wtncffts

Again, that's assuming the use of a rubric is objective simply because it 'formalizes' the grading criteria; it's not. One course I TA'ed, the prof mandated the use of a specific set of criteria, things like analytical rigour, originality, sentence mechanics, etc. We actually had to give grades for each criteria, and then an overall grade. The first time we had papers, all the TAs and the prof got together and marked a few just to get a sense of everyone's standards. There was indeed divergence on many of these criteria among us. As I have said, a paper with 'excellent' analytical rigour is obvious, as is a poor paper. But the small differences can be hard to parse. In terms of curving, every time I've TAed the prof has set out an expected average, though not set in stone. I say comparing to one another because you may have, say, two papers worth a 'B', but at least in one case, I had to give percentages. And so when you compared them, you might find that one is slightly better than another and give a higher percentage.

down under

Again, I would try to communicate with your professor your difficulties. I mean, it seems like you yourself don't really understand what the professor expects, and thus are having trouble passing that on to your students. If you do understand, then just give your students the line: this is what I (or the course) expects from you, and this is how you will be graded. I reiterate my point earlier, though, that grading is fundamentally subjective to some extent, especially in humanities/social sciences. Exams are usually easier, because you're testing recall and comprehension of the course material. But a research paper may go off on all sorts of unanticipated directions, especially if they're not given very specific topics. Someone above said "succinctly synthesizing most/all relevant information to answer the question at hand". Well, what are the standards for succinctness? Or synthesizing? What is most/all relevant information? There's always more that could have been said. What's the balance between succinctness and information? If one paper is a little more succinct (however you measure it) than another, but the other provides a slightly fuller picture, which is better? As I said, these are all judgment calls within a certain range. A papers and F papers are obvious. Sometimes the difference between a B and B- is not.

That's probably not a good idea. The nuclear plant is gonna blow.

general order

barn burner

I see. Well, if it's the case that you're not really sure what the professor expects, you should communicate that to him/her, and hopefully you'll get feedback. Since you're talking about papers, I'm guessing you're in humanities/social sciences, in which case, grading will always be subjective, to a certain extent. In my experience, you can pretty easily identify outstanding and awful papers, but most will fall in between, and there's, frankly, only small differences between, say, a B- and a B, or a B and a B+, etc. Hell, we've all read peer-reviewed papers which we think are utter crap. I repeatedly emphasized to my students when they asked about grades this point about subjectivity, and I honestly found it difficult, occasionally, to pinpoint exactly what was wrong with a particular paper. It's not like we can just point to wrong answers or a checklist of correct steps or something. You read something, you get an impression, you mentally compare it to others, and you do your best.

Well, if you were given instructions to that effect, you should carry them out. As a TA, you're essentially just an agent for a principal (i.e., the professor). It's their course, and they are ultimately responsible for the grades given. If you're worried about appearing 'mean' to your students, then I have to say that maybe the answer is 'yes' to your original question. You're there to help the professor teach the course and evaluate student performance, not be their friends. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't be friendly on a personal level, and there's nothing wrong with doing things to make the class atmosphere more pleasant for yourself and for students, but remember, you're doing a job.

Yes, and I and others have tried to show you what poli sci really is. I brought up the comp exam reading list and samples. Others have noted a number of seminal works in the poli sci literature. Not being exposed in a meaningful way to this material is the 'deficit in a JDs background'. Being an expert on only ~10% of a typical intro course is the deficit. Not having training in the kinds of methods used in poli sci research is the deficit. Not to mention the larger question of the scope of law and legal training, which, it seems to me, you still assume to encompass basically the entirety of political reality and the study thereof. I would agree with kalapocska's claim that if anyone in academia is 'threatening' poli sci PhDs, it's economists (I don't think there's much of a threat there, though).

I just discovered Peterson's (from that crazy thread in another subforum) and looked up various schools. Does anyone know how accurate this site is? Specifically, I looked up NYU, and it said this: 633 applicants, 42% accepted, 97 enrolled. Link That can't be right, can it?

