SOG25

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?

Great eye as usual, kalapocskaa.

Good we're getting somewhere. A professor (JD) teaching public law can teach a subset of politial theory as well as other courses on US institutions. Awesome. Resolved. Maybe as more universities recognize the ability of JDs to teach, they will diversify their faculties to include more qualified PhDs as well as JDs.

Just one other quick example that public law is a subfield of poli sci: Specialization The student completes 6 courses (18 credit hours) in a subfield of political science and, within that subfield, an area of concentration. Subfields in political science include Public Policy (including Comparative Public Policy), Urban Politics, American Politics, Comparative Politics, International Relations, Political Economy, Public Law, and Public Administration. Areas of concentration within Public Policy might include Economic Policy or Health Policy, Social Welfare, Criminal Justice, Labor and Employment, Housing, Environmental Protection, Policy Analysis, Public Budgeting and Finance, or other areas not enumerated. http://www.umsl.edu/...hd_program.html

Suffice it to say I have a strong understanding of both. I must have missed your three reasons why universities allow PURE JDs to teach political institutions, public law and other political science courses. Enlighten me please.

Well, you are the one saying public law is a part of political theory. Logically, then, a JD who teaches a public law course is teaching political theory, according to your own framing.

Umm....hello? They are ALL specializations (subfields), regardless of which are most common. Why not make them all available and let the student decides which courses s/he would like to sample or concentrate in? Also, last time I checked most poli sci students take courses like con law, admnistrative law, law and society, international law and organizations than "political psychology." No, I am not mistaken. The study of law is more central to the study of political phenomena than you recognize it to be. Moreover, JDs are equipped with the skills to teach institutions by virtue of their exposure to government institutions and public policy. It also seems pretty ridiculous to suggest that one who can teach a reasonably more advanced courses such as constitutional law, state and local government or a topics course such as Federalism, cannot manage an easier, more introductory, core course such as American national politics. In the cases that there are JDs teaching political science, core and law-related courses, why do you suppose then that universities allow them to teach it?

Yes, in fact..at the graduate and undergraduate level. Nonetheless, I don't need to spend time comparing or disclosing my credentials but rely on the merit of arguments.

Well if that's your argument, "public law goes under political theory/philosophy", aren't you arguing that a JD can teach political philosophy courses, since courses such as constitutional law would qualify as political theory courses, which JDs in fact are brought in to teach?

Clever, but it seems you may not yet be familiar with the political science discipline.

As to what has actually been "verified" on this thread, I'm sure you're including the following posts:

Correction: Public law courses are part of political science, hence the subfield called public law. As to core courses that JDs could teach, there are a range of these which I listed earlier, including American government, state and local government, constitutional law (extremely common), and more "core" courses that the JD is qualified to teach, considering that a JD must understand in depth, political insitutions, processes and government in studying the law. So, logically, it makes sense to have a full time faculty with a speciality in public law (since that is an underepresented subfield in most departments) as well as the ability to teach these core courses. How do you know JDs lack the depth and insight to teach the subject. If in fact that were the case, why do so many "research universities" hire them as contingent faculty or even full time faculty? Clearly, there seems to be some recognition of their skills in teaching the subject.

My own OP highlights the fact that there are not enough JDs on political science faculties, since in fact JDs can teach political science courses, primarily law-related/public law and political institutions courses, as others have verified. Nonsense.

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"?

Wow, major red herring. And perhaps a bit melodramatic? Seriously. Take a breath.

What examples could you provide of "rude, snide and inflammatory" statements? A smiley face is rude and gives you a problem.? If that is indeed the case, perhaps the earlier poster was right; perhaps you're too easily wound up. How else do I control your emotions?

red herring.

Well, with all due respect, I think when there is truly a debate about what constitutes civil or not civil, the moderator should use his/her good judgment, enforce the very standards of conduct specified by this very website, rather than ignore it or simply go with the majority opinion.

Let me complete your line of reasoning for you: "Civility is owed to the intellectually honest" and freedom of speech, conviction and ideas are owed to only those 'who agree with me', otherwise no discussion allowed/ close the thread. Does that sound about right to you? Here's the easiest option: "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all."

I have a better idea. How about blocking those who are unable to be civil while participating in this thread? Obviously, some are threatened by the fact that JDs are also qualified to teach political science; so much so that they don't seem to be able to address this discussion without resorting to infatile comments. I sincerely hope their versions of 'open-mindness' are not passed on the undergrad students they purport to teach, for their sake.

Just saying....