SOG25

"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." Kingdon's theory of public policy isn't useless, and I actually didn't have that in mind. However, I personally find various theories I've encountered to be at least verbose and inessential (perhaps useless is not an overstatement). "Political psychology" (?) Additionally, Kingdon's theory deals with public policy and primarily, I think, legislative politics (best addressed at the graduate level). Juris Doctors who should be able to teach public policy should have no problem teaching these concepts. Again, many of these ideas coincide with topics covered in administrative law, at least. For example, you will have case studies on how an issue is raised to the legislative agenda due to a public crisis for which the legislature enacts "enabling legislation" to establish regulatory agenices, etc... (sound like Kingdon?). I'm a fan of Martha Derthick and Kingdon, and their insights regarding government are captured in some law or law-related courses.

Welcome back, LACProf! Glad to have your insights and zeal for the integrity of your field! I concede your points about a good political theory course being best taught by a PhD in political science with a major subfield in political theory (hardly anyone would dispute that). Certainly, more context facilitates more understanding of the political theory. I do, however, believe that it is the intention of some programs to have intro to political theory courses that are essentially that "history of ideas course" you referenced. What in your view would be the drawbacks to this at the undergraduate level? I am willing to be wrong or corrected on this point (as I'm not an expert in this area), but my understanding of an undergraduate intro to political theory/philosophy course is that it is a study of ideas and perspectives of great (influential) classical and western thinkers. Furthermore, it appears that by studying these great philsophers in sequence (through excerpts, primary and secondary texts) the undergraduate student will encounter "the competing ideas of justice and equality," as well as the ideal polity, since these various philosophers (e.g., Socrates, Aristole, Plato, Cicero, englightenment philosphers, etc) present their personal theories on these matters. Also, the secondary texts used in political theory courses usually, I think, provide at least some context as to why such theorists began to question and challenge a system that no longer made sense---the general origin of political theory. In addition, the secondary texts that would be used in such a course, whether taught by by a JD or PhD, would also obviously be written by a PhD with a major subfield in politial theory. So it still seems at least plausible that a JD given their background and understanding of government could teach the course, though a PhD in poli theory would more likely, in most cases, be a better choice for this particular subfield. Just as a JD would more likely, in most cases, be a better choice for the subfield of public law, that isn't to say that a political theory PhD couldn't do a good job in teaching intro to American government or even constitutional law/history. ".....median voter theorem, Mayhew's theory of Congressional re-election behavior, Kingdon's theory of public policy formation, Mancur Olson's theory of collective action, various theories about how public opinion works, and maybe some political psychology theories about political behavior." These all look like theories that would be relevant to a specific political science course (perhaps a public policy one at the graduate level) but completely inessential (even useless) in terms of understanding how the system works or government in general. In other words, none of these theories are important in order to understand the following: American government, State and Local government, American Legal System, Intro to Public Policy, Administrative Law, International Relations, Int. Law, Int. Organizations, (I could go on).., etc. There are, however, important/essential theories that a JD could draw upon given his/her education (e.g. Iron Triangle which I referenced earlier). * In previous posts, I granted that a JD probably would not have much substantive training in the subfields of comparative government and political theory (without additional training such as an LLM, advanced law degree, in Comparative Law). They certainly have substantive background in American government, public law, and internation relations.

Thanks for your comments, Troll I think you make a valid point. But for the small percentage of law school graduates who are interested in an academic position, they may be told to "go back to graduate school and get a PhD," despite the substantive and rigorous training one receives in law school. The arguments I've heard in this forum so far have only reaffirmed my views on this. Some have argued, for example, that there are theories one learns in a PhD program that are essential to teaching political science courses. However, no one seems to know what those theories actually are (or be able to back them up). At least in the area of American politics, public law, international relations (mainly international law and international organizations), JDs should be, and are, familiar with how the systems operate. Probably not as much in the areas of comparative government. I still maintain that they can teach introduction to political theory/philosophy or ideas; for political theory courses beyond that I would defer to the PhD in political theory (obviously). Therefore, I don't understand the logic or argument that a JD must attain another credential when he or she is already qualified in the subject areas. Juris Doctors are, I would argue, politicial scientists of a different specialization, training and "school of thought." Look forward to your thoughts on that. * I do appreciate the arguments that professorships are more than teaching and often focused on research. In other words, universities value the reasearch approaches and skills of a PhD than a JD, and they value research over teaching. If that is indeed the case, it sounds like "higher ed" has its priorities mixed up; the primary purpose and idea of the university (and its faculty) is to teach (not research), otherwise there would be no need for students!

