SOG25

Though that is not my contention, you seem to have implied or indicated that not all PhDs are familiar with, at least, the political science subfield of public law. I would only fault you for that when you insist on arguing against the merit of a JD, while, at the same time, you simply don't know enough about a JD or the courses s/he can teach (most of which are public law and american institutions courses).

Correction: You merely referred to some of the major theories a PhD in American politics would learn; I don't recall you discussing them, except for where they are used. I also think you said you're not comfortable speaking for American politics scholars, since your area is political theory. "...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." That only goes to my argument. You need JDs to teach these courses which are in fact political science courses.

And you get your stats from where?

You can say I narrowed it down all you want. The evidence is clearly there since the beginning where, as I've shown, this has always been clarified as concerning teaching undergraduates. For most of the debate most of you have argued that JDs don't have the substantive preparation to teach political science, referencing the fact that JDs take disparate and other unrelated (to poli sci) courses. It's fine to retreat from the argument now, but it's another thing to say those arguments weren't made.

Fair enough. It also means you simply make arguments against JDs as professors without knowing much about the subfield of public law, American institutions or about the nature of law school education in general. Hopefully, the lawyer friends you call are actually interested in teaching undergraduate political science, otherwise you miss the whole point.

that all sounds nice, but still an inaccurate description of the way this debate has gone. Half the time some of you didn't even realize, despite the evidence, that this is about undergraduate education. Focusing on legal vs. academic research when the whole thread is about teaching qualifications seems more like the infinite regress to me, Balderdash.

Again...pay close attention, sport.

The feeling is mutual because you don't even seem to know what you said or what I am saying. Read your own comments and mine more carefully.

Let me define it more clearly for you. Are PhDs or JDs more qualified to teach public law courses taught in most political science departments? The Public Law courses include the following: Intro to American Law Administrative Law Federalism Constitutional Law International Law

I have answered the points you raised in my response. Certainly wouldn't leave you out of the discussion. If you think you've found a point that dimisses my argument please feel free to raise it. "but it's turtles all the way down" ?!?

So let me go ahead and ask. In your view, does this make them more qualified as teachers of public law than Doctors of Jurisprudence?

Perhaps they ought to since their clients, undergraduates, (who pay large sums of money for their instruction) expect they exist. To say you’re a professor signals that you teach (profess), and to mainly do other things, in practice, is simply false advertising. It’s more accurate to say you’re a researcher who mainly researches, attends conferences/conventions but also occasionally teaches, also not a difficult point. Plenty of JDs who are interested in undergraduate political science have those skills, deep historical knowledge, teaching and public speaking ability, research and great academic writing. Even according to this criteria you say hiring committees look for, many PhDs would lack these skills (quite a few in fact are not good writers). Not sure why you think the PhD training guarantees or even produces some of these skills. Many of the courses which JDs are qualified to teach are advanced courses, including again, constitutional law, administrative and regulatory state, international law, federalism, international organizations, etc. You also keep assuming that the college or university has grad students in the political science program. What is the justification for not primarily teaching when there is not a graduate program? “Not preferred” At least you’re now acknowledging it’s not because JDs lack the substantive background, as you at least seemed to be arguing before. BUT if the argument is now grad students can do that for free, even though the quality would be less, and cost effectiveness is a more important priority than educational quality, then clearly the university or college doesn’t care about undergraduate education. You here again are assuming the university or college needs professors to teach a graduate program. And which of their graduate programs (JD or PhD) do they draw knowledge from to teach such courses? How does having the PhD make them more qualified to teach public law than a pure JD? Really!? Because most of the law professors still seem to be only pure JDs, particularly at the top tier law schools. Moreover, lots of LLM programs are taught by the same pure JD faculty. You also seem to think that an LLM is a ‘higher’ law degree than a JD, when in fact it is more of a specialty (e.g. tax law, international law, international and comparative law or constitutional history). As I stated before, if the LLM were higher why do you have JD students in the same class as LLM students? You certainly don’t have undergrads in the same class as a grad student. No, more faculty in law school go for the LLMs and PhDs because of other factors such as personal interest and simply a desire to set themselves apart from the competition. This does not imply that “teaching requires a PhD or LLM”; it does not. It could also be because you recognize the truth of these arguments, as hard as it may be to admit it.

