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

[foosh]

This conversation is hilarious! All I can say is, I have a JD and despite being a recently minted member of the bar I feel far more qualified to teach political science courses than to practice law. Almost none of my law school classes were practical in any way, and I think the vast majority of law school classes are NOT practical and are instead theoretical and about a certain way one should think about the law and society. That is, my experience was that law school was more like grad school than vocational school. Plus, my law school actually requires independent research and writing projects in order to graduate, so that argument about how JDs never have to do research isn't 100% grounded in reality.

I don't think you understand the difference between legal research and academic research. The two are vastly different.

[SOG25]

This conversation is hilarious! All I can say is, I have a JD and despite being a recently minted member of the bar I feel far more qualified to teach political science courses than to practice law. Almost none of my law school classes were practical in any way, and I think the vast majority of law school classes are NOT practical and are instead theoretical and about a certain way one should think about the law and society. That is, my experience was that law school was more like grad school than vocational school. Plus, my law school actually requires independent research and writing projects in order to graduate, so that argument about how JDs never have to do research isn't 100% grounded in reality.

socme123, I agree with you 100%. But it appears some DON'T want to accept the reality that JDs have the substantive prepration to TEACH political science courses at the undergraduate level, no matter how much evidence you provide.

Edited February 2, 2011 by SOG25

[socme123]

I don't think you understand the difference between legal research and academic research. The two are vastly different.

No. I don't think YOU understand what I'm saying. I'm talking about research publishable in academic journals, not legal memoranda. Required for graduation at my school.

Edited February 2, 2011 by socme123

[Penelope Higgins]

Mmm... sock puppets...

No. I don't think YOU understand what I'm saying. I'm talking about research publishable in academic journals, not legal memoranda. Required for graduation at my school.

[GopherGrad]

There's a difference between what a law review will publish and what a polisci journal will. A Venn diagram of the two would have some overlap, but not a ton. Publication in the political science world often requires primary research, for example, and law students receive no training in statistical methods, research design or anything similar.

I understand the frustration of feeling like school didn't prepare you for practice; almost everyone feels that way (and I take your original post as a sardonic expression of that angst more than an assertion that you're a better candidate to teach polisci than the average Ph.D.). A lot of the program is meant to teach you to speak legal language and think in the segmented (elements or tests) way that legal briefs are argued. Law school prepared me well to write and argue substantive motions, but I was clueless about forming discovery strategy or negotiating settlements. Those skills and comforts only develop with experience. I promise you that in a couple years those frustrations will vanish.

Edit: I take Penelope's meaning, but I also feel great sympathy for starting attorneys. You feel like a lion cub released to fight the hyenas. They're almost always borderline suicidal the first year. If socme123 isn't just another SOG handle, I think it's important to respond frankly and empathetically.

Edited February 2, 2011 by GopherGrad

[wtncffts]

socme123, I agree with you 100%. But it appears some DON'T want to accept the reality that JDs have the substantive prepration to TEACH political science courses at the undergraduate level, no matter how much evidence you provide.

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.

[RWBG]

Don't revive it! It was dead! Go back to stressing about grad school admissions!

[wtncffts]

Don't revive it! It was dead! Go back to stressing about grad school admissions!

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

[SOG25]

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.

Regarding your comp samples, I guess if you want me to say that a JD won't be able to use the exact same language as a PhD in describing political phenomena or American instituions (which is essentially all you showed), then I can agree with that (since they're obviously not from the same school of thought). Nevertheless, I never intended to suggest that JDs can or should engage in the foreign language, so to speak, conversations of PhDs (some of which are "made up theories", as rightly articulated by Troll). After all, I wouldn't expect PhDs to understand legal jargon either (since they're not from the same school of thought).

However, I have and still assert that a JD, interested in teaching political science, would have the education and skills to both understand and teach political science courses in the areas of American institutions, public law, etc, so that undergraduates interested in the subject can grasp these areas; it's really that simple.

It is up to you to show that JDs cannot.

[socme123]

There's a difference between what a law review will publish and what a polisci journal will. A Venn diagram of the two would have some overlap, but not a ton. Publication in the political science world often requires primary research, for example, and law students receive no training in statistical methods, research design or anything similar.

