Jump to content

SOG25

Members
  • Posts

    146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by SOG25

  1. Furthermore.....experience has taught that one who is confident in their argument never needs to resort to personal attacks or other irrelevant garbage. Those who resort to such tactics, apart from serious character flaws, are usually insecure about their arguments, if not in other areas as well. So, going forward, any comments that are not aimed at advancing the substance of this topic, incendiary in speech or otherwise meant to annoy, or distract from the debate will be ignored and promptly removed; take your personal vendettas elsewhere. Otherwise, all perspectives on this topic are welcome (whether you agree or disagree).
  2. Good riddance, as you seem to lack the ability to read or understand what has actually been said in this thread. Another one who has much to learn about debate. Good luck.
  3. I primarily take issue with the 'artifice' of field boundaries with respect to JDs and PhDs when it comes to teaching undergraduates political science, since JDs are essentially in the same field (see our earlier discussion on public law). By virtue of the substantive, graduate education on government institutions and law, many JDs would stand to be good professors in such courses; I know I keep repeating this, but it seems to be worth repeating. I'm not familiar enough with the other disciplines to know what they could or could not teach, but I certainly don't think they are as closely related to the discipline of political science as a JD. I do, however, think it is always a good idea for undergraduates to take courses from cognate disciplines.
  4. I'm really not sure where to begin with that.
  5. wtncfftts, We really aren't in much disagreement here. Sure, you are right that public law is not one of the universal subfields in the departments, but it is available in at least some, such as the major ones you displayed. This, at least in my opinion, makes it an important part of political science. Doesn't this statement serve my argument? The majority of departments do not have public law faculty only because of neglecting to diversity their faculty by including Juris Doctors who are qualified to teach public law courses and other political science courses on institutions.
  6. In other words, never reference Briannica or even consider it in "any context." OK, fair enough. The important and more relevant point is that the more credible source does not dispute my argument; public law is in fact a subfield of political science. Thanks.
  7. The source you provided does not dispute the point I made. Furthermore, why wouldn't I cite Britinnica in this context?
  8. I agree that not all departments offer public law (perhaps not unrelated to the fact that they lack JDs); not all departments offer comprative government, either. Yet, public law is, in fact, among the subfields of political science. The following resource should provide more details on this: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467721/political-science/247901/Fields-and-subfields
  9. wtncffts, Let me start off by saying, great points again. You certainly offer thought-provoking arguments and convey them impressively well. Having said that, I find a few problems with what you are arguing. Let me note again that my argument is that JDs can teach political science courses at the undergraduate level, and I disagree with your description of what political science entails at the undergraduate level. The majority of undergraduate poli sci courses introduce students to political systems and issues, not methodology or theoretical assumptions. While it is true that even at the undergraduate level, there are courses that introduce students to methods of the discipline, they are offered only as a general survey (e.g. an intro to political science course or a scope and methods course). Even political science journals tell us that the majority of departments lack a methods course for undergrads. Among the ones that offer such a course, there is then the question of how a course on scope and methods ought to be taught (considering that there is a diversity of perspectives and methods, which methods do you teach? how do you teach them?). I support that students most benefit by taking methods courses from faculty who are trained in the methodology and approaches they seek (even the case-study approach utilized in law school). However, the reality is that the complex and developed set of methods are largely tackled and best understood at the graduate level, when a foundation has most likely already been established....oh, and the interest is there too . Recently, I read an op-ed piece in which the author criticized the prevalence of rational choice theory in our political science graduate programs; notice how the writer made no mention of undergraduates. This omission was obviously because many of the theoritical assumptions and methodology considerations are of a graduate level and would not be appreciated by undergraduates who have yet to receive an adequate foundation in the discipline. If in fact political science, again, at the undergraduate level is primarily about understanding the nature of political systems and political issues (and not methods or theoretical assumptions), then it stands to reason that a Juris Doctor--whose training requires analysis of political systems and issues--is fully qualified to relate such knowledge to undergraduates. Now, as you say, relating knowledge of developed methods, areas of inquiry and distinct characteristics ought to be done by one with special training. No argument there. I only add that such knowledge is related to, and intended for, graduates seeking that knowledge, not undergrads; so fundamentally, I disagree with your description of what political science entails at the undergraduate level. One must consider, also, the fact that while some undergrads major in political science as preparation for grad school, most sign up for the major with little interest in the "distinct, complex and developed set of methods, areas of inquiry, and theoretical assumptions which requires special training." Rather, they sign up for courses that will broaden their understanding about the society in which they live. In which areas does legal training not enter into it? "To go back to a much earlier point in this thread, I think there's simply a misapprehension of what the study of political reality is. For you, it's basically all derivative of the legal/constitutional institutions and structures in a polity. Everything, so to speak, flows from that fundamental source, and so a deep understanding of that source allows one to claim expertise on everything else. This just isn't the case" Not quite. But, the profound understanding of legal/constitutional institutions and structures certainly gives juris doctors a distinct advantage in teaching political science courses, including constitutional law and federalism among others. Furthermore, if history and economics were subfields of political science or as closely related as the law is to the discipline, I would argue for their faculty to teach poli sci as well. Certainly, some historians can teach American constitutional history, at least. No, I set the JD apart because there are a greater range of courses within political science which the JD is more readily able to teach as a result of the subject matter s/he grasped during law school, and because public law is in fact a subfield of political science. I welcome further thoughts.
