Why Mostly PhDs and Not JDs in University Political Science Faculties?

[balderdash]

Ah,ha,do you really understand what i am saying? is my question a one people deem necessary to answer?

I'm not trying to be rude, but I can't address your question because I can't really understand what you're trying to say: the grammar and syntax is a bit too messy for me to decode. Can you please rephrase?

[acquinas]

read the wikipedia article for Science. There is the answer to your question. A TA is a TA but still he should know what he is talking about.

why don't you just give me a quick example instead of refering to wiki's science? or is this quite beyond your intellectual reach? why don't you make a great suggeation that economics should change to economic science, physics to physical science, chemsitry to chemical science, or linguistics to linguistic science? Isn't Department of Government (Harvard, Cornell and Georgetown)or Department of Politics (NYU and Princeton) already cleary enough for so-called political science? It seems that you tend to belittle someone's idea because of his lower academic rank. Oh, well, I hope each one is born as a forever-right professor.

Edited February 22, 2011 by acquinas

[acquinas]

I'm not trying to be rude, but I can't address your question because I can't really understand what you're trying to say: the grammar and syntax is a bit too messy for me to decode. Can you please rephrase?

I am trying to say a scientific study does not need a Science as its disciplinary name suffix. It's about confidence of the discipline per se not about what science is. In ordinary life, we won't admit somebody is genius just because he names himself genius. Also, a genius does not use a name genius to show people he is one. Of course, you can argue from a constructivist perspective, but sometimes the broader audience does not buy that. Actually, if time and resource allow, we can conduct a survey to ask the public what comes to their mind when they are presented a phrase "political science."

[kaykaykay]

I am trying to say a scientific study does not need a Science as its disciplinary name suffix. It's about confidence of the discipline per se not about what science is. In ordinary life, we won't admit somebody is genius just because he names himself genius. Also, a genius does not use a name genius to show people he is one. Of course, you can argue from a constructivist perspective, but sometimes the broader audience does not buy that. Actually, if time and resource allow, we can conduct a survey to ask the public what comes to their mind when they are presented a phrase "political science."

Yep. Ok so I will try to write it more slowly so you can understand it better. Before posting here do the curtesy to try to get some remote information on your claims. Wikipedia is a great start! Of course if you are more scientifically inclined (haha) you can do an entire research! No, science does not have the same meaning in Political Sciene than in Hard Sciences. It has more similarity to Computer Science or Library Science. ok I really do not want to do YOUR research for you or your TA= you should get some information on the WWW about English language and pass it on to him/her to!

[kaykaykay]

why don't you just give me a quick example instead of refering to wiki's science? or is this quite beyond your intellectual reach? why don't you make a great suggeation that economics should change to economic science, physics to physical science, chemsitry to chemical science, or linguistics to linguistic science? Isn't Department of Government (Harvard, Cornell and Georgetown)or Department of Politics (NYU and Princeton) already cleary enough for so-called political science? It seems that you tend to belittle someone's idea because of his lower academic rank. Oh, well, I hope each one is born as a forever-right professor.

I do not want to belittle you and I do not know your academic rank. To be honest I do not know the academic rank of your TA either. Looking at the Wikipedia could be done at any level in my opinion though, you do not even need a high school diploma to google Science. The names: Government at Harvard and Politics at Princeton are reminders how the discipline was developing. Do you think that Library Science is also called a science because it wants to resemble to biology? I think the whole discipline's self questioning about whether it is a science or not is a characteristic of the social sciences in general and has no connection with the name itself (ha again Science ! ) . I 've got plenty of that in the Economics department too. The answer is , no Political Science or Economics are not hard sciences but they are social sciences.

[acquinas]

Yep. Ok so I will try to write it more slowly so you can understand it better. Before posting here do the curtesy to try to get some remote information on your claims. Wikipedia is a great start! Of course if you are more scientifically inclined (haha) you can do an entire research! No, science does not have the same meaning in Political Sciene than in Hard Sciences. It has more similarity to Computer Science or Library Science. ok I really do not want to do YOUR research for you or your TA= you should get some information on the WWW about English language and pass it on to him/her to!

Oh, so nice of you. it is great to know there is no arrogance and pretension. it seems that politics = computer = library in nature. Maybe we can also observe the evolution of department of commputer/library to department of computer/library science.

Another meaning of science? really? English Science, Philosophical Science, Religious Science? Yes, right, science has many meanings. You can use it in any sense you want. That will be tough. As far as I know, science, also with a latin orgin, in ancient times indeed meant any systemic knowledge. BUT, the contemporary meaning of science has been strongly shaped by natural sciences, especially classical physics. I never gainsay the scientific status of political study, I argue that a science suffix is redundant and counter-productive. I hope the illogicalness and contradition would not rerepsent the best way of your thinking in political science.

