SOG25

Despite a bit of rudeness, I thought Bobcatpolisci1 had a great and interesting perspective in the last debate regarding the value proposition of a PhD in poli sci vs. a JD. Bobcatpolisci1 said the following: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "I can't argue that every single intro to American Government class is (or should be) taught the same way. But since Canon wrote the most widely-used intro to American Government textbook in American universities, it might stand to reason that his approach represents something of a core consensus among political scientists about what kinds of materials ought to be taught in a 101 class. The fact that you seem to suggest that your course would differ markedly from what most political scientists would teach provides some evidence, I would think, of why JDs are not often hired to teach these kinds of classes, except at marginal institutions. Also, I do enjoy your arguments about what is and isn't appropriate material for intro classes as opposed to graduate school courses. I suppose that the fact that topics (like judicial behavior) in Canon's text are in fact being taught in community colleges might surprise you. Perhaps you've not been an undergraduate for a while, or you attended an especially inferior college, but this "level" of material is being taught in intro-level political science course by my colleagues and I everyday, and we generally find that students have no trouble following it. Perhaps we should dumb down to your standards, but I'd prefer not to. But the bigger point is that, despite the fact that you suggest all political science theories and explanations are "made-up," the things you cite in response that you've apparently heard of ("iron triangles," "donkey voters") don't really represent the mainstream ways in which political scientists think about these issues anymore. I'd agree that a good class should encourage critical thinking, but I'd also argue that one especially good way to do that is to provide students with the major controversies in political science, and help them to parse them out. Canon's text, along with every other text I've used at this level, presents multiple approaches to answering questions like "how do people choose how to vote?" and encourages students to adjudicate among them. In my class, they leave with more than the half-dozen theories I remember from my law classes--they leave with a general notion of how our explanations for political phenomena have changed over time, and what that might mean for our future. They also learn how academic knowledge is produced, which is a crucial skill for teaching students how to think critically about the information they encounter (and I see you didn't really respond to the portion of my comments in which I defended the teaching of "methods" in intro classes). The sad truth is that the course you propose between the lines would look a lot like an American Government course did before the behavioralist revolution of the 1950s: Focused mostly on institutions and laws, with little attention to how people act (strategically or otherwise) inside them. What you propose teaching sounds outdated, not particularly sophisticated, and doesn't really reflect all the things we know about how political systems function that we didn't 60 years ago. So why would anyone hire you, if they could get even a mediocre PhD? It sounds like you don't think students can handle complex material (and so would suggest they save it until "graduate school"), would offer atheoretical, oversimplified, and outdated explanations of political phenomena, and would generally not provide students with either the breadth or depth that a generically trained actual no-shit political scientist would. So, perhaps the answer is this. An average JD (or you, based on my reading of your comments) might be qualified to teach a course entitled "Intro to American Government." But this class would not offer the same depth or breadth of material, would not involve any instruction about how political science knowledge is produced, would not offer the theoretical groundwork necessary for students to succeed in upper-level course, and would traffic in a limited range of outdated theories. Instead, what they'd get is "I'm just a bill on Capitol Hill" and some stuff on what the law says. Sweet. But I'm sure there'd be critical thinking, right? PS. Lawyers don't really have a monopoly on the socratic method. But since you've shifted your argument some to one based on pedagogy (You PhDs teach all that boring theory, but I make them engage!), consider this: A actually balanced classroom approach involves more than socratic quizzing. At its best, an intro to American class can deliver the opportunity to help students create political knowledge, but working hands-on with polling data, or re-districting studies, or with elected officials, or any number of other primary sources. Even a mediocre class involves getting students to think like social scientists in some way or another. Are you a social scientist? Can you teach others how to think like one? Again, this is a reason departments prefer PhDs." ``~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ in part, this perspective is want I want to follow up on. If you've had political science/government in undergrad, either as a major or minor, would you agree with Bobcatpolisci1? In your experience, is this perspective true? Is the focus of political science courses/teaching about political behavior, rather than institutions or policy? While I respect bobcatpolisci1's point of view, I disagree with this observation. Rather, I think the focus of political science in undergrad is increasingly on institutions and public policy, not on the behavior of political actors, as some might suggest. Insightful thoughts welcomed.