  10. Thank you balderdash. I enjoy advancing all our knowledge in this area through thoughtful debate.
  11. Kalapocska, Speaking of logic, I think any reasonable individual can see that you're drawing a false comparison between the argument I've been making and the one you're suggesting an "undergrad can make." There is obviously no real equation between an undergrad who claims abilty to teach political science based on ONE course in American politics, and a graduate who has extensively studied at the graduate level a subject area (namely law) which significantly covers, in depth, much of the topics and material a PhD would study. It is not worth explaining any further to you why that is a false comparison. You claim that I am "belittling" any intelligent answer to my question. Really? please offer even one example where any of my comments "belittled" as you claim (feel free to quote me even). Perhaps, in your mind, to challenge is to belittle; in that case, tant pis pour vous; you have a lot to learn about debate and disagreeing agreeably. If you say a JD does not have the background to teach courses in political science, the onus is on you to prove that point. Furthermore, if you say research is inextricably linked to being a professor on faculty, when historically that has not always been a part of the professorship, then share with us why that must be the case today. Otherwise, if you have nothing better to say than petty personal attacks or how "belittled" you feel by my arguments, then maybe you should quit arguing? Just a thought. .
  12. Wow. Is that really all your argument has come to (or is that how you conclude a debate)? Good luck to you.
  13. Good points and questions! While it is true that a JD will not be best prepared to answer the theoretical and methodological approaches questions, a PhD will not be best prepared to answer the constitutional and legal implications questions posed by bright students, either. This only serves to support my position that you need more diverse faculty (both PhDs and JDs), allowing students the benefit of various perspectives. Thanks for your thoughts.
  14. "......This is what 99.9% of law students do. Of the remaining minority that look at academic foci, most apply to teach law school." This is a gross over generalization. The fact that you were individually focused on practicing law and under prepared in the substantive coursework offered in law school does not imply that all JDs have the same experience. Remember, JDs who would be able to teach poli sci, did not only take professional courses necessary to pass the bar (but even among those who did, some would still be prepared to teach). Many, in fact, are interested in and do take advantage of various electives, and sometimes even go on to attain further specializations with LLMs such as international law and comparative law or constitutional history. Please pay closer attention before making such gross generalizations. And no, JDs interested in teaching are not only interested in teaching law school.
  15. Tauren, Let me say, again, that I am speaking only about political science education in the undergraduate context. I'm not sure why some seem to keep missing this. I don't suggest a JD should prepare graduate political science students. The main difference between undergraduate and graduate poli sci , as I see it, is that at the undergraduate level, courses are more introductory/foundational, and much less specialized. This is why undergraduates at most programs will be required to take intro courses in all subfields of political science, including American/national government, comparative government, political theory, international relations and, in some cases (probably depending on if they have JDs on faculty), public law. These courses, typically, are not as steeped in the theoretical and methodological approaches one would seek at the graduate level. The graduate level of political science offers specialization in the sub-disciplines, and teaches doctrines, theoretical and methodological approaches in the discipline. At this level the graduate would choose to specialize in American, IR, Comparative, Political theory or....law. PhD students who desire to specialize and ultimately write a dissertation in IR, for example, will select their major and elect all coursework toward their individual goal to research in IR or teach in the subfield. I would obviously not suggest that a JD would be the one to prepare such IR PhD students, but even then PhD students have been known to take courses such as international law. I would also note that while research can "INFORM" teaching, this idea is better in theory than in practice. In reality, research can, and often does, DISTRACT from teaching, as not everyone wears multiple hats well. Hence, many undergraduates find that their professors are concerned more about their research than their students.
  16. Whoa...let's not take this debate to the gutter. Also, I wasn't aware that faculty are not hired for undergraduate instruction; why wouldn't they be? What is the explanation, then, in the liberal arts college context, where programs are exclusively undergraduate? Are faculty hired for undergraduate instruction there?