"Your statements about teaching political theory are so ignorant that I have no choice but to simply not respond to them." Not so. Instead, you disagree with my statements on teaching political theory which is completely fine, and the reason one debates with persuavive arguments and counterarguments. In any case, thanks for your input. I also wish you well in your future endeavors.

"OK, I've looked at some outlines and syllabi for courses in Administrative Law. While these concepts and ideas are introduced and there does seem to be some attempt to spur discussion about the normative and systematic implications of administrative law (and I granted that in my first response), these courses tend to rely on a text and not on the original scholarship. While the specific legal content covered in these classes is surely advanced, I would be willing to bet that the discussion about normative issues and the systematic implications of the law is not much more than what you would see in a class of very good undergraduates. While it is true that Ph.D.s will teach material that they only took one course on in graduate school, they also build on that coursework through research and constant engagement with the scholarly literature. While JDs have a related type of following-up in that they keep up with relevant legal precedents, etc., that sort of keeping up is more oriented to the practice of law and I think it would not necessarily be relevant in the classroom. It is the exposure to that original scholarship and the conversation around scholarly questions that helps Ph.D. students develop the critical faculties necessary to understand (and thus teach) a field of study at both the macro-level and the micro-level. Ph.D. students also write papers, and almost all of these classes base the grade on a final exam. I don't think these classes do the best job of developing the skills necessary to be a professor." Why would a Juris Doctor's "following up" on legal debates not be relevant in the classroom? How is it any different from a PhD's ongoing engagement and exposure to scholarly questions? "Now I would be willing to grant that someone who took an administrative law class, remained engaged with administrative law issues, and practiced in the area would probably be able to at least co-teach a course or add valuable insight to someone else's course and might even be able to teach their own course." In other words, you agree that JDs have the substantive knowledge to teach on political institutions and processes given their academic background in adminstrative law, constitutional law and the like? What about the insights I referenced earlier, such as those gained from other courses in the law school curriculum (e.g. constitutional law)? ".....All college courses should be taught by professors who understand those four things (the primary texts/data, the scholarly literature, the context of the ideas, and te relationship of sub-disciplines to the larger field as a whole). My students in all my classes, intro and otherwise, benefit from this knowledge every single day. Ideas don't exist in a vacuum, and if a professor teaching a political theory course doesn't understand the history of Athenian democracy, the specifics of some of the main Athenian democratic institutions, or what the Romans meant when they called themselves a "republic," then s/he is not going to be prepared to answer questions that students WILL ask, at both the intro and advanced levels, when they read texts from Aristotle and Cicero." I'm sure they do benefit, but I doubt that, for an intro course, having a focus in those areas is as essential as you claim. Just as it isn't absolutely essential that you studied the primary texts of political theorists in the original languages (i.e., Greek, French, Latin or German). Certainly, such an undertaking would have provided added knowledge, but that deficit does not impede your understanding or capacity to communicate important ideas of the major theorists to your students. "No, s/he will not. Do you honestly think that all it takes is some partial exposure to some of the ideas of Western theorists to teach an intro course (please tell me WHERE major canonical theorists like Machiavelli and Marx--thinkers who CANNOT be left out of a standard intro course--are thoroughly covered in the law school curriculum anyway)?" Easy . Most issues and exposure will be covered in the relevant primary and secondary texts used in the class (e.g. The Prince by Machiavelli), which the undergraduate will be required to read for him/herself and further grasp through class discussions.