SOG25, as I've said before, I don't consider you to be a troll and I don't think this discussion has been all that incivil , bar a few personal comments. I do think, though, that you haven't really responded to any of the arguments made, but rather keep on repeating basically the same points. It seems to me that you had a genuine curiosity about this in the beginning but now don't really have the information to defend your position but continue to hold it anyway. I said in my last post that it was up to you to show evidence/argument for the following claims (basically just copying from earlier): 1) JDs, as a matter of course, engage with the poli sci literature and have thought about these areas of inquiry in sustained and serious fashion. 2) Even given some preparation in law school, JDs can competently answer student questions and curiosity about the literature and the discipline in general. 3) The universal structure and methods of hiring in poli sci faculties, in terms of what they consider to be adequate preparation and background, is seriously flawed. I invited you to e-mail chairs of the top departments, since I'm sure they'd love to hear about the fundamental flaws in their hiring processes and their egregious discrimination against JDs. 4) A JD education, in general, provides the same level of preparation a PhD should provide, not merely anecdotal or subjective feeling. I've acknowledged that some JDs, because of their interests, independent research, etc., may compare better than others. As a class, though, the difference between PhDs and JDs in terms of 'poli sci aptitude' will be significant. 5) Law constitutes the greater portion of the study of political phenomena, i.e., political science. I and others have repeatedly emphasized that this is not the case, and I don't think you have yet to confront this directly. IgnorantVeil also pointed to a list of books in American politics which are, as he/she said, essential poli sci reading. There are similar 'classics' in other fields. I posted the comp exam samples and reading lists. These are the foundations of political science and anyone teaching the discipline needs to be familiar with them. Now, I know you gave the dismissive answer before about poli sci being a 'language' with many 'made up theories', familiarity with which teachers of poli sci need not have. Well, I'm sorry but that's the case for any discipline. You could equally say the same thing for the law (moreso, since obviously legal language is a lot more obscurantist than whatever 'poli sci language' may be). You are teaching the discipline: its methods and ways of looking at the world, not just facts. You don't need a teacher for facts, only wikipedia. Of course there are theories which don't seem to hold up; that's the whole point of scientific inquiry. People propose theories, these theories are tested by observation and evaluated by others. They propose alternatives, or changes, and so on. The fifth point is a crucial one, I think, and you have yet to respond or even really acknowledge the point. I can't recall if you've stated this explicitly, but you seem to simply assume that law is basically all there is to the political world, that political phenomena are basically legal phenomena and that a corresponding understanding of the legal phenomena means you have sufficient understanding of the political. Moreover, this seems to imply that PhDs in political science are not competent to teach poli sci because they have relatively little or no training in law and therefore don't understand what, to you, is almost the entirety of political reality. As others have said, this is not the case. Stephen Breyer talks about judging as 'patrolling the boundaries', Chief Justice Roberts famously talked about 'calling balls and strikes'. I don't deny the importance of law (it's certainly not 'residual' to the political process), but it really only sets certain structures and constraints in place, within which political events occur. That space is vast, and most importantly, it is not wholly or even majorly determined by the legal structures in place. As I pointed out a long time ago, an intro American politics course will have perhaps 10% of its substantive content in which JDs might have more expertise than a PhD. They may be able to teach important constitutional cases better (though I'm not sure they would be able to explicate the wider political ramifications). But 90% of the material is not something a JD has had engagement with as a matter of course. Now, I know your reply will be something about just teaching undergraduates and intro courses, such that you don't need to know much more than the basics. Well, having a professor who only has extensive training in 10% of the content dramatically shortchanges those students, does it not? SOG25, I really wish you would confront the questions I and others have posed, instead of retreating to the same basic line of argument.

I think MA programs generally have later application deadlines than PhD ones, partly, I guess, to try to 'catch' PhD rejects (not meant to be pejorative). Funding for MA programs is also less generous/available, and so I guess that also allows later deadlines. Probably a whole host of other reasons.

