Zahar Berkut

bobcatpolisci1,

I think you make some interesting points, but suffice it to say that every professor/teacher is different. I don't think you would suggest that even every PhD would teach an intro to government class the way David Canon teaches his class. Some professors may incorporate more "current events" than others, some might take a more dialectic approach, while others will exclusively lecture on the debates and issues within the political literature. If the goal of liberal arts education (e.g. political science) is to challenge students into how to think and not what to think, this is not accomplished by simply filling students' heads with myriad (dare I say made up) theories. A more effective 'higher education' pedagogy requires a more balanced approach of lecturing on these various topics, with some theories, while also challenging students to interact, engage and offer their perspectives on various topics; this is where a JD, trained and experienced in the socratic approach, is particuarly effective. Then, the student who wishes to be further immersed in the theories and debates has the texts and grad school to immerse himself or herself according to his/her individual interest.

With regard to the questions raised during each topic/section of an intro to government course, I have no doubt that JDs are more than competent to discuss and teach concepts such as voting behavior of the electorate (e.g. "donkey voters") or actors within institutions, or the cirumstanes leading to congressional committees delegating discretionary authority to administrative agencies (again, check out an administrative law course), or interest groups, iron triangle, power clusters, etc, etc. I will say though, some of the topics you suggest are discussed in intro to government are actually more likely found in grad school, not an intro to American government course. For example, "how do we measure the ideological preferences of SC justices, and how do their ideologies affect voting patters over time (not as obvious as you'd think, and all based on research done by political scientists)?"

Now, unless you are arguing, and can show, that 1) every PhD political science professor focuses on the same approach and theories as Dr. Canon in their intro to government course, and 2) that 'one cannot be considered truly educated about political science unless taught in the same approach', then I don't think any of your points change my argument; I'd also venture to say you'd end up insulting the vast majority of political science grads. The simple fact is that all political science students, across the various insitutions of higher learning, are not taught exactly the same way or the exact same theories, even when taught exclusively by PhDs who are not Dr. Canon.

A JD, as a result of the law school curriculum and electives, will certainly be competent to teach the system/institutions of American government (e.g. its Congress, Constitution, Federal Structure, Legislative Process, Courts, Interest Groups/Administrative State, Parties, etc) and can certainly teach the essentials of government to undergraduates.

Additionally, I don't think I suggested a JD can teach these courses or topics "better" than a PhD, as that is a subjective determination. That is to say, one student might prefer how a certain JD professor teaches intro to government over how a certain PhD professor teaches the same course, and vice versa. Thanks for the challenging and insightful thoughts.

I can't emphasize how wrong this post is. I had well below a 2.7 and got into two top-25 schools both with fellowships and guaranteed funding for 5 years. Your personal statements and GRE scores go a long way in compensating for a bad GPA.

The above poster is correct; a masters is unnecessary. If possible, apply only to schools at which you'd be happy and leave the option of a masters at Vandy on the table. In the event that your applications go poorly, you can do the masters and improve your application. If you must decide prior to the reception of your decisions, still apply only to those schools in which you are seriously interested.
The top schools all provide adequate funding. As you slide down the rankings, packages get stingier and students are occasionally admitted without funding.
Finally, I think it's in your best interest to drop the private school preference. Though you'll probably find this out on your own, the university landscape is quite different at the graduate school level when compared to the undergrad hierarchy. Many of the big state schools are incredibly good at research and graduate education. Frankly, it would be absurd to choose Brown, Georgetown, Penn, or Vanderbilt over Michigan, UCSD, Berkeley, or WUSTL (though none are bad schools). My decision this year came down to an Ivy and one of the UCs, both of which I esteem highly. While I chose the former, I believe I would have been justified in choosing the UC. Source of funding is not relevant with regards to graduate education.
While you should obviously do whatever makes you happy, I only want to ensure that your preferences are not based on a distorted understanding of academic caliber.

Not any in the top 30 since your GPA is too low.