HI LACProf, thank you again for your comments. I especially like your statement that you are willing to be corrected if you are wrong about certain matters, and I hold the same viewpoint. As to your argument regarding the ability of a juris doctor to teach courses on political institutions and processes, you said: "Let's take institutions. Someone teaching classes on institutions needs to be able to talk about the Constitutional institutions that are formally tied to the process of creating laws (i.e., the legislature, the executive and the judiciary), and should also be able to talk about those parts of the political system that aren't formally tied to the process of creating laws, like interest groups and the media. People who receive Ph.D.s and concentrate in American politics are taught about these institutions AND the theories about how these institutions work together. It's hard to teach a course on the Congress without understanding the other institutions, because part of understanding Congress is understanding how Congress relates to the Presidency, and to understand why the Presidency reacts to Congress in the way that it does, you have to understand the basic theories about the Presidency as an institution. As I understand it (and I'm willing to be corrected), this sort of information is not covered in the law school curriculum." I take it you haven't ever been exposed to a course on Administrative law. Let me challenge you to take a look into the content of this course, just as an example of how it abundantly meets the criteria you mention. Particularly with respect to the relationship between the constitutional institutions, I'm sure you'll be surprised to find concepts such as the "iron triangle" and constituency service discussed in great detail. Additionally, what do you suppose law students learn about in analyzing judicial decisions or the opinion of the court regarding legislative power, the constitutionality of the line-item veto (powers of the executive), the role of regulatory agencies, interstate commerce, etc? These are all topics discussed in a constitutional law class, and are just some basic examples of how legal education provides insight into the issues which even a PhD might not have. To understand the law one also needs to understand the institutions and processes within which the law operates. You can't really have one without the other, so it remains clear that juris doctors have the substantive knowledge to teach political science courses in these areas. To your point about the essential qualifications to teach introductory political theory, are you suggesting those four points (your list) as the essential criteria in order to introduce students to political philosophers in an intro to political philosophy course? Perhaps you could add to your list the fact that you read de Tocqueville's "Of Democracy in America" (IN THE ORIGINAL FRENCH!!). At the end of the day, "c'est quoi le rapport?" I would think It's really inconsequential. I mean, are you arguing that undergraduate students will directly benefit (or be interested for that matter) in all those aspects of your knowledge (vast as it may be)? I'm not sure that I would agree with that assessment, particularly given the constraints (time being a major one) of a single course at that level. Again, at the undergraduate level, I think students are more likely to benefit from being introduced to the philosophies of the most influential western philosophers, and a JD, equipped with the course material, will do just fine. * I say all that with all due respect, as I appreciate and admire the rigors of both the PhD and the JD.

Thanks for your contribution, LACProf. While I have heard the arguments or complaints that law school is primarily vocational training, I've also heard, as I'm sure you have as well, that it is not sufficiently vocational. At least some law school students and graduates would argue that it is significantly theoretical. They would add that most vocational/lawyer training was learned on the job, not in courses. These perspectives as well as my personal assessment of the curriculum leave me convinced that law school is much more academic than technical as some argue. Your argument seems to focus on my assertion that a Juris Doctor could teach political philosophy/theory. You don't seem to challenge the idea that they can teach courses in political institutions, such as national, state and local government courses or federalism. The basis of my argument is that success in legal reasonsing is contignent upon understanding political insititutions and processes and philosopies which is acquired in analyzing and expounding upon judicial decisions and myriad texts. As to your claims, could you provide an example of the theoretical understanding that you propose a PhD acquires but a JD does not? How is such an understanding acquired in the PhD doctoral process yet lacking in the Juris doctoral process, as you say? Also, considering that classical political theory courses normally involve little more than exposition of the political philosophies of great thinkers, why would a JD not be able to teach such a class? I look forward to your perspectives.

If you're speaking about legal writing courses, specifically, I can agree with that. I don't see a reason why not. I wouldn't agree, however, with the other "extreme", as you say, conclusions you made about the whole law school curriculum. *Different topic for different discussion.

“No, academics are not experts in the same way as professionals are. But professionals are not experts in the way that academics are, either, which is precisely why professionals are not necessarily qualified to teach at the university level (just as PhD in poli sci is not qualified to practice law).” How would you define an academic expert as opposed to a professional expert? Maybe that would help me better understand your argument that most professors are “experts in the field of academic study.” In the meantime, I simply have to disagree with that argument. My comparison between PhDs in American Studies and those in English literature is absolutely fair and relevant. It is one example that professors from different but related disciplines can effectively teach some of the same courses in a related discipline. Of course, their approaches and perspectives will be different (it will reflect those of their graduate training and overall academic backgrounds). Therefore, it’s not at all a stretch to see that Juris doctors both understand and can effectively teach courses on political institutions and processes (known as political science courses). *I won’t be insulted by the use of “silly”, but it won’t make your argument. I do appreciate your perspectives and challenging ideas.

