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

[IgnorantVeil]

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.

Civility is owed to the intellectually honest.

[UnlikelyGrad]

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

Well, the posters seem to have different ideas of what is not civil (e.g. poster A reports poster B for not being civil, while poster B reports poster A)...

Look, if we blocked everyone who's supposedly not civil, this thread would not continue any more. Seems like closing the thread would be easier. I think the mods are already leaning that way. So play nice.

[UnlikelyGrad]

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.

I've never been to law school but I have a sister who is a law prof and she agrees with you. She just started teaching her specialty, patent law, this year (her first couple of years were spent teaching that staple of law school, contracts). She had a lot of trouble finding a patent textbook that actually contained more than one actual patent...some contained none at all! She tries to design her courses with a decidedly practical slant, but this takes a lot of work on her part.

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.

Plus, most poli sci journals have reviewers who are faculty in poli sci, i.e. already have PhDs in the subject. Whereas, if I understand correctly, most law reviews are run by students, i.e. people who don't yet have JDs.

[SOG25]

Civility is owed to the intellectually honest.

Let me complete your line of reasoning for you:

"Civility is owed to the intellectually honest" and freedom of speech, conviction and ideas are owed to only those 'who agree with me', otherwise no discussion allowed/ close the thread. Does that sound about right to you?

Here's the easiest option: "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all."

Edited February 7, 2011 by SOG25

[balderdash]

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.

This is the problem I have: putting a smiley face at the end of such a post (which you've done numerous times throughout the argument) doesn't make what you're saying any more "civil." What you're saying and how you're saying it has more often than not been snide, rude, and frankly inflammatory. Just because you haven't cursed doesn't mean you're innocent of making "infatile [sic] comments."

And you know this. You're doing it on purpose to keep a flame war alive.

Mods, please close the thread.

[SOG25]

Well, the posters seem to have different ideas of what is not civil (e.g. poster A reports poster B for not being civil, while poster B reports poster A)...

Look, if we blocked everyone who's supposedly not civil, this thread would not continue any more. Seems like closing the thread would be easier. I think the mods are already leaning that way. So play nice.

Well, with all due respect, I think when there is truly a debate about what constitutes civil or not civil, the moderator should use his/her good judgment, enforce the very standards of conduct specified by this very website, rather than ignore it or simply go with the majority opinion.

Edited February 7, 2011 by SOG25

[cogneuroforfun]

I don't get why law schools don't hire poli sci PhD's to teach most of the courses, since they're all theory based anyways. SOG, I think law schools should hire poli sci PhD's as faculty, not JD's. Apparently you now have the burden of proof to show why this is not a good idea.

[SOG25]

I don't get why law schools don't hire poli sci PhD's to teach most of the courses, since they're all theory based anyways. SOG, I think law schools should hire poli sci PhD's as faculty, not JD's. Apparently you now have the burden of proof to show why this is not a good idea.

red herring.

[SOG25]

This is the problem I have: putting a smiley face at the end of such a post (which you've done numerous times throughout the argument) doesn't make what you're saying any more "civil." What you're saying and how you're saying it has more often than not been snide, rude, and frankly inflammatory. Just because you haven't cursed doesn't mean you're innocent of making "infatile [sic] comments."

And you know this. You're doing it on purpose to keep a flame war alive.

Mods, please close the thread.

What examples could you provide of "rude, snide and inflammatory" statements?

A smiley face is rude and gives you a problem.? If that is indeed the case, perhaps the earlier poster was right; perhaps you're too easily wound up. How else do I control your emotions?

Edited February 7, 2011 by SOG25

[IgnorantVeil]

Let me complete your line of reasoning for you:

"Civility is owed to the intellectually honest" and freedom of speech, conviction and ideas are owed to only those 'who agree with me', otherwise no discussion allowed/ close the thread. Does that sound about right to you?

Here's the easiest option: "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all."

This is nonsense. What you've done is to beautifully illustrate your intellectual dishonesty and trollishness.

Respond to the substantive arguments I and others have made or admit your position is ridiculous.

[cogneuroforfun]

red herring.

Hah, alright. Well, you've convinced me anyways. I've seen the light. I will now describe the SOG25 system of education, inspired by and named for our very own SOG25.

1) All it takes to be an effective teacher is familiarity with the basic knowledge base for a course. Sounds reasonable, right?

2) Then, the people best suited to teach a course are those who have taken that and similar courses. Obvious, really.

