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

[SOG25]

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

Of course you would say that.

[GopherGrad]

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.

Your own OP complains that the vast majority of polisci professors have Ph.D.s.

There is nothing irrational about pursuing the skills the industry values in order to land the job.

Also, no JD has the requisite skills simply as a result of being a JD. If they have the requisite skills, they got some of them elsewhere.

[SOG25]

Your own OP complains that the vast majority of polisci professors have Ph.D.s.

My own OP highlights the fact that there are not enough JDs on political science faculties, since in fact JDs can teach political science courses, primarily law-related/public law and political institutions courses, as others have verified.

Also, no JD has the requisite skills simply as a result of being a JD. If they have the requisite skills, they got some of them elsewhere.

Nonsense.

[kaykaykay]

My own OP highlights the fact that there are not enough JDs on political science faculties, since in fact JDs can teach political science courses, primarily law-related/public law and political institutions courses, as others have verified.

not here on this board..no.

Nonsense.

advanced debate techniques indeed!

[foosh]

My own OP highlights the fact that there are not enough JDs on political science faculties, since in fact JDs can teach political science courses, primarily law-related/public law and political institutions courses, as others have verified.

I believe this is where you misunderstand how research universities work, and what constitutes Political Science. Law-related/public law classes are not common in PS programs; if you want to study law you go to a law school. Also, it has only been verified that JDs can teach a small subset of classes on the fringe of Political Science, not that they can effectively teach core curriculum. In order to be an effective lecturer/professor, you must have the background in Political Science to teach the subject. Law school simply doesn't prepare you for this. When I was applying for my JD, I was repeatedly told by law professors to "go to law school to become a lawyer, and only a lawyer." This is because law school simply doesn't prepare a student beyond that profession.

Nonsense.

I don't see why this is nonsense- it is very true. Unless you took the initiative to study political science as a hobby, a JD does not have the skills necessary to be an effective teacher in the field. They simply lack depth and insight that is essential to teaching the subject. For similar reasons, you wouldn't get a nurse to do a doctor's job; the jobs overlap slightly, but a nurse simply doesn't have the skills necessary to diagnose and prescribe treatment for medical conditions. You'll probably call this a red herring, but in logic we call it parallel reasoning.

I wish you best of luck in trying to change the system, but you won't have any support from lawyers or political scientists. This is simply because your idea is misguided and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of why there is a separation of the two fields.

Edited February 13, 2011 by foosh

[SOG25]

I believe this is where you misunderstand how research universities work, and what constitutes Political Science. Law-related/public law classes are not common in PS programs; if you want to study law you go to a law school. Also, it has only been verified that JDs can teach a small subset of classes on the fringe of Political Science, not that they can effectively teach core curriculum. In order to be an effective lecturer/professor, you must have the background in Political Science to teach the subject. Law school simply doesn't prepare you for this. When I was applying for my JD, I was repeatedly told by law professors to "go to law school to become a lawyer, and only a lawyer." This is because law school simply doesn't prepare a student beyond that profession.

I don't see why this is nonsense- it is very true. Unless you took the initiative to study political science as a hobby, a JD does not have the skills necessary to be an effective teacher in the field. They simply lack depth and insight that is essential to teaching the subject. For similar reasons, you wouldn't get a nurse to do a doctor's job; the jobs overlap slightly, but a nurse simply doesn't have the skills necessary to diagnose and prescribe treatment for medical conditions. You'll probably call this a red herring, but in logic we call it parallel reasoning.

I wish you best of luck in trying to change the system, but you won't have any support from lawyers or political scientists. This is simply because your idea is misguided and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of why there is a separation of the two fields.

Correction: Public law courses are part of political science, hence the subfield called public law. As to core courses that JDs could teach, there are a range of these which I listed earlier, including American government, state and local government, constitutional law (extremely common), and more "core" courses that the JD is qualified to teach, considering that a JD must understand in depth, political insitutions, processes and government in studying the law. So, logically, it makes sense to have a full time faculty with a speciality in public law (since that is an underepresented subfield in most departments) as well as the ability to teach these core courses.