Pamphilia, thanks for your comments! However, I see some fallacies in your argument: First, simply having a PhD in political science, meaning having just graduated with a completed dissertation, does not automatically make one an expert. As I understand it, in any field, expertise is developed though practice in a given area over a number of years (5+ years in coursework and a dissertation doesn’t quite meet the threshold). I suppose a PhD becomes an expert by regularly publishing and researching a particular area (e.g., health or welfare reform). In other words, don’t assume that a PhD = expertise. Perhaps the real experts are those who’ve actually been involved in the process and practiced in the field (e.g. a state senator or homeland security expert, maybe even a lawyer). By that standard, most program faculties aren’t experts. Second, your comparison between a linguist and a Juris doctor strikes me as a false comparison. The intensive graduate training in jurisprudence develops more than mere “building blocks” of knowledge, in terms of understanding political institutions and processes. Again, that is how I am evaluating their competence and readiness to teach some poli sci courses at the undergraduate level (mainly those dealing with public institutions, public law and some philosophy/theory). Keeping with your English literature scenario, the JD is more akin to the academic with an American studies background and an emphasis in American literature. While they may not have the more common degree in English (or English literature), good luck proving they can’t teach literature courses. Finally, could you elaborate or clarify on these theories of social/political science theories which are necessary to teaching even academic areas of focus (e.g. constitutional law)? You raise an interesting point, but it becomes necessary to show how such theories are essential.

I'm pretty sure this is what they call a "red herring." Let me again clarify that this is a topic on political science at the undergraduate level, and it would be helpful to focus on that.

Please elaborate. How did I answer my own question?

Poli90, First, I want to ask what is the evaluative criteria by which you determine "more substantive political science courses" or "upper year courses"? If you look at the political science programs at most departments, the courses I referenced earlier (e.g. constitutional law, admin law, etc) are upper division courses, so JDs hardly teach only "introductory public law courses." Second, regarding your point that "political behaviour, electoral systems, legislative bargaining, social movements, democratization, institution theory, and political thought" are the bedrock of political science education. It's more accurate to say that these topics are among the offerings of potitical science education, and a JD may very well teach some of these courses well, political philosophy or electoral systems, for example. However, if the course is geared towards imparting the theories and perspectives of political scientists, then a PhD (political scientist) would be the one to teach such a course and perspective. Third, in reality, most political science students don't sign up for the major just to learn or "be exposed to" the underlying theories and perspctives of political scientists (PhDs); when they sign up they probably don't yet fully understand what the discipline is all about, initially. Rather, it is more accurate to say that most students sign up for the political science program because they are at least inquisitive about how government works, or how societies organize themselves and the institutions through which they do this. This is supported by the fact that a large portion (probably the majority) of them continue on to law school rather than PhD programs to become political scientists trained in that tradition. In teaching various topics of the political science program (a.k.a government/ politics/ political studies) juris doctors will teach these courses from the perspectives and approaches of their academic background, perhaps while introducing different theories, and will ultimately teach how society works--the purpose of undergraduate political science education.