3) Seniors/just graduated poli sci majors are then perfectly suited to teach almost the entire curriculum, or at least any courses they have personally taken. Why have a stuffy old tenured prof leading a lecture when your fellow peers can teach it just as well? So we can now have poli sci seniors teach the upper division poli sci courses.

4) This logic continues: juniors teach sophomores, sophomores teach the into poli sci 101, etc. etc.

5) But wait, this applies to all fields, so there's no reason to have faculty in any department, when the upperclassmen can teach the upper division courses, etc.

6) But why stop there? College freshman have clearly taken all the high school courses, so they should be perfectly able to teach the high school seniors, etc. etc.

7) ... all the way to: 4 year olds know the alphabet, so they can teach it to 3 year olds. 3 year olds know how to speak, so they can be speech instructors for the 2 year olds. 2 year olds are pretty helpless, but I guess they can walk, so they can be expert walking instructors to the 1 year olds. I think that's as far as we can go, because what the hell can 1 year olds actually do?

The logical consequence of JD's teaching in political science departments: babies teaching babies. Is that really something you want, SOG? Can a 3 year old really help a 2 year old overcome the beginnings of a speech deficit? If you think that is a bad idea, then you cannot in good faith support JD's teaching political science.

[SOG25]

Hah, alright. Well, you've convinced me anyways. I've seen the light. I will now describe the SOG25 system of education, inspired by and named for our very own SOG25.

1) All it takes to be an effective teacher is familiarity with the basic knowledge base for a course. Sounds reasonable, right?

2) Then, the people best suited to teach a course are those who have taken that and similar courses. Obvious, really.

3) Seniors/just graduated poli sci majors are then perfectly suited to teach almost the entire curriculum, or at least any courses they have personally taken. Why have a stuffy old tenured prof leading a lecture when your fellow peers can teach it just as well? So we can now have poli sci seniors teach the upper division poli sci courses.

4) This logic continues: juniors teach sophomores, sophomores teach the into poli sci 101, etc. etc.

5) But wait, this applies to all fields, so there's no reason to have faculty in any department, when the upperclassmen can teach the upper division courses, etc.

6) But why stop there? College freshman have clearly taken all the high school courses, so they should be perfectly able to teach the high school seniors, etc. etc.

7) ... all the way to: 4 year olds know the alphabet, so they can teach it to 3 year olds. 3 year olds know how to speak, so they can be speech instructors for the 2 year olds. 2 year olds are pretty helpless, but I guess they can walk, so they can be expert walking instructors to the 1 year olds. I think that's as far as we can go, because what the hell can 1 year olds actually do?

The logical consequence of JD's teaching in political science departments: babies teaching babies. Is that really something you want, SOG? Can a 3 year old really help a 2 year old overcome the beginnings of a speech deficit? If you think that is a bad idea, then you cannot in good faith support JD's teaching political science.

Wow, major red herring. And perhaps a bit melodramatic? Seriously. Take a breath.

Edited February 7, 2011 by SOG25

[GopherGrad]

I've never been to law school but I have a sister who is a law prof and she agrees with you. She just started teaching her specialty, patent law, this year (her first couple of years were spent teaching that staple of law school, contracts). She had a lot of trouble finding a patent textbook that actually contained more than one actual patent...some contained none at all! She tries to design her courses with a decidedly practical slant, but this takes a lot of work on her part.

The "practical" discussion harkens back to my word choice in a disagreement about how wide-ranging legal courses are in their treatment of political science or social topics.

As another example, plenty of criminal defense attorneys will argue that learning the elements of common law crimes is hardly practical preparation for the day to day work of a criminal attorney. And that's true. But the fact that criminal law classes are not "practical" in the sense that criminal lawyers spend a ton of time in straightforward 5/8 hearings and negotiating plea bargains doesn't prove that criminal law teaches anything that would be relevant to political science.

Criminal law courses are spent reading judicial opinions about whether particular facts match up to the elements of various crimes. Very little in that content bears on crime policy (for example).

The same is true with most required law courses (evidence, torts, contracts, civil procedure, etc.); it's really about learning the elements of various claims or meanings and purpose of court rules. Over time, you start to learn the syntax of legal discourse and structure of arguments that you can apply to any legal problem. The backbone of legal education isn't substantive knowledge at all, it's learning a set of problem solving and analysis skills. Those skills are practical to an attorney. They are also a powerful set of tools when used in many other disciplines, but they are not in and of themselves sufficient to teach in all those areas.