Don't be a follower, cooperstreet.

Still bitter about losing the debate, are we? And who in his/her right mind uses the handle, "kaykaykay"? Someone not very subtle or self-aware apparently. Not sure how the moderators let that one slide. . All perspectives and thoughts on my,the OP's, question are welcome.

For a re-cap of a rather spirited debate on qualifications to teach political science at the undergraduate level, please follow the link below. I'm back on the forum. However, my focus now is on one of the last responses, in the last debate, suggesting that political science education (at the undergraduate level) is not about institutions, but about behavior. Is this true in your experience with the discipline and in your opinion? Or would you say that in undergrad, political science courses are more about policy and institutions? Thanks for your thoughts.

Haven't been on Gradcafe forums in a while, but I'm wondering if kaykaykay would call her/his prospective students "troll" whenever s/he disagrees with them. You may be in the wrong program.

Consider this discussion on this topic. There's no substantive reason why you shouldn't be able to teach with a MA/JD:

If your perspective is that 'this question should never be asked for it might ruffle a few feathers or cause some to think," then perhaps it was devolving. Others, however, were in interested in continuing to discuss challenging perspectives on the topic. Poor moderating on GradCafe.

It's Pathetic that the Moderators blocked the thread "Why Mostly PhDs and Not JDs in University Political Science Faculties?"- Very Anti-Intellectual! That is a fail at moderatng. The thread is found here, but you can't share your perspectives because it is locked:

What is wrong with political science before the behavioralist revolution of the 1950s: Focused mostly on institutions and laws?

"But the bigger point is that, despite the fact that you suggest all political science theories and explanations are "made-up," the things you cite in response that you've apparently heard of ("iron triangles," "donkey voters") don't really represent the mainstream ways in which political scientists think about these issues anymore. I'd agree that a good class should encourage critical thinking, but I'd also argue that one especially good way to do that is to provide students with the major controversies in political science, and help them to parse them out. Canon's text, along with every other text I've used at this level, presents multiple approaches to answering questions like "how do people choose how to vote?" and encourages students to adjudicate among them. In my class, they leave with more than the half-dozen theories I remember from my law classes--they leave with a general notion of how our explanations for political phenomena have changed over time, and what that might mean for our future. They also learn how academic knowledge is produced, which is a crucial skill for teaching students how to think critically about the information they encounter (and I see you didn't really respond to the portion of my comments in which I defended the teaching of "methods" in intro classes)." How does leaving your class with "more than the half-dozen theories" you learned in law school make a student more knowledgeable about the political process or institutions? Do you believe political science students are more interested in learning how "our explanations for political phenomena have changed over time, and what that might mean for our future" OR might they actually be more interested in understanding facts regarding the structure of government, its institutions, actors, relations, laws, federalism, legislation, the public policy process and other topics. If you believe they are more interested in the latter, then a JD would more than suffice. But if you think they're more excited about how our explanations for political phenomena have changed and will keep changing, I'd be willing to bet you're wrong; while that is not necessarily useless information, I certainly think it's more appropriate at the graduate level. "The sad truth is that the course you propose between the lines would look a lot like an American Government course did before the behavioralist revolution of the 1950s: Focused mostly on institutions and laws, with little attention to how people act (strategically or otherwise) inside them. What you propose teaching sounds outdated, not particularly sophisticated, and doesn't really reflect all the things we know about how political systems function that we didn't 60 years ago." What is wrong with political science before the behavioralist revolution of the 1950s: Focused mostly on institutions and laws? why is it so important to focus (or make bold claims/assumptions and rational choice theories) on how people act inside them versus studying and debating the institutions themselves (e.g. their origins, problems, public policies, case studies and other topical studies)? Political science or knowledge is in fact more about understanding the processes and institutions, not just theories about behavior of political actors (as some falsely state). If "contemporary" political scientists want to dabble so much in behavior and cognition, wouldn't it be better or easier just practicing psychology, instead of all the hybridization? Finally, "No, sparky, I can't argue that every single intro to American Government class is (or should be) taught the same way." Good one!