I would agree that for some courses the JD might not be the best choice, just as there are some courses for which a PhD in poli sci may not be the best choice either (it depends). However, in such circumstances either one may still be a good choice. You said: ”…. they [Juris Doctors] do not generally devote much time to other core topics of political science, such as why coalitions do or don't form within legislatures to pass certain laws, or why citizens elect legislators of one type or another. One cannot understand or teach US local, state, or national politics without having a grasp of these topics.” You raise a very interesting point, but allow me to challenge that idea a little. I think you were arguing that because JDs don’t focus or specialize on core “political science topics” such as political coalitions or the political behavior of voters (certainly important parts of US local, state and national government), then they cannot understand or teach those government courses, since didn’t specialize in that area. Well, it seems to me that by that same logic, since PhDs don’t focus on the court systems, judicial philosophy, the appellate process or judicial review (also important parts of US local, state and national government), then PhDs in political science might as well not understand or teach US local, state or national government courses either, since they didn’t specialize in that area. I, however, would argue that both the PhD in political science and the JD, despite their specialties, can effectively teach those basic courses in political science, which primarily deal with institutions of government. We also established earlier that a JD could teach an intro to policy course, which would deal with many of topics you bring up. You also said: “Also, what JDs study is law, not politics. They are very focused on the texts of the law and the formal institutions and procedures.” It is precisely because of their focus, as you rightly point out, on law and the formal institutions and procedures that they would have a firm grasp of these topics. Let me also note that that a thorough study of how coalitions are formed is usually, and perhaps best, done at the graduate level, such as in a course on the public policy process.

I would add to the list, American national, state and local government courses as well as a political philosophy course. Which of these would you contend with and why? Thanks for the follow-up.

Thanks for your thoughts. I initially meant to post this topic in the political science forum, so if you wish to see my responses to some of your ideas, please join the discussion there. Thanks!

I disagree cogneuroforfu. My premise is not “absurd.” Let me restate it since you misunderstood. “My premise is that a Juris Doctor attains a firm grasp on government institutions and public policy through their studies; therefore, they are qualified to teach political science courses.” Given the context of my earlier post, I think it’s clear that I’m not at all implying, as you claim, that any teacher can or should teach subjects significantly outside their field of education. Whether or not that is a good idea, I clearly was obviously pointing to the fact that a good professor of political science, PhD or JD, can effectively teach a course outside his or her specialty/focus, though still within political science. In this respect, a Juris doctor, whose specialty is law, can effectively teach political science courses. “Obviously instructors can learn new material, though, which brings us to...” Well said! 2) "Expertise is developed by practice in a given area over a number of years." This is completely true. This is exactly why someone who has spent 5+ years in a political science program will be better in general than a 3 year JD with a smattering of relevant class” So a PhD who has spent 5+ years in a political science program is already a better teacher in every political course (which I think you understand includes public law courses) than a Juris Doctor? Please explain how that works. Additionally, which are the "smattering of relevant classes," and which law courses do you deem irrelevant to the overall substantive knowledge of government/political science?

Wesson, While your experience may be different, at least from my limited research, I’ve seen a sizable number of departments with faculty teaching courses outside of their PhD focus. I don’t suggest that this is necessarily a bad thing. In my opinion, a good teacher is a good teacher, regardless of specialty of focus, consistent with my position that a Juris Doctor will be a good political science professor. Of course, having a focus helps, but does not guarantee expertise or greater competence; in any field, I would argue, expertise is developed by practice in a given area over a number of years. “Depending on the breadth of the person's training, it looks like there are as many as 8-10 that a J.D. could teach, and 4-5 that most J.D.s should be able to teach.” I’m curious which of these courses you had in mind? Thanks for the very informative comments.

Well, here’s just a sample of some of those courses you obviously agree that JDs are qualified (or more qualified) to teach, which also fall within political science: Constitutional law (learned a great deal about institutions simply by understanding judicial decisions) International law (clearly a part of international relations); let’s not forget about International Organizations. Administrative Law (A growing area of concern in political science) Intro to American law All of these courses could fall under the field of Public Law, which, correct me if I’m wrong, is a subfield of the political science discipline. They could also be dispersed throughout other subfields, including American, IR and Public Administration. Consider that all Phds by virtue of their coursework and dissertation choose to specialize (e.g., political theory, IR, comparative, public law, etc). The Juris Doctor then, in the context of political science, is a specialist in public law due to the nature of his/her training. If PhDs are assumed qualified to teach a vast array of law-related courses, generally outside their specialty (e.g., con law, judicial process, administrative law), even though many lack the JD, why not also extend the same recognition to Juris Doctors? In other words, why not recognize that JDs are competent for other non-law related courses as well, including political theory and international relations. The fact is that many tenured PhDs teach subjects outside their area of training, and no one seems to challenge the integrity of that practice, so why not equally recognize the competence of JDs for tenured professorships? To the point about Juris doctors not having taken teaching courses, I find that almost moot. By the time a Juris Doctor graduates from law school, s/he is very familiar not only with the relevant issues but with a very effective pedagogy. This form of teaching is so highly regarded that Socrates swore by it, hence the name “Socratic method.” By virtue of their substantive understanding of government through the volumes of case studies they read in order to examine institutions, judicial philosophy, political philosophy, thinking like a lawyer is certainly great preparation for teaching government/political science. Of course, PhDs have their specialties, particularly in comparative politics, but that does not nullify the competence of the Juris Doctor. “Let's turn this around--if the Ph.D. and J.D. are as interchangeable as you have suggested, should we permit people with Ph.D.s in political science to practice law?" While that’s a question for another topic of discussion, I would argue perhaps we should permit it. Unless there is empirical, conclusive evidence showing why a PhD would not succeed in legal practice, though I highly doubt that! P.S. With a background in political science and public policy, I’m very familiar with what political science departments teach.