Absolutely not! I do not have a masters and I was admitted to a top 15. I know this was also the case with a bunch of posters here as well as many of the kids that I met at grad weekend. While there are certainly valid reasons for doing an MA prior to a PhD, jumping right in is a great way to elude the hefty price tags associated with most MA programs.
What I suggest you do is start preparing now for your applications and GRE so everything is picture perfect when you do apply. If you want to get into any of the programs you mentioned, having a solid math and stats background is practically essential for admission. Same goes for the GRE-- you will be competing with kids who will be in the 650v/750Q range.
So load up on quant heavy courses and buy yourself a stack of GRE test prep books and practice tests.
Crank out a working draft of your statement of purpose and rework it again and again until it's flawless. Then start lining up your LOR writers and bring them your draft, so not only do they know what your research interests are, but they also know that you're fully comitted to conquering this goal of yours.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, by the time you approach the people who will be writing your letters, have a shortlist handy of the schools that you plan on applying to. Show this to your writers and let them know what the app deadlines are well in advance. Ask for their input and allow yourself to strategize with them.
After all this, taylor in department specific tidbits into your SOP for each school. Mention what resources you wish to take advantage of, who you wish to work with and mention papers authored by faculty that you found interesting and/or that align with your research interests.
Meanwhile, since the app process at top schools is highly competitive, have some fallback MA programs on your back burner that you could apply to.
With regards to funding, most of the upper echelon departments will be able to cut you a decent stipend that should keep you a hair above the poverty line. However, there are certainly exceptions to this rule (If I remember correctly, Georgetown was particularly stingy with funding this year. I'm not sure check the fall, 2011 thread for more details.)
I know that this post goes far beyond the scope of your questions, but I think that these tips will help you conquer your ultimate goal: getting in to top PhD program. Just throw yourself into it If you have qualms about not giving it all you got, then you're probably not ready to start a PhD.
Anyway, I apologize for the rambling-- I am procrastinating studying for finals at the moment. Also, I aplogize for the typos; I am writing this on my phone.
Good luck!

Ultimately it doesn't matter whether a JD is sufficient to qualify to be a law school professor. It would only underscore the fact that the standards of law school education do not require years of theoretical training or research skills related to a social scientific discipline.

Nobody here (rightly) denies that political science departments may choose to allow JD's to teach undergraduate courses in law and the practice of government. They do-- my department had a JD teach constitutional law, and a course on international law probably had at least one professional school faculty member with only a JD (the PS department chose to award credit to the class). The reason they allow these classes, however, is to give undergrad's who have no plans to continue on to academia a chance to learn a bit about the real world, or to provide some knowledge for the many PS students who plan to go to law school. They do NOT regularly take on JD's as tenured faculty, and such cases when they do are always exceptions to the rule. The reason they do not is because political science does not merely seek to provide substantive facts about law, institutions, or political/legal ideas, but to understand their causes at a theoretical level and conduct research into the causes and empirical influence of those things.

We have already established here that the PhD is a research degree, and political science departments do not exist solely to teach undergrads. It seems to me that the only argument you can make from this point is that the enterprise of political science is flawed, but I don't see how you can do that without challenging the basis of academic/social science departments in general, insofar as you wish to prove that the skills gained in a professional degree program like law school (even one with a respectable background in theoretical issues related to the professional field) deserves a permanent position in such a department. You would also need to concede that a master's or other professional degree program of sufficient rigor qualifies someone to be on social science department's faculty. And if that's the case, there would be no need to write a dissertation or stay on in a PhD program more than 3 years.

Is that your argument? Because this amazing thread seems to either go around in circles or to devolve into fights over trivia.

And just to be clear, I am only posting here for my own entertainment.

Worrying. Though one of the experts quoted in the article you linked suggested that the Department of Education may have some discretion about where the $50 million will be cut:



The Dept. of Ed. already assured my department (which in turn assured me) that my FLAS funding would not be touched for the coming school year. I'm hoping this indicates Good Things more generally for the language and area studies initiatives that the Department of Education supports... But it does seem like the wind is blowing in the opposite direction. Maybe the 2012-13 school year will be a bleaker picture.

Here's another article on the matter from the Chronicle of Higher Education:
http://chronicle.com/article/Language-and/127122/

Yeah, I agree with you. Still many thanks to your previous suggestions. They really help a lot, at least make me know which factors should be weighed in the decision-making process. God bless all the warm-hearted people!

This is your own choice, so no need to explain to us. Honestly I think very few people on this board would really care about your decision. As long as it makes to you, it should be fine.

I'd say you have a shot, but it will take a very clear statement of purpose along with the other intangibles such as LORs.