I understand the frustration of feeling like school didn't prepare you for practice; almost everyone feels that way (and I take your original post as a sardonic expression of that angst more than an assertion that you're a better candidate to teach polisci than the average Ph.D.). A lot of the program is meant to teach you to speak legal language and think in the segmented (elements or tests) way that legal briefs are argued. Law school prepared me well to write and argue substantive motions, but I was clueless about forming discovery strategy or negotiating settlements. Those skills and comforts only develop with experience. I promise you that in a couple years those frustrations will vanish.

Edit: I take Penelope's meaning, but I also feel great sympathy for starting attorneys. You feel like a lion cub released to fight the hyenas. They're almost always borderline suicidal the first year. If socme123 isn't just another SOG handle, I think it's important to respond frankly and empathetically.

Guys, there's no need to be patronizing. (1) No, of course I don't think JDs in general are better for teaching poli sci than poli sci Ph.D.s. That's ridiculous. But do I think JDs could teach most undergrad poli sci classes, yes - even seemingly unrelated ones like international politics - yes if the person focused on international legal topics and political economy in law school. (2) I actually don't doubt my ability to practice law. I just hate it I'm only on grad cafe because I'm applying for Ph.D. programs. (3) At my law school, law students often TA for undegraduate courses in non-law fields. That's different from being a professor, obviously, but we were doing the same thing the grad students were asked to do so there's at least some recognition that law school teaches you something other than how to practice law. (4) I'll ignore the knock on legal academic research - the idea that some random "peer-reviewed" po-dunk journal is somehow more rigorous than the Harvard Law Review is something else - because it's to be expected among Ph.D. folks. I just don't think there's a need to knock on the academic rigor of a J.D. program in order to make the argument that Ph.Ds are more deeply rooted in political science. I'm more annoyed by the mischaracterization of what goes on in law school than I am by what seems to be an obvious point that Ph.D.s are more deeply trained in traditional political science than JDs are. That doesn't mean JDs CAN'T teach poli sci classes, but it does mean that it doesn't make sense to hire a JD when there are so many unemployed poli sci Ph.D.s.

I'm rambling, and I definitely don't take this all that seriously. It's really funny the way y'all have let this SOG25 character wind everyone's clock.

[SOG25]

Mmm... sock puppets...

quoi!?

Also, socme123, while I agree with all your other points, I would say that it does make sense to hire a JD who is passionate about teaching political science courses, in part because political science departments will benefit from having a teacher of public law. This important subfield of political science, I think you would agree, is more of a specialty for JDs than for PhDs.

Ultimately, while it does make sense to seek out PhDs trained in "traditional political science", I think the most important attribute of a good college professor is PASSION for TEACHING the subject (and many PhDs and JDs are equally passionate about teaching college students poli sci). Unfortunately, the status quo (or PhD ONLY perspective) allows, even encourages, a system where many "professors" are mainly interested in research than professing.

Hiring committees would serve undergraduates well by hiring people who are most passionate about the field (whether JDs or PhDs), rather than passing over a qualified JD simply because there are "so many unemployed poli sci PhDs."

Edited February 3, 2011 by SOG25

[kaykaykay]

"Also, socme123, while I agree with all your other points, I would say that it does make sense to hire a JD who is passionate about teaching political science courses, in part because political science departments will benefit from having a teacher of public law. This important subfield of political science"

Quoi?

F*** no it is not. You think because you learnt it is it important? Who cares???? Undergrads who do (!?)will go will take classes at the law department.Political Scientists care about institutions. And this is not just the renaming of the same concept. Since you have no clue why I am insisting on differentating between the two I am saying you have no clue about PS. Sure you can teach undergrads but not to Political Science. Sorry.

[SOG25]

F*** no it is not. You think because you learnt it is it important? Who cares???? Undergrads who do (!?)will go will take classes at the law department.Political Scientists care about institutions. And this is not just the renaming of the same concept. Since you have no clue why I am insisting on differentating between the two I am saying you have no clue about PS. Sure you can teach undergrads but not to Political Science. Sorry.

Yeah...that's not a good or convincing argument for your position.