And what is their rationale for their suitability to teach public law (particularly when they lack a JD)?

I do care about undergraduate education. What exactly is the point you're making in providing this list?

C'mon, at least be accurate about the context. What you actually said was that JDs are UNDERGRADUATE degrees. Anyone can go back and see that. That is no 'straw man' in your argument my friend.

...and for some courses in the subfields of politial science, many JDs are TT professors. Many are also published, though I don't necessarily see the link beween publishing original scholarly research and teaching undergrads.

"They are not called professors. Every course I took in basic polisci, econ or methods was taught by someone titled 'instructor' and taught by a grad student. You must be aware that grad students teach classes and aren't called professors, right? If you are, why obfuscate the debate with this?" HOLD up..wait a minute. Political science faculty who hold tenure at universities are not called professors? Not sure about that one, and I'd still like to know why faculty who hold the title of professor (as even their biographical profiles indicate), would spend time doing significantly anything else other than 'profess' a.k.a teach. Some seem to take it for granted that all political science faculty consist of people who teach undergrads, graduate students, research, etc. In reality, not all political science programs have graduate programs. Most colleges do not. Still there, where there is no graduate program, only PhD faculty are hired to teach undergraduates. Another point is that this seemingly new argument--that JDs aren't hired because of the availabity of grad 'instructors--sounds more like a cost-benefit rationale than a substantive preparation rationale (which some have been using to dispute the JD). Even with the grad student as professor model, is there some sort of evaluation to ensure that the instructor/TA or RA is really passionate or able to teach political science to undergrads? Wouldn't it be better to delegate that to someone, JD or PhD, who is prepared and passionate about the subject? It sounds to me like this model dismisses the fact that undergraduates are there (and pay large sums of money) to learn from qualified and passionate professors, not some grad instructor (who in some cases doesn't even yet hold an MA) for the purpose of cost effectiveness. That seems to me a bit unethical.

If you even look at the original post, I framed, consistently, the question only as a matter of teaching undergrad poli sci (sometimes even underlined or highlighted the point). It's simply a matter of paying close attention: I think this was pretty clear. Well, then, isn't it strange that they are called professors, if they actually don't 'profess'? Shouldn't the actual title be researcher rather than professor, which implies (and has historically meant) teacher? I don't know any professors in law school who don't actually teach but delegate their job to someone else. ETA: We're also not talking about "replacing" anyone but including qualified others for the actual job of professor.

The point of debate, I continue to think, is to challenge other ideas, so as to refine one's own thinking in an area. Of course if one is frustrated by arguments (which is common when presented with new, challenging ideas), the simple and easy conclusion is: "you're just obtuse, why even bother?" Alternatively, one could remain open to new ideas (being unafraid to having one's own viewpoints challenged), a mark of a truly educated person. In an internet forum, as wtncffts fairly points out, it can even be "fun?" In reality, such an open debate is not always possible, so this is indeed the right forum to have this discussion I really don't see the point of trying to ascertain credentials, as it does not add to, or remove from, the credibility of an argument. The facts should speak for themselves. You suggest that I should speak to 'the professionals' about it. Well it is interesting to do that, and in fact I have. As in any other area of life, there is not a consensus. I happen to side with those JDs and PhDs who recognize the qualifications of a JD to TEACH political science at the undergraduate level, which has been the topic of this whole debate (though some have continued to miss that point). Of couse, if the research aspect is so important, we could start another thread on the similarities and differences between 'legal research' and 'social science research,' or what bearing academic research theoretically and practically has on the undergraduate education. Believe it or not, I have found this discussion productive, save for the occassional fool who while seemingly foaming at the mouth finds it necessary to interject irrelevant and pesonal baggage. This has, and for those genuinely interested, can continue to help understand the 'other side's' argument; that, IMO, is the whole point. Thanks for your thoughts. As always, feel free to offer them as you like, or not.

