SOG25

If your example/model of a good debater is the following: I thank you for the compliment. Thanks for sharing.

Yeah...that's not a good or convincing argument for your position.

quoi!? Also, socme123, while I agree with all your other points, I would say that it does make sense to hire a JD who is passionate about teaching political science courses, in part because political science departments will benefit from having a teacher of public law. This important subfield of political science, I think you would agree, is more of a specialty for JDs than for PhDs. Ultimately, while it does make sense to seek out PhDs trained in "traditional political science", I think the most important attribute of a good college professor is PASSION for TEACHING the subject (and many PhDs and JDs are equally passionate about teaching college students poli sci). Unfortunately, the status quo (or PhD ONLY perspective) allows, even encourages, a system where many "professors" are mainly interested in research than professing. Hiring committees would serve undergraduates well by hiring people who are most passionate about the field (whether JDs or PhDs), rather than passing over a qualified JD simply because there are "so many unemployed poli sci PhDs."

Regarding your comp samples, I guess if you want me to say that a JD won't be able to use the exact same language as a PhD in describing political phenomena or American instituions (which is essentially all you showed), then I can agree with that (since they're obviously not from the same school of thought). Nevertheless, I never intended to suggest that JDs can or should engage in the foreign language, so to speak, conversations of PhDs (some of which are "made up theories", as rightly articulated by Troll). After all, I wouldn't expect PhDs to understand legal jargon either (since they're not from the same school of thought). However, I have and still assert that a JD, interested in teaching political science, would have the education and skills to both understand and teach political science courses in the areas of American institutions, public law, etc, so that undergraduates interested in the subject can grasp these areas; it's really that simple. It is up to you to show that JDs cannot.

socme123, I agree with you 100%. But it appears some DON'T want to accept the reality that JDs have the substantive prepration to TEACH political science courses at the undergraduate level, no matter how much evidence you provide.

As I established before, the JDs I have in mind, who puport to teach political science courses at the undergraduate level, will have had the substantive background to teach such courses (e.g. constitutional law, administrative law, international law, international organizations, election law, critical race theory, etc). If a JD intends to teach the subject matter related to elections or election law, then certainly s/he would have taken that course as an elective in law school. Law students take electives, just as PhD students do. Moreover, a JD on a political science faculty will draw upon all the knowledge learned in law school, yes even Torts, to teach relevant issues in political science courses. It's really that simple, and I issue to you the same challenge/question I issued to GopherGrad: Please clarify what exactly is the deficit, as you see it, in a JDs' education that would make him/her less qualified to teach undergraduate political science: Keeping in mind the courses I listed earlier, what exactly is it that a PhD candidate specializing in, say, American politics, learns that a JD does not, which qualifies him/her to teach the courses in that list better than the JD?

Well, when you seem to be arguing that "the substance of topics" learned in law school are not "relevant" to political science, that seems to me like you're arguing that JDs don't have the substantive preparation to teach political science courses. Let me ask you directly, then, are you making that argument, or do you think JDs have the substantive prepration to teach political science courses? which ones, and which ones are they not qualified? Alternatively, if your argument is that JDs aren't as qualified to teach political science courses, please clarify the deficit in JDs' education: Keeping in mind the courses I listed earlier, what exactly is it that a PhD candidate specializing in, say, American politics, learns that a JD does not, which qualifies him/her to teach the courses in that list better than the JD? It also relates to my original question, because I understood the substantive preparation argument as one of the arguments which some use to tell JDs who want to teach undergraduates that they must first have a PhD. I know there are other arguments as well, such as the fact that PhDs do research, as nano focused as such research may be, with very, very little correlation to any course they would teach to undergrads (whenever they do actually teach).

HAHA..OK. How do you know that "any resonable person with a JD would've just said they have a JD"? Do you have one, and can you speak for every JD or every reasonable person, for that matter? I haven't disclosed my credentials, nor am I impressed by the arguments which claim to be 'the authority' by virtue of their credential; lots of JDs will agree or disagree with me, as many PhDs will agree with me as well. Focus on the arguments not the credentials, and when in doubt, do some research to verify my arguments. Poli sci grad students are trained researchers, right?