I'm curious what is HPT? Home Pregnancy Test? Heartland Poker Tour? Human Performance Technology? Oh... History of Political Thought... I'm glad I googled that one.

Costlier, yes. Harder? Not necessarily.

Some journals seem to be publishing nothing but experimental work; some have no interest in it.

Don't make decisions about your research based on perceived sexiness of method or ease of publication. Do work that you find interesting and do it well. Nothing else matters, whether in grad school or beyond.

I'd say concentrate on getting your course work done first. Cart and horse and all that.

Anyone have any thoughts/comments about this degree? Assuming you are using it as a terminal degree to enter the work force. Any alums here or anyone planning on attending this program in the fall?

Chicago CIR merits asking this forum.

I would find out from Chicago, directly if possible, what Harris School courses you'd be able to take (and whether John Mearshimer will be teaching next year ot not, since he is not listed on the political science department's "tentative" course list). That will matter a lot for the value of your degree. The CIR thesis will allow you to develop some specialist knowledge in a security studies topic, possibly a policy topic. The program seems to have a good record placing people.

But weigh whether you'd be getting the policy analysis, economic, and statistical training you'd probably get at Korbel. Also, you didn't mention how much funding Chicago offered, but weigh the monetary costs too.

This should be over in the Government Affairs forum.

This is awesome! We are likely to meet soon then!

If I were to argue that research has in fact received too much emphasis at the expense of undergraduate and even graduate instruction, and that a balance must be struck between these two critical parts of being a political science professor, would that settle the discussion?

I'd rather not argue which of the two is more important, or ought to be more important-- political scientists themselves disagree over this, even if more have been inculcated to favor research. But nobody denies they are both necessary and vital. Because a JD "might" have sufficient training in one but not the other (just as an MA could be a sufficiently good undergraduate, but not graduate teacher-- and of course, neither JD's, MA's, or PhD's receive teaching training as part of their degree requirements), a JD does not fulfill one of the necessary requirements to be considered universally qualified to be a PS professor.

If I were to argue that research has in fact received too much emphasis at the expense of undergraduate and even graduate instruction, and that a balance must be struck between these two critical parts of being a political science professor, would that settle the discussion?

I'd rather not argue which of the two is more important, or ought to be more important-- political scientists themselves disagree over this, even if more have been inculcated to favor research. But nobody denies they are both necessary and vital. Because a JD "might" have sufficient training in one but not the other (just as an MA could be a sufficiently good undergraduate, but not graduate teacher-- and of course, neither JD's, MA's, or PhD's receive teaching training as part of their degree requirements), a JD does not fulfill one of the necessary requirements to be considered universally qualified to be a PS professor.

If I were to argue that research has in fact received too much emphasis at the expense of undergraduate and even graduate instruction, and that a balance must be struck between these two critical parts of being a political science professor, would that settle the discussion?

I'd rather not argue which of the two is more important, or ought to be more important-- political scientists themselves disagree over this, even if more have been inculcated to favor research. But nobody denies they are both necessary and vital. Because a JD "might" have sufficient training in one but not the other (just as an MA could be a sufficiently good undergraduate, but not graduate teacher-- and of course, neither JD's, MA's, or PhD's receive teaching training as part of their degree requirements), a JD does not fulfill one of the necessary requirements to be considered universally qualified to be a PS professor.

If I were to argue that research has in fact received too much emphasis at the expense of undergraduate and even graduate instruction, and that a balance must be struck between these two critical parts of being a political science professor, would that settle the discussion?

I'd rather not argue which of the two is more important, or ought to be more important-- political scientists themselves disagree over this, even if more have been inculcated to favor research. But nobody denies they are both necessary and vital. Because a JD "might" have sufficient training in one but not the other (just as an MA could be a sufficiently good undergraduate, but not graduate teacher-- and of course, neither JD's, MA's, or PhD's receive teaching training as part of their degree requirements), a JD does not fulfill one of the necessary requirements to be considered universally qualified to be a PS professor.

"This thread though is generally pointless, since you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the business of political science is. You may disagree all you like, but numerous people on this thread have noted that teaching is rarely a priority goal and that research is our number one priority. For example, "best teacher" awards are often given to faculty before they are denied tenure as a CONSOLATION prize. So your premise that JDs are qualified to teach is all well in good, but it ignores the fundamental reality of the discipline that teaching is not particularly highly valued."