bobcatpolisci1, I think you make some interesting points, but suffice it to say that every professor/teacher is different. I don't think you would suggest that even every PhD would teach an intro to government class the way David Canon teaches his class. Some professors may incorporate more "current events" than others, some might take a more dialectic approach, while others will exclusively lecture on the debates and issues within the political literature. If the goal of liberal arts education (e.g. political science) is to challenge students into how to think and not what to think, this is not accomplished by simply filling students' heads with myriad (dare I say made up) theories. A more effective 'higher education' pedagogy requires a more balanced approach of lecturing on these various topics, with some theories, while also challenging students to interact, engage and offer their perspectives on various topics; this is where a JD, trained and experienced in the socratic approach, is particuarly effective. Then, the student who wishes to be further immersed in the theories and debates has the texts and grad school to immerse himself or herself according to his/her individual interest. With regard to the questions raised during each topic/section of an intro to government course, I have no doubt that JDs are more than competent to discuss and teach concepts such as voting behavior of the electorate (e.g. "donkey voters") or actors within institutions, or the cirumstanes leading to congressional committees delegating discretionary authority to administrative agencies (again, check out an administrative law course), or interest groups, iron triangle, power clusters, etc, etc. I will say though, some of the topics you suggest are discussed in intro to government are actually more likely found in grad school, not an intro to American government course. For example, "how do we measure the ideological preferences of SC justices, and how do their ideologies affect voting patters over time (not as obvious as you'd think, and all based on research done by political scientists)?" Now, unless you are arguing, and can show, that 1) every PhD political science professor focuses on the same approach and theories as Dr. Canon in their intro to government course, and 2) that 'one cannot be considered truly educated about political science unless taught in the same approach', then I don't think any of your points change my argument; I'd also venture to say you'd end up insulting the vast majority of political science grads. The simple fact is that all political science students, across the various insitutions of higher learning, are not taught exactly the same way or the exact same theories, even when taught exclusively by PhDs who are not Dr. Canon. A JD, as a result of the law school curriculum and electives, will certainly be competent to teach the system/institutions of American government (e.g. its Congress, Constitution, Federal Structure, Legislative Process, Courts, Interest Groups/Administrative State, Parties, etc) and can certainly teach the essentials of government to undergraduates. Additionally, I don't think I suggested a JD can teach these courses or topics "better" than a PhD, as that is a subjective determination. That is to say, one student might prefer how a certain JD professor teaches intro to government over how a certain PhD professor teaches the same course, and vice versa. Thanks for the challenging and insightful thoughts.

"This thread though is generally pointless, since you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the business of political science is. You may disagree all you like, but numerous people on this thread have noted that teaching is rarely a priority goal and that research is our number one priority. For example, "best teacher" awards are often given to faculty before they are denied tenure as a CONSOLATION prize. So your premise that JDs are qualified to teach is all well in good, but it ignores the fundamental reality of the discipline that teaching is not particularly highly valued." It's amazing how this argument seems dumber each time I encounter it. The argument essentially says one who calls himself a professor does not profess, as that is not his/her priority. By the same logic, I guess I am to understand that for a baker, baking is hardly ever the priority. Then, perhaps for a physician treating people is hardly ever the priority, or a teacher, teaching is rarely ever the priority (wait...mentioned that one already). To make such an argument as justification for why a JD should not be on political science faculty, at least to me, seems ridiculous! As far as research goes, no one seems to have stated, yet, why this is so important. Why should research in political science be more important than teaching in political science. Historically, a professor has primarily been about teaching (as was stated earlier). What is the groundbreaking discovery that has been achieved with all the research in political science in the last few years, or ever for that matter? In other words, what's the point? If you can't answer that, should you really be supporting such a system?