Procedural courses such as legal writing or Appellate Advocacy and Procedure' are markedly different from substantive courses as administrative law, constitutional law, election law, international law etc. "If your argument is that someone like Bruce Ackerman is qualified and attractive to polisci departments to teach a ConLaw course here and there, you have the field. Congratulations." I also don't see how you can recognize Ackerman's ability to teach such advanced courses as constitutional law but not in other areas of political science I mentioned, such as American national government; that truly "baffles the mind."

And you verified our credentials or background how?

When you make arguments disputing the substance of legal courses, I simply point to the course description, and since you dispute even the description, I know you have never been near a law course. You asked me to show you a course out of the Havard Law catalog, and I did just that. There are many, many more courses which a JD draws upon, even courses which you deem solely as 'practical' courses. Law school, since you apparently didn't know, is both about substantive and procedural education, and that is how I distinguish the courses. In terms of teaching political science, many JDs have more than adequate substantive preparation to teach political science courses, as I've shown with even the links you provided.

Here you go : http://www.law.harva...010-11/?id=9060 and for political philosophy: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/courses/2010-11/?id=8336

How does this dispute my argument that someone with a law degree (JD or LLB) has the substantive preparation to teach political science as a faculty member? Yale clearly recognized that someone with legal training is qualified to teach political sciences courses on faculty. Moreover, Ackerman, if you take a look at his CV, shows that JDs can and do publish as well. Also, I realize that some might be confused by the fact that Yale used to refer to their law degree as LLB. The degree and education, however, was not and has never been ‘undergraduate. Why assume for GopherGrad? He specifically responded to a specific question about which political science courses a JD could not teach. I think the response was pretty clear. Administrative Law is certainly increasingly common in political science, and covers primarily the administrative state. If a program does not offer Administrative Law, specifically, the same material would be covered in a course on the bureaucracy, regardless of what it is called. Again, when you say things like “the course wasn’t exclusively law-focused,” one must assume you don’t really know what is discussed in law courses. Even using Administrative Law as an example, do you realize that such a course will discuss topics such as ‘iron-triangle’, describing the relationship between interest groups, congressional committees and administrative agencies? Studying law through the case law approach or the Socratic method is not simply about learning legal jargon or holdings in a case. You actually learn the material regarding all the topics you mentioned in various courses and understanding the case law. In your TAing experience, you weren’t nearly as prepared as a JD to teach the legal topics of the American government course, as that was not your specialty. But I’m sure such a deficit did not disqualify you to teach the course. Similarly, why would a lack of specialty in the other areas you mention disqualify a JD from teaching such courses?

I thought it's funny, Gopher Grad, that the first faculty member I looked at, in the link you provided earlier, is listed as a professor of 'law and political science.' Clearly, even Yale seems to support my argument: http://www.law.yale....y/BAckerman.htm Now, since I know you won't agree with my perspective that the study of law is steeped in lots of philosophical discussions that are helpful in teaching a political philosophy course, let me grant that you're right about the political philosophy course (though many JDs will disagree). However, do you realize that you've just admitted that JDs have the substantive preparation to teach at least 11 common political science courses, several of which are law-related courses which "grad instructors' or PhDs do not receive the training to teach? .

OK, let's try a different approach. Which political science courses would you say a JD cannot teach and why? As I have evaluated it, there are few staple courses in most political science depts that a JD would not have the substantive background to teach. Furthermore, I concede that those who have speciliazed in an LLM, such as international law, may have a greater repetoire of courses they are able to teach (including IR courses). Here is a list of the staple courses I know a JD can teach: 1. American Government 2. Constitutional Law/ Constitutional History 3. State and Local Government 4. International Law (this would also go under the subfield of IR) 5. International Organizations 6. Administrative Law 7. Federalism 8. Ethics and Policy 9. Intro to Public Poicy or American Public Policy 10. Intro to American Law 11. Political Philosophy 12. Law and Politics I'm sure there are more, but even just this list, at least to me, is pretty significant argument as to why JDs should be on poli sci faculty at the undergraduat level.