  17. Aunuwyn, It's a good thing, then, that I haven't been suggesting JDs could "1:) conduct social science research; or 2: train grad students to become social science researchers," despite the fact that there are some who can, in fact, do either of those things. My point remains that some JDs, given their teaching skills, interests and substantive education in law school, are qualified to teach undergraduate poli sci , and "those things" you referenced are not inextricably linked with teaching political science to undergraduates.
  18. Thanks for your thoughts GopherGrad. They do in some cases re-state why many political science faculty consist primarily of PhDs rather than JDs. Basic assumptions of my arguments: I think a more diverse faculty is necessary for poli sci departments, and I am of the opinion that the primary job of a professor is to teach, as the NAME signals, "to profess", not "to research." As was noted earlier, my argument is aimed at the status quo and asks "does it or should it be this way?" In relation to your points specifically: 1)"Focus. Few J.D.s attend law school in order to teach political science. Law school is a professional program, applicants to which usually want to be lawyers. Also, I think the average age of matriculation to law schools is higher, meaning that few people completely re-consider their career mid-school." Agreed. Law school is a professional program, insofar as it is the standard preparation to practice law; it is also an academic program, as significant substantive education is acquired. An MD also is a professional and academic program, and I would expect some MDs to possess the interest and skills to teach relevant courses in natural sciences. A PhD in political science, while clearly an academic program, is also a professional/trade program (as noted by others earlier) insofar as it trains its students to practice research. A product of any of these programs may very well focus on practicing their respective profession exclusively, or, alternatively, desire to teach undergraduates as a professor in relevant courses for which they are competent and prepared. 2) "Job Prospects. A lawyer qualified to teach by reason of institutional reputation and grades is also sought after for partner track positions at white shoe firms and challenging, competitive gsovernment posts. Students who attended law school for pay, to have social or political impact or because they enjoy litigation will not be tempted by faculty jobs." Also true. However, there are also some competent JDs who will be interested in faculty jobs. 3) "Research. Particularly outside the T20, few attorneys receive any real training or focus on academic research. If it's not on Westlaw, they don't have any better idea how to find it than the average undergrad. More importantly, lawyers rarely if ever receive any sort of methods training. On a whole, J.D.s are simply not competitive with doctorates in terms of producing publishable polisci research." Again, research is not the same as teaching, and ought not to have such an important connection to professorship/faculty positions. Am I suggesting universities abandon research and development? Absolutely NOT! I am saying let those who want to research do research, and let those who want to teach undergraduates, teach undergrads. 4) "Teaching. Few if any attorneys receive training or have experience teaching, where most Ph.D. candidates get some of each. Again, out of the box, few attorneys are qualified compared to Ph.D.s for actual teaching work." I don't espouse the view that receiving some training in teaching is as important as you claim. I'm skeptical of this idea because taking some courses in teaching does not guarantee one, whether a PhD or a JD, will be a good teacher. Similarly, the lack of courses in teaching also does not guarantee that one will not be a good teacher. I am of the opinion that while experience improves communication and teaching ability, it really depends on the individual. What about law school professors, the vast majority of whom are JDs? How do you suggest they became qualified to teach? 5) "Depth and scope of knowledge." JDs (again, assuming they are not only professionally oriented) have received significant depth and scope of knowledge to qualify them for courses in national institutions, public law and some political philosophy. a) "Most law schools require attorneys to take at least basic courses in areas of law with little academic relationship to one another. Preparation for the bar, mixed with desire to be as broadly hire-able as possible prevents most law students from studying a cognizable topic deeply enough to think originally about it. Hell, even most LAW professors need an LL.M. or some relevant work experience before they become attractive in the LEGAL education market. (Some even get Ph.D.s!)" The fact that many Law professors have an LLM or PhD, does not imply that they need one to be competent as a professor. Being competitive and being competent are separate issues. Furthermore, just as there are many JDs who are only profesionally-oriented (based on their course electives), there are also many PhDs that are not interested in and/or able to teach (because they prefer only to be researchers). Nonetheless, there are many PhDs and JDs who as a result of their interests, and focus in grad school or law school are prepared to be successful professors. "Legal reasoning and thought is not really very similar to academic processes (although it can be a powerful tool for creating academic work)." Not sure what your point is here, but OK. c) "Legal topics are a relatively small subset of all political science. Within the scope of the entire discipline of polisci, most J.D.s will lack the perspective to couch their jurisprudential work firmly in the language and theory of political science." Legal topics or public law are a subfield of political science, just as American, Comparative, IR and poli theory are subfields. Preparation in the substantive areas of law school (assuming one is not only professionally oriented, taking only courses to pass the bar), is good preparation to teach core topics in political science (e.g. american, state and local government, federalism, constitutional law, poli philosophy, etc), particularly in the areas of public law and american government. If this were not the case, many state and LACs would not hire JDs for tenured and adjunct poli sci positions . More departments should follow suit and stop using the argument that researching is part of being a professor. The research aspect is a recent phenomenon and is not consistent with the history or idea of higher education.