[wtncffts]

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.

[foosh]

This is nonsense. What you've done is to beautifully illustrate your intellectual dishonesty and trollishness.

Respond to the substantive arguments I and others have made or admit your position is ridiculous.

[cogneuroforfun]

Wow, major red herring. And perhaps a bit melodramatic? Seriously. Take a breath.

I'm laughing, not being melodramatic I recognized that your logic destroys everything in it's path; I couldn't beat it, so I had to join it! I am a supporter of the SOG25 educational system, not an opponent.

[SOG25]

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.

wtncffts, you're right. I did have a genuine curiosty at the start of this thread, which I started with an open mind. My thinking was that there must be good reasons why there are so few JDs teaching political science courses at the college level (though there are some in various departments). The level of hostility this thread has shown to this idea indicates simply, as I said before, that there are some (though not all) PhDs or aspiring PhDs who are simply threatened by JDs teaching political science.

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"?

Edited February 8, 2011 by SOG25

[RWBG]

SOG, when you say "red herring," do you actually mean "straw man"?

Note: This is a red herring.

[kaykaykay]

Frankly SOG25 I think PoliSci PHDs may be more threatened by economists taking jobs at the poli sci department than any JD. Simply Political Science in America at least moved very far from the thing that you imagine it to be. As a lot of people have shown you, law subjects on any level (even on undergrad mind you) are so underrepresented in the PoliSci departments that no department would hire a JD even to teach those. Subjects which are about political institutions including American Politics are not about law, more about structures closer to economics than to law. Simply hiring a JD would not worth it, considering the subjects the person could teach. Neither political science nor political science departments operate the way you argue. There is no such job that you describe. If there was one even MAs could teach them or advanced undergrads( who may have more exposure to poli sci than a JD) . I am not quite sure what you do not understand about this, everyone tells you the same.

[wtncffts]

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.

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).

[SOG25]

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).

OK, let's use the American politics course you TA'ed for, as an example. What types of material or topics accounted for the other 90% of the course which a JD couldn't possibly handle, as you seem to suggest? I mean, please give specific examples.

[GopherGrad]

Funny thing about the "threatened" theory: a couple of the people strenuously objecting are JDs who would love nothing more than to be able to teach and research without going back to school. But basically everyone here with a JD is here because they plan to seek a Ph.D.!

I went to law school with academic ambitions, pursued them and learned a lot. But when I started to frame my ideas more clearly, it became obvious that pursuit of those ideas (and teaching them to others) required that I supplement my skills and knowledge with further education.

[SOG25]

Frankly SOG25 I think PoliSci PHDs may be more threatened by economists taking jobs at the poli sci department than any JD. Simply Political Science in America at least moved very far from the thing that you imagine it to be. As a lot of people have shown you, law subjects on any level (even on undergrad mind you) are so underrepresented in the PoliSci departments that no department would hire a JD even to teach those. Subjects which are about political institutions including American Politics are not about law, more about structures closer to economics than to law. Simply hiring a JD would not worth it, considering the subjects the person could teach. Neither political science nor political science departments operate the way you argue. There is no such job that you describe. If there was one even MAs could teach them or advanced undergrads( who may have more exposure to poli sci than a JD) . I am not quite sure what you do not understand about this, everyone tells you the same.

This seems interesting. Could you elaborate how this is the case, as I don't think it is in most departments?

[SOG25]

Funny thing about the "threatened" theory: a couple of the people strenuously objecting are JDs who would love nothing more than to be able to teach and research without going back to school. But basically everyone here with a JD is here because they plan to seek a Ph.D.!

I went to law school with academic ambitions, pursued them and learned a lot. But when I started to frame my ideas more clearly, it became obvious that pursuit of those ideas (and teaching them to others) required that I supplement my skills and knowledge with further education.

And that is great, for you! Not everyone prefers or finds it necessary to pursue the same path, and simply telling a JD, who already has the requisite knowledge base and skills to teach, to also get another doctorate because it is the 'norm', is simply irrational.

Maybe in a few years time, the argument might be that if you want to teach political science at the university level, you MUST have a PhD and a JD (or other additional doctorate) because that will be the new norm. After all, qualifications to teach are based on 'a continuum and relative to the qualifications of others', right?

Edited February 8, 2011 by SOG25

[kaykaykay]

Time to look through course offerings and sit in an American Politics classes! Good luck discovering Political Science!