[kaykaykay]

Well, again I do not have any issue with you personally, but probably you are the worst debater I have ever seen. so chew on my words on your own, I am not going to explain them further.

[SOG25]

Well, again I do not have any issue with you personally, but probably you are the worst debater I have ever seen. so chew on my words on your own, I am not going to explain them further.

If your example/model of a good debater is the following:

F*** no it is not. You think because you learnt it is it important? Who cares???? Undergrads who do (!?)will go will take classes at the law department.Political Scientists care about institutions. And this is not just the renaming of the same concept. Since you have no clue why I am insisting on differentating between the two I am saying you have no clue about PS. Sure you can teach undergrads but not to Political Science. Sorry.

I thank you for the compliment. Thanks for sharing.

[balderdash]

[SOG25]

See, when you make the debate about the substance of law courses, I'm inclined again to point out that you've never taken one. You said that plenty of JDs would disagree with my characterization of legal courses being mostly practical. If you can find one, let me know and I'll talk to him. You seem to base your intuition on legal coursework from watching The Paper Chase.

This conversation is hilarious! All I can say is, I have a JD and despite being a recently minted member of the bar I feel far more qualified to teach political science courses than to practice law. Almost none of my law school classes were practical in any way, and I think the vast majority of law school classes are NOT practical and are instead theoretical and about a certain way one should think about the law and society. That is, my experience was that law school was more like grad school than vocational school. Plus, my law school actually requires independent research and writing projects in order to graduate, so that argument about how JDs never have to do research isn't 100% grounded in reality.

Just saying....

Edited February 5, 2011 by SOG25

[Penelope Higgins]

mmm... warmed over sock puppets

Just saying....

[kaykaykay]

SOG25 Haha exactly ! I am exactly saying your debate style does not worth any debate! Many peope tried and you do not have a single good argument except for repeating yourself over and over again. People are not giving up on you because you are convincing anyone but because you have burried your head in the sand. I am happy you have so much time on your hands -you could have earned a PhD during all this time especially because you know already everything what is needed to be a polisci prof (on the undergraduate level, for selected subjects, if an advanced undergrad or MA would not do it cheaper and more connected to other poi sci literature e.g. institutions). So good luck Don Quixote of the PoliSci message board (or political science teaching world) your fight is truly enlightning and I wish you the best.

[rising_star]

I shouldn't do this but I can't help myself after having to read through all 13 pages of this.

Again, research is not the same as teaching, and ought not to have such an important connection to professorship/faculty positions. Am I suggesting universities abandon research and development? Absolutely NOT! I am saying let those who want to research do research, and let those who want to teach undergraduates, teach undergrads.

So you want to change the nature of the professoriate in American higher education, in essence? Good luck with that. The only place I see where your position might (and I emphasize the word 'might') be viable is at the community college level where professors have 4:4 or 5:5 teaching loads. And even some of those schools are moving towards requiring professors to publish.

4) "Teaching. Few if any attorneys receive training or have experience teaching, where most Ph.D. candidates get some of each. Again, out of the box, few attorneys are qualified compared to Ph.D.s for actual teaching work."

I don't espouse the view that receiving some training in teaching is as important as you claim. I'm skeptical of this idea because taking some courses in teaching does not guarantee one, whether a PhD or a JD, will be a good teacher. Similarly, the lack of courses in teaching also does not guarantee that one will not be a good teacher. I am of the opinion that while experience improves communication and teaching ability, it really depends on the individual. What about law school professors, the vast majority of whom are JDs? How do you suggest they became qualified to teach?

If receiving training in teaching is unimportant, why are there colleges of education? Why is there required training in instruction and pedagogy for teachers to earn their teaching licenses (certificates, etc.)? BTW, I don't think you should assume that law school professors have never taken a course on teaching unless, of course, you can prove by that this is by and large the case.

HOLD up..wait a minute. Political science faculty who hold tenure at universities are not called professors? Not sure about that one, and I'd still like to know why faculty who hold the title of professor (as even their biographical profiles indicate), would spend time doing significantly anything else other than 'profess' a.k.a teach.

