wtncffts

I really don't want to judge because I don't know you or your situation, but quite frankly, I smell the kind of bullshit that used to make me go ARGGGHHHHH when I was a TA. Did you knowingly lie when you said you submitted it? Why didn't you check your e-mail? Why didn't you get the assignment done in the first place? It's your responsibility, not the professor's.

I understand sometimes not being able to get papers in right on time, but at this point, your paper should already be late enough as to be worth nothing. At least on the occasions in which I had to deal with late papers, there was some kind of reason or excuse. You say that "I want to tell him I honestly didn’t check my email and only figured that something was up when I checked my grade" but that really isn't the truth, since obviously you knew that you didn't submit the paper. The grade appeal process is supposed to be for circumstances in which there was actual emergency, error, or substantive disagreement about grades. Again, I'm sorry if I'm sounding too critical here, but this really irks me. I hate people trying to game the system.

Edit: Ok, I didn't read your last post before posting my comments originally. It's laudable that you say you're going to discuss this with the prof honestly. I hope you get some resolution, though I still maintain what I say above.

I don't know, "school spirit" seems to be an especially American thing. I'm proud of my accomplishments, but I don't feel any special affection for either of the schools I've attended. I've bought school paraphernalia before, but mostly for christmas presents. I have a small pin on my bag, and even that makes me sometimes a little self-conscious. I've never once attended a university sporting event, and I paid little to no attention to how "our teams" were doing. I think this is pretty common up here; college sports just aren't a big deal. If I'm fortunate enough to attend a US school in the fall, I'm open to change.

SOG25,

I think that the negative response on the part of some is due to your inquiries coming across as personally motivated and oblivious to counter-arguments. I'm not going to impute anything about your motivations, but I'll try to give my take as clearly as possible. First, let me say that I I don't know everything about poli sci depts; I have an MA (well, to be received in Feb, anyway) from a Canadian university but certainly don't claim extensive knowledge on the inner workings.

As people have been pointing out, there's the pragmatic argument. Like all disciplines, political science has an interest in perpetuating itself through the process of training and creating jobs for their own PhD students. Frankly, there are more than enough jobs for law school graduates as it is, while the academic job market is, as you know, very slim. Another thing to consider is the disparity in salary. Both of these go to the question of why, in fact, there are mostly PhDs than JDs on poli sci faculties.

Your more trenchant question is, I gather, not "Why is it this way?" but "Does it necessarily have to be this way?". I certainly don't think that ONLY PhDs are qualified to teach poli sci courses; I don't know anyone who does. As you know, JDs sometimes do teach courses with substantial legal aspects in poli sci departments. Often, eminent people (former politicians, diplomats, civil servants, etc.) also teach poli sci courses, many of whom, needless to say, don't have PhDs specifically in poli sci. And of course, Graduate Students, usually ABDs, often are given opportunities to teach their own courses (which is a part of the professional training I mentioned).

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. As you point out, law students learn Constitutional Law. They may learn Administrative Law and other kinds of law which are relevant to the political process. But, again as others have said, there is more to politics than law. Political parties, elections, electoral systems, social movements, political and voting behavior, decision-making, political psychology, political history, workings of legislative bodies, political culture, participation, socialization, interest groups, formal methods, and so on; none of these are integral parts of a law school education. To be sure, you may run into many of these areas in law courses; after all, law and politics are intertwined on many levels. Just so, many poli sci students will also deal with many questions of law and jurisprudence during their studies. 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. Remember, as a teacher you would need to be able to handle inquiries of students adeptly, especially in an intro survey course which covers a lot of ground.

You may feel that you are capable of teaching poli sci courses, and that's fine. Perhaps your course of study in law school did expose you to all these areas and you have an extensive knowledge of the literature in each of them. I guarantee you that not every law graduate has. Comparatively, the best choice in most cases is to go with a specialist who's spent upwards of five or six years closely studying a given area than someone who is trained for a different profession but has some experience and education to bring to bear.

As to your point about the quality of teaching, you're right that "some professors are more concerned about their research than their students", so it isn't necessarily the case that good researchers make good teachers. It is also the case, though, that having a JD doesn't necessarily mean one is a good teacher. I would suggest, in fact, that it's probably the case that PhDs will, on average, be better teachers. First, I've found that the best teachers are those with the most passion for their subjects, and I think having studied one or two (or more) specific areas for years in grad school usually attests to such passion. Second, PhD programs almost always include both training for teaching ("Teaching Political Science" courses, for example) and concrete opportunities to teach, whether as a TA or with your own courses. Again, you may feel like you would be a good teacher, which is fine, but such 'individual consideration' is simply not a part of academia. Which brings me to my final point...

To return to the question of personal motivation, I'm sorry if you feel your options are limited because of this, but you just have to accept that, in the eyes of the profession, you are less qualified than others. 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).

SOG25,

I think that the negative response on the part of some is due to your inquiries coming across as personally motivated and oblivious to counter-arguments. I'm not going to impute anything about your motivations, but I'll try to give my take as clearly as possible. First, let me say that I I don't know everything about poli sci depts; I have an MA (well, to be received in Feb, anyway) from a Canadian university but certainly don't claim extensive knowledge on the inner workings.

As people have been pointing out, there's the pragmatic argument. Like all disciplines, political science has an interest in perpetuating itself through the process of training and creating jobs for their own PhD students. Frankly, there are more than enough jobs for law school graduates as it is, while the academic job market is, as you know, very slim. Another thing to consider is the disparity in salary. Both of these go to the question of why, in fact, there are mostly PhDs than JDs on poli sci faculties.