"Ok so I will try to write it more slowly so you can understand it better." Many thanks for your consideration! I feel like that your writing speed is irrelevant. That you express clearly and coherently does matter!

Edited February 22, 2011 by acquinas

[hupr]

[SOG25]

This is just not true. Students should be learning how social scientists think, make arguments, and explain the phenomena they observe....

If most of what you learn in a political science course are substantive facts, either you got very little out of the course, or the professor failed you as a teacher. And THAT is why JDs' role in political science instruction is extremely limited at best.

As I thought about this idea (or at least my perception of your argument), it really seems contrary to the purpose of a libeal arts or undergraduate education. If students don't learn substantive facts, or engage with challenging ideas during undergrad, when are they supposed to learn?

Edited February 27, 2011 by SOG25

[SOG25]

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.

Edited March 12, 2011 by SOG25

[IRdreams]

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.

Edited March 14, 2011 by IRdreams

[SOG25]

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.

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

Edited March 14, 2011 by SOG25

[IRdreams]

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

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.

Edited March 14, 2011 by IRdreams

[SOG25]

"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 doctor 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?

[SOG25]

"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?

[SOG25]

"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?

[Zahar Berkut]

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.

[Arcadian]

Professors are primarily researchers, secondarily teachers. Some institutions might emphasize teaching a little more, but the primary function of professors is research in an area of specialization. To take the term "professor" literally is misleading. It's definitely not just "one who professes."

[bobcatpolisci1]

You say I haven't responded to the substance of your arguments, when in fact I have. Realize, also, my arguments have never been that JDs can teach all the courses that are, as you might say, in the PhDs wheelhouse, but the JD can teach many courses that are recognized political science courses. Thease are mainly in the areas of American politics and public law, with some others in the other subfields.

I provided just a brief list of those (the 12 courses earlier referenced), and asked you to explain the deficit in a JDs background which would prevent him or her from successfully teaching such courses. You never responded to that challenge, yet you ask me to provide you with more evidence, most of which is readily available to you if you simply do the research.

So to be fair, can you honestly say that I am the only one "retreating to the same basic line of argument"?

I'll bite. Let's just take Intro to American Government. If you look at David Canon's intro syllabus--http://users.polisci...all10/index.htm---(he wrote one of the most popular textbooks on American government used in universities), you can actually see his lecture notes.

So, let's discuss.

In the class session on democracy in America, he covers various theories about what democracy is and what kinds of underlying conditions are required to sustain it (participation, deliberation, capitalism). All of these theories are produced by social scientists, and the debates surrounding the validity of these theories (which, having attended his lecture, I can assure you he discusses) are covered primarily in political science journals.

On the "institutions" (Congress, Presidency, Courts, Bureaucracy), most of the material that's covered focuses on the behavior of actors within institutions--ie What motivates the actions of congresspeople with regards to the bills they sponsor/the votes they make? Or how do presidential administrations expand presidential power, and under what circumstances to presidents succeed at enlarging the power of the executive branch, or how do presidents construct and use their power (discussing Neustadt's very influential theory of presidential behavior)? Or under what conditions do congressional oversight committees grant more or less discretion to bureaucratic offices? Or what determines the behavior of senators and judicial nominees during confirmation hearings? Or (for you lawyer wannabes out there) 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)?

On public opinion, campaigns, and media politics: what determines voter turnout? Why is voter turnout in the US low compared to other established democracies? How do people decide which candidates to vote for? How are partisan attachments formed? To what extend are people persuaded in their political preferences by the media? What kinds of media are most persuasive? Cognitively, how do people process political information? What sorts of campaign strategies are most effective at increasing the probability of a candidate's election? How much does money actually matter in determining election outcomes?

Interest Groups: Under what conditions do interest groups mobilize to support/oppose legislation? What factors determine their success and failure?

Parties: What purpose do political parties serve in the American political system, and how is it different than in other systems? Do parties act differently depending on their goals/audiences (parties in government, parties in electorate, parties in organization), and what determines their success or failure at achieving their goals? What is electoral realignment, and what might cause it? How do "party systems" change over time? Why are third parties so rarely successful in American politics?

Social, Economic, and Foreign Policy: How do parties and legislators formulate policy goals and policy? In what ways are/aren't they responsive to popular opinion? How do legislators evaluate the success/failure of policy choices? What are the normative bases of popular debates over policy options in the US?