Some seem to take it for granted that all political science faculty consist of people who teach undergrads, graduate students, research, etc. In reality, not all political science programs have graduate programs. Most colleges do not. Still there, where there is no graduate program, only PhD faculty are hired to teach undergraduates.

Actually, this is not the case. Ever heard of community colleges? You can typically teach at them with a MA...

Another point is that this seemingly new argument--that JDs aren't hired because of the availabity of grad 'instructors--sounds more like a cost-benefit rationale than a substantive preparation rationale (which some have been using to dispute the JD). Even with the grad student as professor model, is there some sort of evaluation to ensure that the instructor/TA or RA is really passionate or able to teach political science to undergrads? Wouldn't it be better to delegate that to someone, JD or PhD, who is prepared and passionate about the subject?

It sounds to me like this model dismisses the fact that undergraduates are there (and pay large sums of money) to learn from qualified and passionate professors, not some grad instructor (who in some cases doesn't even yet hold an MA) for the purpose of cost effectiveness. That seems to me a bit unethical.

1) Yes, there's a thing called taking a teaching course and then getting teaching evaluations every single time you teach. You don't really think they just go "Person A gets Class A, Person B gets Class B, etc" just proceeding alphabetically through a list of graduate students and course numbers, do you?

2) It may be unethical but it is a by-product of the neoliberalization of higher education. Assuming you do hold a JD, you probably didn't see this since law schools charge exorbitant tuition. However, in the era of having your department's budget cut by 5% every year for 8 straight years, it makes sense to do whatever you can to save money if you want to still have a department.

Dude. People who teach PoliSci 1001 or Methods 201 at university are not usually tenured faculty. They weren't at my uni. Ever. The aggregate job description we're working with now (a tenured professor who only teaches intro courses to undergrads and is not expected to research) doesn't even exist.

I know of such positions existing at a few community colleges. But, they are rare.

To everyone, PLEASE keep it civil or we (the moderators of this forum) will be forced to close this thread.

[RWBG]

To everyone, PLEASE keep it civil or we (the moderators of this forum) will be forced to close this thread.

This is an incentive for incivility.

[explodingstressball]

Stop me if I'm repeating something someone else has said already, but:

I think the concept of research is a bit of a non-starter. While legal and political science research is, by its very definition, quite distinct, I do not think that is the main reason JDs are not often on the faculty. I believe the issue is one of base knowledge: I have a number of friends who are currently in law school who have never taken a political science course in their life. Does their possession of a JD qualify them to work in a field in which they have no experience? No. Just as much as having a PhD in political science does not qualify me to teach law.

Just my 2¢ worth.

[IgnorantVeil]

The argument many folks have raised about the obvious inability of people with law degrees to conduct serious social scientific research is clearly correct, but I think it gives too much ground to SOG25's nonsense. Any of you that have the time or energy should go here and peruse the list of UG courses on offer this year. By my (quite charitable) count, someone with a law degree might (might) have a reasonable claim to be a capable teacher of 5 of those courses. ...out of 65! And more to the point, no single lawyer could reasonably lay claim to the skills required to teach any 3 of those 5. Now pick any 2 of the traditional 4-5 fields of political science. Anyone with an education in the 2 fields you've picked would be able to teach (at minimum) 4 for those courses. Legal training ≠ political science training. QED.

A second way to illustrate this breathtakingly obvious point would be to open up a few syllabuses and point out that no student of law has even been required to read Bowling Alone, The American Voter, Inequality Reconsidered, or Exit, Voice, and Loyalty; all just examples of essential political science reading that is taught in the classes you're talking about!

This has been a profoundly stupid discussion with a disturbingly successful troll for 13 pages now. If I close by saying fuck a bunch of times will the admins please close the thread?

[RWBG]

Legal training ≠ political science training. QED.

Hey, I already did the math thing. Go check page 9. Get your own material.

[SOG25]

If I close by saying fuck a bunch of times will the admins please close the thread?

I have a better idea. How about blocking those who are unable to be civil while participating in this thread?

Obviously, some are threatened by the fact that JDs are also qualified to teach political science; so much so that they don't seem to be able to address this discussion without resorting to infatile comments. I sincerely hope their versions of 'open-mindness' are not passed on the undergrad students they purport to teach, for their sake.