How do you know JDs lack the depth and insight to teach the subject. If in fact that were the case, why do so many "research universities" hire them as contingent faculty or even full time faculty? Clearly, there seems to be some recognition of their skills in teaching the subject.

[SOG25]

As to what has actually been "verified" on this thread, I'm sure you're including the following posts:

Well, again, I agree that there are some courses the J.D. could teach. In my department, we have just over 100 undergrad courses on the books. If I really stretched it, there are 20 that I probably could teach. There are about 10-12 that I am very comfortable teaching. Depending on the breadth of the person's training, it looks like there are as many as 8-10 that a J.D. could teach, and 4-5 that most J.D.s should be able to teach. So, consistent with my earlier claim, I'd say the J.D. can teach something in the neighborhood of 5-10% of what my department offers. And, for what it's worth, we bring in some J.D.s to teach some of those courses.

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.

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.

Edited February 14, 2011 by SOG25

[balderdash]

...hence the subfield called public law.

404 error: does not exist.

[SOG25]

404 error: does not exist.

Clever, but it seems you may not yet be familiar with the political science discipline.

[wtncffts]

Clever, but it seems you may not yet be familiar with the political science discipline.

If that's the case, then nobody here is, since as I and others have stated many, many times, public law is not a subfield of poli sci in the same vein as comparative, theory, or IR. As I pointed out a long time ago, it's more a specialization like political psychology. You still seem to be labouring under the mistaken impression that (the study of) law is much more central to (the study of) political phenomena than it is.

SOG, I don't ever recall reading in this thread your experiences with political science. Have you ever taken a poli sci course? I'm just curious, because it's pretty obvious that you're the one in here that seems unfamiliar with the discipline. I opined earlier that I didn't view this as harshly as did some others, but it's becoming clearer that you just don't get it or are putting us on for the hell of it. I had hoped that the thread was dead a few days ago, but unfortunately it has arisen. Ah well.

[foosh]

Correction: Public law courses are part of political science, hence the subfield called public law. As to core courses that JDs could teach, there are a range of these which I listed earlier, including American government, state and local government, constitutional law (extremely common), and more "core" courses that the JD is qualified to teach, considering that a JD must understand in depth, political insitutions, processes and government in studying the law. So, logically, it makes sense to have a full time faculty with a speciality in public law (since that is an underepresented subfield in most departments) as well as the ability to teach these core courses.

How do you know JDs lack the depth and insight to teach the subject. If in fact that were the case, why do so many "research universities" hire them as contingent faculty or even full time faculty? Clearly, there seems to be some recognition of their skills in teaching the subject.

I don't blame you for misunderstanding the field of political science, as you are not a political scientist or a lawyer. We must all learn at some point, right?

Public Law is not generally considered a subfield, as it falls under the field of Political Theory or Philosophy. Theory is a very broad subfield that requires substantial understanding of philosophy, history, and government, but not the law. Rather, it studies the effects of the law, effects of enforcement, and effects of different types of governments. It does not consider how to enact and enforce the law, or the language used in drafting legal documents. This is a critical distinction, as lawyers are trained for the latter.

Unfortunately a JD does not adequately educate the student regarding the theoretical aspects of government, but rather the practical aspects that will enable the student to be a good lawyer. JDs that are hired on major university faculties tend to a ) also have a doctorate in Political Science or b ) have done substantial research in a subfield of Political Science or c ) are a law professor, which requires much more than a JD.

If you would like to learn a bit more about the fields, I would suggest reading Wikipedia's entry on Political Science and see how it differs from the entry on laywers.

Edited February 14, 2011 by foosh

[foosh]

Clever, but it seems you may not yet be familiar with the political science discipline.

He's quite correct, "Public Law" is not a subfield of Political Science. There are five subfields: comparative politics, international relations, political philosophy, American politics, and political methodology. The study of public law would fall under political philosophy, which is a broad field that requires a solid understanding of philosophy, history, and government. None of these are the focus of a JD, except perhaps minor overlap in government. Regardless, it is not substantial enough to say a JD prepares one as an expert in political philosophy. Generally, departments require mastery of two subfields to be qualified to teach (this is the bare minimum), and a JD prepares a student for a small fraction of a fraction of one subfield.