It's amazing how this argument seems dumber each time I encounter it. The argument essentially says one who calls himself a professor does not profess, as that is not his/her priority. By the same logic, I guess I am to understand that for a baker, baking is hardly ever the priority. Then, perhaps for a physician treating people is hardly ever the priority, or a teacher, teaching is rarely ever the priority (wait...mentioned that one already). To make such an argument as justification for why a JD should not be on political science faculty, at least to me, seems ridiculous!

As far as research goes, no one seems to have stated, yet, why this is so important. Why should research in political science be more important than teaching in political science. Historically, a professor has primarily been about teaching (as was stated earlier). What is the groundbreaking discovery that has been achieved with all the research in political science in the last few years, or ever for that matter? In other words, what's the point? If you can't answer that, should you really be supporting such a system?

Actually, the courses that you have proposed teaching are not in my purview so I do not find you to be competition. I work in security. The one ILaw paper I've written is about why ILaw might exist on paper but if it has any effect it is that states increasingly have become more brutal in war since its inception. This was a paper I would not have written had more security classes been available that semester. Furthermore, ILaw is one of the more marginalized areas of research in IR so working in it is often professional suicide. However, your failure to understand the general professional consensus that has been outlined here suggests that you wouldn't be competition anyways. Part of succeeding in life is recognizing the constraints that exist regardless of their legitimacy and strategically responding to them. By creating a thread whining to people who can't change the professional reality for at least another 20 years, what exactly do you hope to accomplish? (Don't answer that, it is rhetorical and I will no longer engage in this thread...as I said...there be trollz)

This thread though is generally pointless, since you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the business of political science is. You may disagree all you like, but numerous people on this thread have noted that teaching is rarely a priority goal and that research is our number one priority. For example, "best teacher" awards are often given to faculty before they are denied tenure as a CONSOLATION prize. So your premise that JDs are qualified to teach is all well in good, but it ignores the fundamental reality of the discipline that teaching is not particularly highly valued. This obviously varies somewhat by school with SLACs valuing teaching some more and in fact JDs who ALSO pursue PhDs are commonly found among SLAC departments. However, tenure is often difficult for JDs who have not had the research training that PhDs have had. Though what they write may be legitimate for their discipline, it can have problems being published in respected political science outlets because it does not meet the somewhat arbitrary norms of another discipline. It does not matter which discipline is better, these norms are nonetheless a reality that creates barriers to entry across disciplines.

Finally, your general argument boils down to smart people can develop multiple competencies. This is probably true. The same people who can exceed at top graduate programs are likely the same people who can succeed at top law schools. In fact, there is a great deal of fungibility between admissions at these institutions. Again though, this ignores the reality that different degrees are perceived to signal different information and that this information is used in the tenure process. Furthermore, others have already noted this, but the mindset generated in each degree are very different with students taught to value different types of information and questions. This is part of professionalization. The result is that when people communicate across disciplinary divides they generally speak at cross-purposes. This thread is already 17 pages because of this communication divide.

The fact though that almost none of my arguments are substantially different from those previously proffered suggests that by this point in time the thread really is beating a dead horse, so I really do believe my jpeg sums it up nicely.

Brilliant response, never heard a better argument (and you aren't the least bit threatened by this topic at all)!

Gawd...can a moderate close this thread already. This is a total waste of server resources. There be trollz here. And they're beating a dead horse.

To my earlier point about public law as a part of political science (further evidence of why JDs should be on political science faculties):

http://polisci.berke...djurisprudence/

Berkeley confirms in its definition that public law is a subfield of political science, concerned with BOTH the study of legal behavior AND the study of constitutional and legal doctrine ( it's previous obvious that the latter is best understood and communicated by someone with a JD).

Furthermore:

A PhD with a specialization in the subfield of International Relations can be recognized as a professor of Political Science, not simply international relations.

By the same logic, a JD with a background in public law, a subfield of political science according to Berkely (at least), can be recognized as a professor of Political Science, not simply law, right?

Some argued that JDs/LLBs on public law faculties within a larger political science department must also have a PhD as well. Perhaps this is the case sometimes. BUT..upon FURTHER REVIEW, is it really always the case that the JD holder also has PhD IN political science? It looks like it's often in another discipline like History or Sociology, which seems to discredit the notion that ONLY a PhD can participate in, or understand, the poli sci field as a professor. Just some more food for thought.