorate) because that will be the new norm. After all, qualifications to teach are based on 'a continuum and relative to the qualifications of others', right?

This seems interesting. Could you elaborate how this is the case, as I don't think it is in most departments?

OK, let's use the American politics course you TA'ed for, as an example. What types of material or topics accounted for the other 90% of the course which a JD couldn't possibly handle, as you seem to suggest? I mean, please give specific examples.

wtncffts, you're right. I did have a genuine curiosty at the start of this thread, which I started with an open mind. My thinking was that there must be good reasons why there are so few JDs teaching political science courses at the college level (though there are some in various departments). The level of hostility this thread has shown to this idea indicates simply, as I said before, that there are some (though not all) PhDs or aspiring PhDs who are simply threatened by JDs teaching political science.

You say I haven't responded to the substance of your arguments, when in fact I have. Realize, also, my arguments have never been that JDs can teach all the courses that are, as you might say, in the PhDs wheelhouse, but the JD can teach many courses that are recognized political science courses. Thease are mainly in the areas of American politics and public law, with some others in the other subfields.

I provided just a brief list of those (the 12 courses earlier referenced), and asked you to explain the deficit in a JDs background which would prevent him or her from successfully teaching such courses. You never responded to that challenge, yet you ask me to provide you with more evidence, most of which is readily available to you if you simply do the research.

So to be fair, can you honestly say that I am the only one "retreating to the same basic line of argument"?

I love your personal attacks. If I consider you ignorant and you consider me ignorant, at least I will not do not launch personal attacks. But whatever it doesn't matter, to each is own. If you want to argue against me that is fine, but at least use argument or provide examples. Regardless, as I have said I respect the people and the field just as much as any other. But there are reasons why most people, even many of those highly educated put science and engineering above humanities. I don't know if it's right or wrong, but that is just the way it is. They are not equal as of now and they never have been, either one way or the other.

The problem is usefulness has diminished greatly. Back in the day I agree it was important, but the importance of science and engineering as of today far exceeds that of the fine arts. My significant other and my mother are both artists and one is majoring in comparative literature. They are probably just as smart as I am and work just as hard, BUT the applications of what they are doing I will not admit are greater than the ones I am working on. Literacy is very important, and although in the past it has brought us to where we are, we have plenty of teachers to teach us how to read and write and at least interpret important papers or readings. If you want to do research about a certain writer's style or a certain time period, that's fantastic. But that does not mean that it will somehow make everyone later in the world better off even if you succeed and become famous.

My argument was speaking about the general public because their respect stems from application of study. I look at the individual and that is why I fully respect the field, but many people just want results and product. If any big revolutions are going to occur NOW (yes the past there were many in literature but also MASSIVE ones in science and engineering like the industrial revolution which pretty much changed the world flat out).

If you look to the future science and engineering have larger chances of changing out world and helping people who are sick or in need of food and water. That is why most people put money into these fields. Your argument about flourishing in the past is true, but now we have overcome that hump it is time for us to take over. You guys got us out of the stone age, now we will take you to the space age.



I completely agree, without language we would be screwed over. However, now that we have it it's not like we need millions of English Ph.D. students to help teach people to read and write. We need English teachers to teach elementary school and high school. You can do that without a Ph.D. Like I said we are now in the age of science like it or not, and that is how the world is and represents it self as. So I thank all of you for your contributions in the past. But now that we got enough knowledge to communicate decently, let us take over. You guys got us out of the stone age, now we will take you to the space age. Just because you were the king once does not make you the king now. Just because no one gave a shit about us many centuries ago doesn't make us the paupers now. Things are not equal, and it has always been this way. Just learn to accept it.

Think of it this way, if 90% of the world's English students decided to be lazy and stop doing their studies, it would be sad but the world would still be alright for awhile. If 90% of scientists and engineers just gave up and stopped working, we would be in some... deep... you know.
Note: Once again RESPECT the people who work so hard, but money goes where it needs to go, not where respect needs to go.

Am I the only one who had nefarious flashbacks of the verbal section of the GRE when I read this post?

I have the most respect for people in all fields and think no less of one or the other. However, the "respect' is lower simply because of the applications of English pale in comparison to many other fields which have far larger impacts and address more pressing needs in the world. To most people, this is why English and many other Liberal Arts seem less "important".

UT Austin has really been a roller coaster for me. The mass rejection goes out yesterday and I survive that. I am thinking I am in the hunt. Then a mass acceptance goes out and I'm still on the sidelines. At this point after getting wait-listed at Pitt and having a strange experience with Vanderbilt I'm resigning myself to being the ideal "wait-list guy".

Then Texas comes through with an acceptance. I've hit the board! Hook 'em horns!