Your more trenchant question is, I gather, not "Why is it this way?" but "Does it necessarily have to be this way?". I certainly don't think that ONLY PhDs are qualified to teach poli sci courses; I don't know anyone who does. As you know, JDs sometimes do teach courses with substantial legal aspects in poli sci departments. Often, eminent people (former politicians, diplomats, civil servants, etc.) also teach poli sci courses, many of whom, needless to say, don't have PhDs specifically in poli sci. And of course, Graduate Students, usually ABDs, often are given opportunities to teach their own courses (which is a part of the professional training I mentioned).

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. As you point out, law students learn Constitutional Law. They may learn Administrative Law and other kinds of law which are relevant to the political process. But, again as others have said, there is more to politics than law. Political parties, elections, electoral systems, social movements, political and voting behavior, decision-making, political psychology, political history, workings of legislative bodies, political culture, participation, socialization, interest groups, formal methods, and so on; none of these are integral parts of a law school education. To be sure, you may run into many of these areas in law courses; after all, law and politics are intertwined on many levels. Just so, many poli sci students will also deal with many questions of law and jurisprudence during their studies. 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. Remember, as a teacher you would need to be able to handle inquiries of students adeptly, especially in an intro survey course which covers a lot of ground.

You may feel that you are capable of teaching poli sci courses, and that's fine. Perhaps your course of study in law school did expose you to all these areas and you have an extensive knowledge of the literature in each of them. I guarantee you that not every law graduate has. Comparatively, the best choice in most cases is to go with a specialist who's spent upwards of five or six years closely studying a given area than someone who is trained for a different profession but has some experience and education to bring to bear.

As to your point about the quality of teaching, you're right that "some professors are more concerned about their research than their students", so it isn't necessarily the case that good researchers make good teachers. It is also the case, though, that having a JD doesn't necessarily mean one is a good teacher. I would suggest, in fact, that it's probably the case that PhDs will, on average, be better teachers. First, I've found that the best teachers are those with the most passion for their subjects, and I think having studied one or two (or more) specific areas for years in grad school usually attests to such passion. Second, PhD programs almost always include both training for teaching ("Teaching Political Science" courses, for example) and concrete opportunities to teach, whether as a TA or with your own courses. Again, you may feel like you would be a good teacher, which is fine, but such 'individual consideration' is simply not a part of academia. Which brings me to my final point...

To return to the question of personal motivation, I'm sorry if you feel your options are limited because of this, but you just have to accept that, in the eyes of the profession, you are less qualified than others. 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).

SOG25,

I think that the negative response on the part of some is due to your inquiries coming across as personally motivated and oblivious to counter-arguments. I'm not going to impute anything about your motivations, but I'll try to give my take as clearly as possible. First, let me say that I I don't know everything about poli sci depts; I have an MA (well, to be received in Feb, anyway) from a Canadian university but certainly don't claim extensive knowledge on the inner workings.

As people have been pointing out, there's the pragmatic argument. Like all disciplines, political science has an interest in perpetuating itself through the process of training and creating jobs for their own PhD students. Frankly, there are more than enough jobs for law school graduates as it is, while the academic job market is, as you know, very slim. Another thing to consider is the disparity in salary. Both of these go to the question of why, in fact, there are mostly PhDs than JDs on poli sci faculties.

Your more trenchant question is, I gather, not "Why is it this way?" but "Does it necessarily have to be this way?". I certainly don't think that ONLY PhDs are qualified to teach poli sci courses; I don't know anyone who does. As you know, JDs sometimes do teach courses with substantial legal aspects in poli sci departments. Often, eminent people (former politicians, diplomats, civil servants, etc.) also teach poli sci courses, many of whom, needless to say, don't have PhDs specifically in poli sci. And of course, Graduate Students, usually ABDs, often are given opportunities to teach their own courses (which is a part of the professional training I mentioned).

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. As you point out, law students learn Constitutional Law. They may learn Administrative Law and other kinds of law which are relevant to the political process. But, again as others have said, there is more to politics than law. Political parties, elections, electoral systems, social movements, political and voting behavior, decision-making, political psychology, political history, workings of legislative bodies, political culture, participation, socialization, interest groups, formal methods, and so on; none of these are integral parts of a law school education. To be sure, you may run into many of these areas in law courses; after all, law and politics are intertwined on many levels. Just so, many poli sci students will also deal with many questions of law and jurisprudence during their studies. 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. Remember, as a teacher you would need to be able to handle inquiries of students adeptly, especially in an intro survey course which covers a lot of ground.

You may feel that you are capable of teaching poli sci courses, and that's fine. Perhaps your course of study in law school did expose you to all these areas and you have an extensive knowledge of the literature in each of them. I guarantee you that not every law graduate has. Comparatively, the best choice in most cases is to go with a specialist who's spent upwards of five or six years closely studying a given area than someone who is trained for a different profession but has some experience and education to bring to bear.

As to your point about the quality of teaching, you're right that "some professors are more concerned about their research than their students", so it isn't necessarily the case that good researchers make good teachers. It is also the case, though, that having a JD doesn't necessarily mean one is a good teacher. I would suggest, in fact, that it's probably the case that PhDs will, on average, be better teachers. First, I've found that the best teachers are those with the most passion for their subjects, and I think having studied one or two (or more) specific areas for years in grad school usually attests to such passion. Second, PhD programs almost always include both training for teaching ("Teaching Political Science" courses, for example) and concrete opportunities to teach, whether as a TA or with your own courses. Again, you may feel like you would be a good teacher, which is fine, but such 'individual consideration' is simply not a part of academia. Which brings me to my final point...

To return to the question of personal motivation, I'm sorry if you feel your options are limited because of this, but you just have to accept that, in the eyes of the profession, you are less qualified than others. 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).