[balderdash]

Clever, but it seems you may not yet be familiar with the political science discipline.

I applied to seven, others have applied to as many as fifteen, and no one can find a school that includes public law as a subfield.Find one that has it listed as one of their 4 or 5 areas.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

[foosh]

I applied to seven, others have applied to as many as fifteen, and no one can find a school that includes public law as a subfield.Find one that has it listed as one of their 4 or 5 areas.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Actually, he'll be able to find it quickly (UC Berkeley is a main one) because schools tend to divide subfields into further sub-subfields to cater to a student's interest. However, you'll note that all the faculty are listed under the Political Theory subfield because it is a sub-subfield of the theory subfield.

However, public law is not a subfield by itself, although it may be offered as a specialization at some universities.

[balderdash]

Actually, he'll be able to find it quickly (UC Berkeley is a main one) because schools tend to divide subfields into further sub-subfields to cater to a student's interest. However, you'll note that all the faculty are listed under the Political Theory subfield because it is a sub-subfield of the theory subfield.

However, public law is not a subfield by itself, although it may be offered as a specialization at some universities.

First of all, I said "as one of their 4 or 5 areas," meaning a primary subfield and not a topic within a subfield.

Second, Berkeley has it listed, but actually treats it as a specialization. From the letter from the Dep't Chair:

We offer an unusual combination of depth and breadth in the major subject areas of political science, covering not only the traditional subfields of American politics, comparative politics, international relations, and political theory but supplementing those subfields with very substantial strength in areas such as... public law, as well as the politics of every major region on the globe.

Even according to them, it's not a subfield but rather an "area" that has "very substantial strength" in a subfield, ie Political Theory.

Finally, even if we accept (and I don't) that it is a major subfield at Berkeley, then it's definitely an outlier. HYPS, Chicago, Columbia, MIT, Johns Hopkins, and on and on don't consider it a major subfield.

Edited February 14, 2011 by balderdash

[SOG25]

He's quite correct, "Public Law" is not a subfield of Political Science. There are five subfields: comparative politics, international relations, political philosophy, American politics, and political methodology. The study of public law would fall under political philosophy, which is a broad field that requires a solid understanding of philosophy, history, and government. None of these are the focus of a JD, except perhaps minor overlap in government. Regardless, it is not substantial enough to say a JD prepares one as an expert in political philosophy. Generally, departments require mastery of two subfields to be qualified to teach (this is the bare minimum), and a JD prepares a student for a small fraction of a fraction of one subfield.

Well if that's your argument, "public law goes under political theory/philosophy", aren't you arguing that a JD can teach political philosophy courses, since courses such as constitutional law would qualify as political theory courses, which JDs in fact are brought in to teach?

[SOG25]

If that's the case, then nobody here is, since as I and others have stated many, many times, public law is not a subfield of poli sci in the same vein as comparative, theory, or IR. As I pointed out a long time ago, it's more a specialization like political psychology. You still seem to be labouring under the mistaken impression that (the study of) law is much more central to (the study of) political phenomena than it is.

SOG, I don't ever recall reading in this thread your experiences with political science. Have you ever taken a poli sci course? I'm just curious..

Yes, in fact..at the graduate and undergraduate level. Nonetheless, I don't need to spend time comparing or disclosing my credentials but rely on the merit of arguments.

[SOG25]

If that's the case, then nobody here is, since as I and others have stated many, many times, public law is not a subfield of poli sci in the same vein as comparative, theory, or IR. As I pointed out a long time ago, it's more a specialization like political psychology. You still seem to be labouring under the mistaken impression that (the study of) law is much more central to (the study of) political phenomena than it is.

Umm....hello? They are ALL specializations (subfields), regardless of which are most common. Why not make them all available and let the student decides which courses s/he would like to sample or concentrate in? Also, last time I checked most poli sci students take courses like con law, admnistrative law, law and society, international law and organizations than "political psychology." No, I am not mistaken. The study of law is more central to the study of political phenomena than you recognize it to be. Moreover, JDs are equipped with the skills to teach institutions by virtue of their exposure to government institutions and public policy.