I don't know how your school works, but if you're really interested in psych, perhaps you can change your major? In any case, I think you need to try to find what you're really passionate about, rather than just having a vague notion that you want to teach. After all, you do have to actually teach something.

I haven't been accepted anywhere yet, but I guess I have a question about the visa interview process. It's basically pro forma, right? I mean, as long as you have the documentation from the school,you're good to go? Or can complications arise?

Video games for me, mostly. I just played through Mass Effect 2 (I only have a PS3), putting about 50 hours into that. I feel like I could be doing something much more productive with that time, though...

Yeah, I concur. Unless the other parts of your application were terrible, I don't see how you'll not get at least one, and probably many more, generous acceptances. On the topic, I really wish now that Canadian poli sci departments required much more mathematical training than they do. I took the equivalent of Calculus I but did so only because I had a hare-brained notion of doing physics. My major in poli sci required absolutely no statistical or formal training. In grad school, I took the research methods core course, which was pretty basic, and rational choice, which was also rudimentary (though quite enjoyable). I really wish I had had the opportunity or had been required to learn and apply the more advanced methods that many of you have. I'm realizing now how uncompetitive my profile is in this regard.

Well, I'm quite certain that isn't the correct number. Perhaps it's the university-wide number of applicants?

Since decisions are made in February-March, obviously the final semester of undergrad, if applying as an undergrad, couldn't make a difference. I assume, though, that if you did something really unexpected, like fail every course or get cited for academic dishonesty or something, there's some way schools would renege on the offer.

Well, I haven't been accepted anywhere yet, but I kind of feel bad that I'm much less expressive than you guys. When I got accepted for an MA three years ago, I simply sent e-mails expressing my gratitude, nothing more. I will probably do the same this time. Maybe it's because I wasn't close in a personal way to any of my recommenders, but I would frankly feel silly doing anything more. Plus, this time I'm across the country.

ARGGHH! I have heard nothing from anywhere. I'm guessing that's a bad sign, but I'd rather just have a reject in hand than endure any more of this waiting. The inconsistent and seemingly arbitrary admit process is frustrating as hell; I really wish they would just send out things at the same time at a specified date and time. Would that really be so hard to do? E.g., "Dear Applicant, [XYZ] University will notify all applicants of their status (accept, reject, waitlist) by e-mail on February 4, 2011 at 12:00PM EST. Do not inquire about your status until that time." ARGHHH!

If you're willing to look at schools in Canada, none require GRE scores.

Well, it wasn't me, but I sure was thinking it.

Anyone want to claim the 'toolish' Stanford rejection?

Heh, I was content to let it die but socme123 resuscitated it...

SOG25, you haven't provided any evidence as far as I can tell, only dubious assertions restated again and again. I posted links to comp exam samples and reading lists. That is what political science, roughly, looks like. It is up to you to show us that JDs, as a matter of course, engage with that literature and have thought about these areas of inquiry in sustained and serious fashion. It is up to you to show us that, even given some preparation in law school, JDs can competently answer student questions and curiosity about the literature and the discipline in general. It is up to you to show us that the universal structure and methods of hiring in poli sci faculties, in terms of what they consider to be adequate preparation and background, is seriously flawed. I invited you to e-mail chairs of the top departments, since I'm sure they'd love to hear about the fundamental flaws in their hiring processes and their egregious discrimination against JDs. It is up to you to show that a JD education, in general, provides the same level of preparation a PhD should provide, not merely anecdotal or subjective feeling. I've acknowledged that some JDs, because of their interests, independent research, etc., may compare better than others. As a class, though, the difference between PhDs and JDs in terms of 'poli sci aptitude' will be significant. It is up to you to show that law constitutes the greater portion of the study of political phenomena, i.e., political science. I and others have repeatedly emphasized that this is not the case, and I don't think you have yet to confront this directly.