And, of course, he doesn't explicitly cover political culture, but most do.

That's just an intro class. To teach that material effectively (i.e. to answer the questions posed under the various topics), you'd have to be able to provide examples and case studies to illustrate each point, and know the debates encapsulated by each question (as in, the various schools of thought with regards to the degree and means of media influence in political behavior--Zaller's massive media effects, McCombs on agenda-setting, Iyengar and Kinder's experiments on priming, Druckman and Chong on framing). Now, maybe you could half-ass it, and just make up some explanations off the cuff . But that's not really teaching a class on American government offered by a political science department, is it? Most of these questions don't have definitive, black and white answers, but there is a body of political science knowledge that constitutes our current best effort to answer them. I'd assert that most political science curriculum design committees expect instructors to be able to communicate those best current answers, how we arrived at them, and what their strengths/weaknesses are with regards to previous answers. This means that in an intro class, you also teach research methods--what's an opinion poll? How do they sample respondents? What's a confidence interval (no intro American class doesn't talk about confidence intervals)? More broadly, even an intro class generally discusses the scientific method with regards to social science research, the idea of independent and dependent variables, and spends at least some time on how political scientists know what they know.

I'd assert that most of that material could be better taught by an average instructor with no more than the training offered by a PhD in political science than by an average instructor with no more than JD training. Why? Because all of those debates, the current state of knowledge in each area of debate, and the requisite methods for arriving at that knowledge forms the core curriculum of a PhD program in political science, and it does not in law school. Nearly every mediocre PhD in poli sci trained in American politics will have that material at their fingertips (hell, I do, and my PhD in poli sci focused on Middle Eastern politics), whereas a JD would have to learn the vast majority of it outside of the la school curriculum (and I also took several law school courses while pursuing my PhD in poli sci, to acquire some specialized knowledge relevant to my specific research topic, almost none of which I would be able to use in my teaching).

And that;s why a PhD in poli sci is more qualified to teach intro to American than an average JD. One class down.

Edited April 27, 2011 by bobcatpolisci1

[flyers29]

This thread was dead, why did you need to bring it back?

[SOG25]

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.

Edited May 2, 2011 by SOG25

[bobcatpolisci1]

No, sparky, I can't argue that every single intro to American Government class is (or should be) taught the same way. But since Canon wrote the most widely-used intro to American Government textbook in American universities, it might stand to reason that his approach represents something of a core consensus among political scientists about what kinds of materials ought to be taught in a 101 class. The fact that you seem to suggest that your course would differ markedly from what most political scientists would teach provides some evidence, I would think, of why JDs are not often hired to teach these kinds of classes, except at marginal institutions.

Also, I do enjoy your arguments about what is and isn't appropriate material for intro classes as opposed to graduate school courses. I suppose that the fact that topics (like judicial behavior) in Canon's text are in fact being taught in community colleges might surprise you. Perhaps you've not been an undergraduate for a while, or you attended an especially inferior college, but this "level" of material is being taught in intro-level political science course by my colleagues and I everyday, and we generally find that students have no trouble following it. Perhaps we should dumb down to your standards, but I'd prefer not to.

But the bigger point is that, despite the fact that you suggest all political science theories and explanations are "made-up," the things you cite in response that you've apparently heard of ("iron triangles," "donkey voters") don't really represent the mainstream ways in which political scientists think about these issues anymore. I'd agree that a good class should encourage critical thinking, but I'd also argue that one especially good way to do that is to provide students with the major controversies in political science, and help them to parse them out. Canon's text, along with every other text I've used at this level, presents multiple approaches to answering questions like "how do people choose how to vote?" and encourages students to adjudicate among them. In my class, they leave with more than the half-dozen theories I remember from my law classes--they leave with a general notion of how our explanations for political phenomena have changed over time, and what that might mean for our future. They also learn how academic knowledge is produced, which is a crucial skill for teaching students how to think critically about the information they encounter (and I see you didn't really respond to the portion of my comments in which I defended the teaching of "methods" in intro classes).

The sad truth is that the course you propose between the lines would look a lot like an American Government course did before the behavioralist revolution of the 1950s: Focused mostly on institutions and laws, with little attention to how people act (strategically or otherwise) inside them. What you propose teaching sounds outdated, not particularly sophisticated, and doesn't really reflect all the things we know about how political systems function that we didn't 60 years ago. So why would anyone hire you, if they could get even a mediocre PhD? It sounds like you don't think students can handle complex material (and so would suggest they save it until "graduate school"), would offer atheoretical, oversimplified, and outdated explanations of political phenomena, and would generally not provide students with either the breadth or depth that a generically trained actual no-shit political scientist would.