"This thread though is generally pointless, since you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the business of political science is. You may disagree all you like, but numerous people on this thread have noted that teaching is rarely a priority goal and that research is our number one priority. For example, "best teacher" awards are often given to faculty before they are denied tenure as a CONSOLATION prize. So your premise that JDs are qualified to teach is all well in good, but it ignores the fundamental reality of the discipline that teaching is not particularly highly valued." It's amazing how this argument seems dumber each time I encounter it. The argument essentially says one who calls himself a professor does not profess, as that is not his/her priority. By the same logic, I guess I am to understand that for a baker, baking is hardly ever the priority. Then, perhaps for a physician treating people is hardly ever the priority, or a teacher, teaching is rarely ever the priority (wait...mentioned that one already). To make such an argument as justification for why a JD should not be on political science faculty, at least to me, seems ridiculous! As far as research goes, no one seems to have stated, yet, why this is so important. Why should research in political science be more important than teaching in political science. Historically, a professor has primarily been about teaching (as was stated earlier). What is the groundbreaking discovery that has been achieved with all the research in political science in the last few years, or ever for that matter? In other words, what's the point? If you can't answer that, should you really be supporting such a system?

"This thread though is generally pointless, since you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the business of political science is. You may disagree all you like, but numerous people on this thread have noted that teaching is rarely a priority goal and that research is our number one priority. For example, "best teacher" awards are often given to faculty before they are denied tenure as a CONSOLATION prize. So your premise that JDs are qualified to teach is all well in good, but it ignores the fundamental reality of the discipline that teaching is not particularly highly valued." It's amazing how this argument seems dumber each time I encounter it. The argument essentially says one who calls himself a professor does not profess, as that is not his/her priority. By the same logic, I guess I am to understand that for a baker, baking is hardly ever the priority. Then, perhaps for a doctor treating people is hardly ever the priority, or a teacher, teaching is rarely ever the priority (wait...mentioned that one already). To make such an argument as justification for why a JD should not be on political science faculty, at least to me, seems ridiculous! As far as research goes, no one seems to have stated, yet, why this is so important. Why should research in political science be more important than teaching in political science. Historically, a professor has primarily been about teaching (as was stated earlier). What is the groundbreaking discovery that has been achieved with all the research in political science in the last few years, or ever for that matter? In other words, what's the point? If you can't answer that, should you really be supporting such a system?

Brilliant response, never heard a better argument (and you aren't the least bit threatened by this topic at all)!

To my earlier point about public law as a part of political science (further evidence of why JDs should be on political science faculties): http://polisci.berke...djurisprudence/ Berkeley confirms in its definition that public law is a subfield of political science, concerned with BOTH the study of legal behavior AND the study of constitutional and legal doctrine ( it's previous obvious that the latter is best understood and communicated by someone with a JD). Furthermore: A PhD with a specialization in the subfield of International Relations can be recognized as a professor of Political Science, not simply international relations. By the same logic, a JD with a background in public law, a subfield of political science according to Berkely (at least), can be recognized as a professor of Political Science, not simply law, right? Some argued that JDs/LLBs on public law faculties within a larger political science department must also have a PhD as well. Perhaps this is the case sometimes. BUT..upon FURTHER REVIEW, is it really always the case that the JD holder also has PhD IN political science? It looks like it's often in another discipline like History or Sociology, which seems to discredit the notion that ONLY a PhD can participate in, or understand, the poli sci field as a professor. Just some more food for thought.

As I thought about this idea (or at least my perception of your argument), it really seems contrary to the purpose of a libeal arts or undergraduate education. If students don't learn substantive facts, or engage with challenging ideas during undergrad, when are they supposed to learn?

Notice that I did not drop my claim that policial science courses, (e.g. introduction to american government, constitutional law, federalism, international law, etc) are principally substantive courses. You might be surprised that concepts such as rhetoric, framing or even 'synechdoches', if you wish (which are learned in a public policy process course) are all substantive concepts of political science, which JDs can teach. I only showed that even according to your perspective, JDs have the background and training to teach many courses of political science. Certainly not all, but many courses, mainly related to public law and institutions.

Agreed!

Are you really arguing that a JD (who was educated through the socratic method and case study approach to understand overarching principles and theories) can't teach undergraduate students about important facts, principles and theories, through the same case study approach? Really?

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.

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? Please explain that one.