  19. kalapocska, While the existence of the SJD provides opportunity for academic research for JD holders and LLMs (allowing them to become researchers if they so choose), it does not nullify the academic and professional preparation of the Juris Doctor, nor is it meant as an "answer" to the PhD. I understand how you could reach the false conclusion which you did, but it is inaccurate.
  20. "While a JD might have enough "knowledge" to teach some pointless undergrad seminar on policy or law, they are not trained competently to be successful as a social scientific researcher, in any of the disciplines, not just including political science." Here it seems you're agreeing that a JD can teach undergraduate policy/political science courses. As to the other point of your argument, I don't see why they would not "be successful as a social scientific researcher" in teaching, "any of the disciplines, not just political science" as you claim. Care to share why? Thanks.
  21. wtncffts, Thank you for your excellent points and comments, very refreshing. Let me also clarify that while I do have some personal interest in this topic, my interest is primarily driven by a desire to foster understanding. You've said a lot of things, some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with. Counter-arguments, I believe, are meant to challenge ideas and further clarity as well as understanding, and I am not oblivious to yours or others' arguments. You are absolutely correct that my question is more focused on "Does it necessarily have to be this way?", rather than why is it this way? Thank you for pointing that out. One of the statements I most agree with is that "the best teachers are those with the most passion for their subjects." I couldn't agree more, and add that many JDs and PhDs are equally passionate about the subjects, for which they would probably be good teachers of poli sci. I also agree that having a JD doesn't necessarily make one a good teacher, but certainly the practice in public speaking, debating, and experience with the socratic method provide good tools for effective teaching. You're also right that not all JDs are academically-oriented, in that some JDs are only interested in courses that are more professionally-oriented and clinical, rather than in the substantive coursework (in reality the profession is learned on the job). My arguments assume that a JD is academicaclly inclined (the ones I'm referring to are), and is not the ambulance chaser type with no interest in the substantive areas of the law; I'm sure there are also PhDs out there with no interest being anywhere near academia. Here's where we begin to disagree: "As others have, I simply have to dispute your premise that what a PhD student learns, say, doing American Politics, is the same as what a JD learns. Now, if you can point me to a syllabus of a course in law school which teaches the same material and in the same way as a graduate course in US Politics, I'd be happy to accept your argument." Certainly, I would not argue that JDs learn "the same material in the same way" as a graduate student in poli sci. However, I am arguing that they are both prepared. Simply put, I'm confident that if you test both JDs and PhDs on their knowledge of US institutions and public policy processes (ceteris paribus), you'll find that they are both sufficiently knowledgeable and prepared to teach others on the topics. The methods, process and tools of preparation may differ, but I doubt that the end result is significantly different as some claim. Now, I have conceded that for other subfields (e.g. comparative, IR, poli theory and formal methods), a JD does not have similar training as a PhD with those specializations; although, some JDs with LLMs in international and comparative law, among others, could reasonably teach some of those courses. There are a host of courses that JDs can choose as electives, not limited to the ones I have mentioned earlier. These expose them to the substantive issues of American government, human rights, interest groups, United Nations and international organizations, international law, Islamic Law (middle east governments), election law and much, much more. Now for more theoretical courses on political psychology, political behavior and voting, and socialization I would not argue for the JD but the PhD; these are not some of the courses I would expect a JD to be strongest in based on education alone. I would make an exception for political history or philosophy though. I wonder if some might think having "law" in the course name implies that only legal jargon is discussed. I previously referenced constitutional law and adminstrative law as examples because these are among the most common law-related poli sci courses in most departments. While JDs often take these courses through the case study approach, reading judicial decisions, such an approach imparts in-depth understanding about institutions, processes and philosophy. In constitutional law, you learn about the important legislation known as the constitution (the very foundation of US institutions and processes), its history, development, its supremacy in terms of the hierarchy of laws, etc. Similarly, administrative law is not just about legal jargon, but about the administrative state (same as a course called "the bureaucracy"). You learn its role, history, politics in terms of its relationship to congressional committees and interest groups, etc. JDs take a course in legislation or seminars in Federalism, etc. The concepts and ideas attained in these and many other law classes which law students take, more than adequately equip them to teach undergrads, not only in law-related courses, but courses dealing with insitutions and procesess of government. I also agree that law and politics are intertwined. " But political scientists specialize in these areas, and we want to encourage that. Departments, and undergraduates, want to have the assurance that faculty have at least been exposed to these areas and are comfortable with them." Juris Doctors also specialize by default, since they are educated in law. As I noted previously, public law is among the subfields of political science, and in that sense I think one can argue that JDs are also political scientists, given their natural specialization in a subfield of the discipline. Moreover, the fact that PhDs "spent upwards of five or six years closely studying a given area" is not a very important factor in my opinion. Consider that the reasons it takes longer to complete a PhD than a JD are not entirely related to substance or rigor. As you pointed out many ABDs have other roles, such as teaching, which inhibit them from taking as much of a course load as the JD. So what could potentially take less than five years tends to take more, though I know some still get it done in only three to four. As to your statement, " I imagine I know enough to be able to teach intro or even intermediate Canadian or American history just from the reading I've done within and without the classroom, but I fully accept that no history department would consider me for a faculty position, or at least that I'm inadequate in comparison to a history PhD (assuming I had a poli sci PhD, which, fingers crossed, I will have in a few years' time)." Perhpas you shouldn't accept the rationale of such departments, and similarly challenge their ideas when it can be shown that they are are unreasonable.