I'm sorry you felt insulted by my rebuttal, but you were the one who seemed to be claiming that a JD is in no way academic or substantive. Maybe you changed your mind?

Rest assured that my self-assuredness is with good reason. Contrary to what you say, I have not casually dismissed anything but have indeed engaged with the substance of your arguments. Feel free to provide an example of my statements that do not "accord with law school" as your friends described it to you. In any case, regardless of what I disclose to you, it's not like you can verify my credentials or those of GopherGrad (you'd simply have to take our word for it), so why not focus on the strengths of the arguments presented (which you can actually verify)?

"PhDs are, by and large, taught a different professional skill - academic research in Political Science. For all the puffery surrounding academia, PhDs are professional degrees as well. You learn to research and you're expected to utilize those skills. Yes, you teach too. But at elite universities, tenure hinges on research productivity. Teaching is well and good but it is rarely the priority." These aren't even my words, and you guys seem to still be missing it, almost as if you don't want to see something that is clearly there. The point of a PhD is not to become a "professional professor" but a professional researcher or the 'practice of research'. In fact, that is why plenty of PhDs don't become professors. Unfortunately, though, IMO, the unsubstantiated tradition or "norm" has been that only PhDs are 'allowed' to teach in some departments. And no, I don't disagree that JDs are trained for the practice of law; don't know where you got that. However, I also understand that being trained for a profession does not imply that one cannot teach or 'profess.' JDs can teach public law courses and courses on American institutions (which happen to fit into the political science discipline) because it is their background. MDs indeed also can teach biology or human anatomy (I think this should be common sense).

You seem to be suggesting that JDs and MDs are professional, while the PhD is not. Perhaps it would be helpful to consider this point made by an earlier poster:

Why wouldn't it be productive? How would it affect your argument if I disclose that information to you?

Perhaps I was a bit unclear. I have in mind JDs in the United States (really not the same as in Europe), which in fact are graduate level education. To think otherwise is simply to be ignorant of a fact. Furthermore, there are many, many individuals who hold both the PhD and JD who will tell you that their JD was far more rigorous than their PhDs (I only mention this to point out your misunderstanding about the nature of a JD; it is not “undergraduate” by any means). There’s really no need for me to be explaining any of this, so I only recommend you do more research. The only other area worth clarifying (which goes to an earlier statement of yours) is that LLMs are not, as you seem to think, ‘higher’ degrees than JDs. Rather, it would help you to think of them more as ‘specialties.’ I can see how you would miss this fact, but in reality JD candidates (not having yet earned the degree) will often be in the same international law class, as an LLM candidate, ‘specializing’ in, say, a degree in international and comparative law, after having earned the JD. Despite what some posters will have you think, many pure JDs do take very relevant electives (including critical race theory, international law, administrative and regulatory state, state and local government law, and much more). A PhD teaching public law would usually be required to also hold a JD (beats me why they need the PhD). Surely, you don’t mean to imply that a pure PhD is more qualified to each public law courses than a JD. Talk about "willful blindness." One of the reasons an undergraduate wouldn’t just go to the “law department” (and I assume you mean law school) is, in fact, because they are undergraduates, lacking the foundations necessary to succeed in law school courses (this is pretty obvious); the pedagogy, not to mention workload, is not geared toward undergraduates. Consider the fact that undergraduates taking a constitutional law or other law-related poli sci course can barely keep up with the case briefings or case law approach; it gets harder in law school. I guess another, more practical reason, is because not every university or college conveniently has a “law department” or school where students can just walk over to take these courses, as you suggest.