So, perhaps the answer is this. An average JD (or you, based on my reading of your comments) might be qualified to teach a course entitled "Intro to American Government." But this class would not offer the same depth or breadth of material, would not involve any instruction about how political science knowledge is produced, would not offer the theoretical groundwork necessary for students to succeed in upper-level course, and would traffic in a limited range of outdated theories. Instead, what they'd get is "I'm just a bill on Capitol Hill" and some stuff on what the law says. Sweet. But I'm sure there'd be critical thinking, right?

PS. Lawyers don't really have a monopoly on the socratic method. But since you've shifted your argument some to one based on pedagogy (You PhDs teach all that boring theory, but I make them engage!), consider this: A actually balanced classroom approach involves more than socratic quizzing. At its best, an intro to American class can deliver the opportunity to help students create political knowledge, but working hands-on with polling data, or re-districting studies, or with elected officials, or any number of other primary sources. Even a mediocre class involves getting students to think like social scientists in some way or another. Are you a social scientist? Can you teach others how to think like one? Again, this is a reason departments prefer PhDs...

Edited May 10, 2011 by bobcatpolisci1

[SOG25]

"But the bigger point is that, despite the fact that you suggest all political science theories and explanations are "made-up," the things you cite in response that you've apparently heard of ("iron triangles," "donkey voters") don't really represent the mainstream ways in which political scientists think about these issues anymore. I'd agree that a good class should encourage critical thinking, but I'd also argue that one especially good way to do that is to provide students with the major controversies in political science, and help them to parse them out. Canon's text, along with every other text I've used at this level, presents multiple approaches to answering questions like "how do people choose how to vote?" and encourages students to adjudicate among them. In my class, they leave with more than the half-dozen theories I remember from my law classes--they leave with a general notion of how our explanations for political phenomena have changed over time, and what that might mean for our future. They also learn how academic knowledge is produced, which is a crucial skill for teaching students how to think critically about the information they encounter (and I see you didn't really respond to the portion of my comments in which I defended the teaching of "methods" in intro classes)."

How does leaving your class with "more than the half-dozen theories" you learned in law school make a student more knowledgeable about the political process or institutions? Do you believe political science students are more interested in learning how "our explanations for political phenomena have changed over time, and what that might mean for our future" OR might they actually be more interested in understanding facts regarding the structure of government, its institutions, actors, relations, laws, federalism, legislation, the public policy process and other topics. If you believe they are more interested in the latter, then a JD would more than suffice. But if you think they're more excited about how our explanations for political phenomena have changed and will keep changing, I'd be willing to bet you're wrong; while that is not necessarily useless information, I certainly think it's more appropriate at the graduate level.

"The sad truth is that the course you propose between the lines would look a lot like an American Government course did before the behavioralist revolution of the 1950s: Focused mostly on institutions and laws, with little attention to how people act (strategically or otherwise) inside them. What you propose teaching sounds outdated, not particularly sophisticated, and doesn't really reflect all the things we know about how political systems function that we didn't 60 years ago."

What is wrong with political science before the behavioralist revolution of the 1950s: Focused mostly on institutions and laws? why is it so important to focus (or make bold claims/assumptions and rational choice theories) on how people act inside them versus studying and debating the institutions themselves (e.g. their origins, problems, public policies, case studies and other topical studies)? Political science or knowledge is in fact more about understanding the processes and institutions, not just theories about behavior of political actors (as some falsely state). If "contemporary" political scientists want to dabble so much in behavior and cognition, wouldn't it be better or easier just practicing psychology, instead of all the hybridization?

Finally, "No, sparky, I can't argue that every single intro to American Government class is (or should be) taught the same way." Good one!

Edited June 2, 2011 by SOG25

[SOG25]

What is wrong with political science before the behavioralist revolution of the 1950s: Focused mostly on institutions and laws?

[wtncffts]

What is wrong with political science before the behavioralist revolution of the 1950s: Focused mostly on institutions and laws?

SOG25, really? Why revive this? Have you found some revolutionary new information to add? If not, it's coming close to troll behaviour, not least because, as far as I can tell, this is the only thread you post in; you seemingly have no desire to contribute to the forums as a whole, but only to argue this point ad nauseum.

To your statement: there's nothing wrong with traditional institutionalism. I'm rather an institutionalist myself. So? What's your point?

[kaykaykay]

do not feed the troll.

And newcomers please please read through the 18 pages of "conversation" before deciding whether you want to contribute to this thread or not.

Edited August 5, 2011 by kalapocska