  22. JMoo, Understand that I honestly would like to understand better how a political science department works. Maybe you're right, I don't completely understand how a poli sci department works (part of the reason I'm asking these questions: to better understand). So rather than becoming so defensive at challenging questions (completely perplexed as to why!), how about some real responses clearly articulating why a PhD is preferred over a JD in teaching political science courses where both can reasonably claim experience and education for teaching such courses. You are demonstrating a poor debater. For further clarification, as part of their doctoral training, PhDs take courses in areas of American government and other areas. Juris Doctors, as part of their training, take courses where they learn very much the same material in depth, which convinces me that they are similarly qualified, at least on courses for US institutions and public policy processes (Con law being the most obvious). If you disagree, make your case. A good example would be Wesson's response in which he clearly articulated that JDs would be qualified to teach some courses on US institutions, but not on the vast majority of courses outside American politics (given, sometimes, the lack of training in areas of comparative, international and poli theory subfields). That seems reasonable. From Wesson and others, I also understand that it is because Universities prefer PhD researchers over JDs that you find most departments staffed with PhDs instead of JDs who are trained in a different kind of research, legal research. I personally don't think that being a researcher necessarily makes one a better professor or teacher; in fact, sometimes it's just the opposite, since some professors are more concerned about their research than their students, or may have a difficult time communicating the depths of their esoteric trade to a bunch of undergrads. If one maintains, that PhDs are the ONLY ones who can teach poli sci courses, why then are so many courses taught by TAs, who (I think) are not yet PhDs? These are just some of the reasons I'm skeptical about the positions held by some in most departments; the preference seems to be based more on tradition than anything else. For future reference, if you have nothing substantive to contribute to this end (other than snide, anti-intellectual remarks), perhaps it's best to just say nothing at all.
  23. Tufnel, This is the political science forum, is it not? Since this forum is intended for discussions on political science, it's appropriate to continue this discussion in the appropriate forum. All are welcome to share their perspectives as they please and when they please. If you'd like to let it go (or stop following), please, by all means, feel free to do so. I, however, am still interested in the topic, and encourage others also interested in the topic to share their insights and perspectives. Thanks for your thoughts.
  24. . "Well, you should tell that to the folks at Harvard where they cover Kingdon's theory of public policy and various theories of public opinion and political behavior (in the Classics... reader) and the folks at Berkeley (the Principles and Practice of American Politics reader is full of works that contribute to our understanding of the theories I listed in my previous post). I'm pretty sure if I asked my colleagues in American politics if the theories I listed were "useless" for the understanding of American government, etc. that they would literally laugh in my face and tell me that they were, in fact, central to that understanding." Reading your post, one would think there's consensus within the political science community regarding research methods and theories. In reality, however, there's not! So while some PhDs might draw upon the theories you mention in teaching political science, even other PhDs (not just JDs) would not. In short, I'm keeping with my earlier statement in saying that some of these theories are INESSENTIAL (not necessary) to explain political institutions, processes and phenomena, and a JD can teach any of the courses on these topics well.
  25. I was actually looking at the catalog of a political science department in New York, and was interested to see that business law is now one of the offerings in the political science department, as well as environmental law. I wonder which faculty in the political science department will be teaching these courses. Very interesting.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use