It also seems pretty ridiculous to suggest that one who can teach a reasonably more advanced courses such as constitutional law, state and local government or a topics course such as Federalism, cannot manage an easier, more introductory, core course such as American national politics.

In the cases that there are JDs teaching political science, core and law-related courses, why do you suppose then that universities allow them to teach it?

Edited February 14, 2011 by SOG25

[foosh]

Well if that's your argument, "public law goes under political theory/philosophy", aren't you arguing that a JD can teach political philosophy courses, since courses such as constitutional law would qualify as political theory courses, which JDs in fact are brought in to teach?

No, that is a logical fallacy. Public law is a sub-field of the Political Theory sub-field. That does not mean that one who can teach public law can teach political theory. A implies B does not mean B implies A.

[foosh]

Yes, in fact..at the graduate and undergraduate level. Nonetheless, I don't need to spend time comparing or disclosing my credentials but rely on the merit of arguments.

Your argument has no merit, so we are forced to find merit elsewhere.

[foosh]

Umm....hello? They are ALL specializations (subfields), regardless of which are most common. Why not make them all available and let the student decides which courses s/he would like to sample or concentrate in? Also, last time I checked most poli sci students take courses like con law, admnistrative law, law and society, international law and organizations than "political psychology." No, I am not mistaken. The study of law is more central to the study of political phenomena than you recognize it to be. Moreover, JDs are equipped with the skills to teach institutions by virtue of their exposure to government institutions and public policy.

It also seems pretty ridiculous to suggest that one who can teach a reasonably more advanced courses such as constitutional law, state and local government or a topics course such as Federalism, cannot manage an easier, more introductory, core course such as American national politics.

Yes, you are mistaken. You are thinking of law student curriculum, not political science curriculum. I believe this highlights why we must ask for your merits, because you seem to have a terrible misunderstanding of both law and political science.

In the cases that there are JDs teaching political science, core and law-related courses, why do you suppose then that universities allow them to teach it?

I already addressed this above. There are three reasons, and none of them include "just because they have a JD."

Edited February 14, 2011 by foosh

[SOG25]

No, that is a logical fallacy. Public law is a sub-field of the Political Theory sub-field. That does not mean that one who can teach public law can teach political theory. A implies B does not mean B implies A.

Well, you are the one saying public law is a part of political theory. Logically, then, a JD who teaches a public law course is teaching political theory, according to your own framing.

[SOG25]

Yes, you are mistaken. You are thinking of law student curriculum, not political science curriculum. I believe this highlights why we must ask for your merits, because you seem to have a terrible misunderstanding of both law and political science.

I already addressed this above. There are three reasons, and none of them include "just because they have a JD."

Suffice it to say I have a strong understanding of both. I must have missed your three reasons why universities allow PURE JDs to teach political institutions, public law and other political science courses. Enlighten me please.

Edited February 14, 2011 by SOG25

[SOG25]

Just one other quick example that public law is a subfield of poli sci:

Specialization

The student completes 6 courses (18 credit hours) in a subfield of political science and, within that subfield, an area of concentration. Subfields in political science include Public Policy (including Comparative Public Policy), Urban Politics, American Politics, Comparative Politics, International Relations, Political Economy, Public Law, and Public Administration. Areas of concentration within Public Policy might include Economic Policy or Health Policy, Social Welfare, Criminal Justice, Labor and Employment, Housing, Environmental Protection, Policy Analysis, Public Budgeting and Finance, or other areas not enumerated.

http://www.umsl.edu/...hd_program.html

Edited February 14, 2011 by SOG25

[foosh]

Suffice it to say I have a strong understanding of both. I must have missed your three reasons why universities allow PURE JDs to teach political institutions, public law and other political science courses. Enlighten me please.

Apparently you lack the ability to scroll up and read. This explains a lot.

Yes, a professor teaching public law is teaching a subset of political theory. However, that does not mean they can comprehensively teach political theory; there is a big difference.