Thanks for your thoughts. I also want to clarify that my point is not to denigrate the merit of the PhD; I think it is clearly a worthy and valuable education. At the same time, I have tremendous respect for the study of jurisprudence, also a worthy endeavor and no small accomplishment. My point is to challenge the idea that only PhDs are qualified to teach political science, when JDs are clearly qualified as well. As to the comment about who deserves to be “doctor”, that designation, in my opinion, appears to be completely arbitrary or conventional. A simple look into the etymology of Doctor or “docere” reveals that it simply means teacher. Therefore, the standards by which one earns the title of doctor is completely arbitrary (e.g., it could be earned by completion of a dissertation or by passing a bar exam). Our academic institutions could very well tomorrow say: “From henceforth, doctors/professors are those who spin around three times in their underwear.” It’s completely arbitrary and irrelevant to my question. My premise is that a Juris Doctor attains a firm grasp on government institutions and public policy through their studies; therefore, they are qualified to teach political science courses. Your comments, so far, seem to revolve around the fact PhDs are more qualified to teach political science because they do more than teach and have secondary (insofar as they have nothing to do with teaching) skills: “ 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.” Really!?!? I would argue that if the primary purpose of the university is to teach students, which it is, then it probably makes sense to evaluate teachers based on their capacity to teach, rather than a secondary skill set. If teaching were not the primary purpose of the university, then why have students there? I’d also point out Juris doctors are also trained in research skills, but again my focus is their qualification to teach political science courses as a result of their education. Look forward to your thoughts.

"Why would a JD with a BA be qualified to teach political science? If you want to teach why don't you go back to school and get a MA or PhD? All you are doing is driving down salaries for a job you really don't need and harming people who have gone to graduate school 6 to 8 years." This comment posted was in response to a question as to whether someone can teach political science with only a JD instead of the normal PhD. I have always believed that the JD is sufficient but have heard other perspectives about the topic. Would you mind considering some of my thoughts and sharing your perspectives? In the past, I have received feedback indicating the JD is not sufficient to teach political science but the reasons given always left me, perhaps, unconvinced. I am trying to research further into why universities may consider one course of study (namely the PhD) more qualified than the JD. The study of law should provide an adequate knowledge about American government, at the very least. In fact, I feel that with the study of law, one might even have a better understanding of government than in any other field, since American government is primarily based on the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution. This then begs the question, why would any other field of study be more adequate (in terms of ability) to teach undergraduate students about political science? Furthermore, I've been told in the past that a PhD would have read more than a JD or perhaps that there are complex research (perhaps statistical) skills that a PhD receives which a Juris Doctor does not get in law school. While that may be the case, I still personally do not see what bearing the disseration or research tools of a PhD in political science has on the education of an undergraduate. While I'm sure all that knowledge is useful in research for public policy (and interpreting political literature), I don't see an undergraduate student using or needing that level of statistical analysis. In my experience, most undergraduate courses in political science are essentially basic. Finally, what about some of the masters programs offered in the Law (LL Ms). The international law and comparative law seems to me fairly academic than technical, why would it not also be the equivalent of a Masters of PhD in political science? .I have asked these questions more on the basis of the reasons behind them. Until now I have not really heard good reasons (in terms of capacity to teach), so my search continues. Look forward to your thoughts.