GopherGrad, Fair questions you raise. The only issue though is that the status quo in terms of faculty hiring, fairly recently I think, has been that only PhDs teach. However, teaching has not necessarily been the purpose of the PhD. As I established earlier, the real purpose of the PhD is to research; that's what the degree was "crafted" for. Similarly, I agree, the JD was crafted for the practice of law (part of which is also research). Since neither degree was crafted exclusively for teaching why should the JD not also be considered for teaching relevant course work when a JD holder also has the substantive preparation to teach the areas I previously mentioned? The answer, "well, that's just the way it is, if you want to teach go get a PhD, even though you may be qualified already, but go get one anyway," just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I think sinister is a fair description of such a system. I will never dispute that training and specialization leads to better and more productive professionals. I am also not characterizing lawyers as the downtrodden, but acknowledging that law school provides more than enough adequate training for those degree holders who want to teach course in areas of American government, public law and other areas, and such prospective professors should not be denied for reasons that are irrational.

Why would “the established prior belief still favor a PhD or LLM/SJD over a JD holder? Here, you indicate you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about; this is not a contentious claim “backed by no-one except SOG." If LLMs are not what I (and law schools) have indicated they are, what are they? Wait... isn’t one of your arguments that JDs can’t do research? Interesting! Without even wasting time on the other babble (excuse me, model) you’re making up, the reasons a PhD would be hired to teach over a JD in the areas of public law and American institutions are not based on differences in substantive preparation but simply unsubstantiated preference. It’s that simple. Apparently Troll’s argument was right on point, as these posters have shown:

...And from my standpoint, you too and others holding the same positiion, despite all the evidence presented, "may be inordinately obstinate."

'Yo mama'

There are also many JDs who write books on these subjects (not so sure what is all that special about a dissertation). I'm sure there are many PhDs who today, in reflecting back on their dissertations, are quite embarassed by it, in comparison to what they've learned or written since. I say that to say that the dissertation argument is not really convincing. Simply put, you could very well, right now, write a dissertation in public law, but it wouldn't mean you understand the law nearly as well as one who has studied it in law school. I don't know any other PhD specializations whose coursework would overlap with a JD, save for IR with the one course in international law or organizations (probably taught by a law school JD). A college would do well to devote a tenure-track line in political science to a JD simply because none of their pure PhDs can handle this area of political science as well as a JD (it's not their specialization). Also because there are other courses which the JD will teach in other areas, including American institutons and international relations, again because of having the substantive preparation.

Provide the whole quote, pay close attention to it, and see for yourself why I'm saying it is wrong.

The last time I checked, the following courses which JDs are definitely qualified to teach aren't imaginary, and some are indeed staple courses of PS in most departments: American Government State and Local Government Constitutional Law International Law International Organizations (sometimes designated as UN). If the positions are imaginary, it's probably because some think it's not important to do the job which your job title indicates.

First, are you sure it's the collective wisdom (what are you basing that on)? Clearly not even all PhDs would agree with your views on the JD. Even if it is the 'collective wisdom', if the "collective wisdom" says someone else--other than one who has studied law and earned a JD--is better qualified to teach law or law-related courses, aboslutely I would say YES; it is wrong. In such a case, the collective wisdom is WRONG.

For the most part, wtncffts, I've found your arguments reasonable. I don't think it's reasonable (frankly silly) to suggest, however, that words have no meaning. Professor means just that, one who professes/teaches. Emeritus Professor indicates one is a retired professor (no longer teaching). Yes, JDs should also and do teach at the graduate level in Law School (a specialization area). I don't suggest they should teach at the graduate level in political science outside law, because graduate school is more about specialization and research, and PhDs who are familiar with the research methods and theories of other specilizations will be more appropraite for students seeking the research methods and approaches of those specializations. Graduates interested in learning the legal research and education in law will go to law school.