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

[SOG25]

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.

Good we're getting somewhere. A professor (JD) teaching public law can teach a subset of politial theory as well as other courses on US institutions. Awesome. Resolved. Maybe as more universities recognize the ability of JDs to teach, they will diversify their faculties to include more qualified PhDs as well as JDs.

[kaykaykay]

"as well as other courses on US institutions"

no, I do not think anyone ever supported you on this. be happy with the subset of political theory. If a department feels like hiring a JD to do that , be it.

[SOG25]

"as well as other courses on US institutions"

no, I do not think anyone ever supported you on this. be happy with the subset of political theory. If a department feels like hiring a JD to do that , be it.

...... The J.D. would have no substantive qualification to teach the vast majority of courses on political theory, comparative politics, international relations, or political behavior, and only would be qualified to teach a portion of courses on U.S. institutions and policy....

Great eye as usual, kalapocskaa.

[kaykaykay]

forgive my eye, I have actual things to work on. so no I do not agree with that . institutions are a lot different in poli sci than in law. back at the day they were the same hence the name "Governmnent" at Harvard by the way. But as the name shifted to Political Science so did the substantive subject too shifted from law, from constitution to institutions. No, JDs could not teach American Institutions if it is taught for poli sci undergrads , it is different from public law.

[mellamobradley]

Why won't this thread die...? Legal training is totally irrelevant to academia. A JD would make more sense in a history course on U.S. law, not so much on the analytical frameworks involved in political science.

[SOG25]

forgive my eye, I have actual things to work on. so no I do not agree with that . institutions are a lot different in poli sci than in law. back at the day they were the same hence the name "Governmnent" at Harvard by the way. But as the name shifted to Political Science so did the substantive subject too shifted from law, from constitution to institutions. No, JDs could not teach American Institutions if it is taught for poli sci undergrads , it is different from public law.

Okay, since that is your view, why then do colleges and universities allow JDs to teach such courses "for poli sci undergrads (whether as adjuncts or full time faculty)? By such courses I mean American national politics, intro to poli sci, state and local government, judicial process, constitutional law...you know..institutions. "...are you saying the collective wisdom of the academy is wrong?"

Also your history of the field in most departments is very suspect, at best. I can safely say Havard's "Government" program has as many offerings in political science as any department.

Again, borrowing someone's earlier style of argument, how are you going to say Wesson, a PhD in political science and a college professor, is wrong when you don't have one?

Edited February 19, 2011 by SOG25

[SOG25]

Why won't this thread die...? Legal training is totally irrelevant to academia. A JD would make more sense in a history course on U.S. law, not so much on the analytical frameworks involved in political science.

Law school is not academia? Please explain that one.

[foosh]

Law school is not academia? Please explain that one.

Law school is not academia. Being a law professor is academia. Law school is a vocational school where lawyers train to become professionals.

[SOG25]

Law school is not academia. Being a law professor is academia. Law school is a vocational school where lawyers train to become professionals.

Being a law professor (which in most cases is a pure JD) is academia but everything else is not? That doesn't seem to make sense, and you're still not explaining the reasoning behind that.

...... 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.

[balderdash]

(which in most cases is a pure JD)

Wrongo bongo.

[SOG25]

Wrongo bongo.

Prove it.

[balderdash]

Prove it.

You're making the positive claim, the burden of proof is therefore on you.

Let me give you an example of what you're doing: "This morning I ate an entire sheet cake. Prove that I didn't."

[Zahar Berkut]

Ultimately it doesn't matter whether a JD is sufficient to qualify to be a law school professor. It would only underscore the fact that the standards of law school education do not require years of theoretical training or research skills related to a social scientific discipline.

Nobody here (rightly) denies that political science departments may choose to allow JD's to teach undergraduate courses in law and the practice of government. They do-- my department had a JD teach constitutional law, and a course on international law probably had at least one professional school faculty member with only a JD (the PS department chose to award credit to the class). The reason they allow these classes, however, is to give undergrad's who have no plans to continue on to academia a chance to learn a bit about the real world, or to provide some knowledge for the many PS students who plan to go to law school. They do NOT regularly take on JD's as tenured faculty, and such cases when they do are always exceptions to the rule. The reason they do not is because political science does not merely seek to provide substantive facts about law, institutions, or political/legal ideas, but to understand their causes at a theoretical level and conduct research into the causes and empirical influence of those things.

We have already established here that the PhD is a research degree, and political science departments do not exist solely to teach undergrads. It seems to me that the only argument you can make from this point is that the enterprise of political science is flawed, but I don't see how you can do that without challenging the basis of academic/social science departments in general, insofar as you wish to prove that the skills gained in a professional degree program like law school (even one with a respectable background in theoretical issues related to the professional field) deserves a permanent position in such a department. You would also need to concede that a master's or other professional degree program of sufficient rigor qualifies someone to be on social science department's faculty. And if that's the case, there would be no need to write a dissertation or stay on in a PhD program more than 3 years.

Is that your argument? Because this amazing thread seems to either go around in circles or to devolve into fights over trivia.

And just to be clear, I am only posting here for my own entertainment.

[t_ruth]

Moderator Note: Please stop reporting posts on this thread just because they offend you. We are not going to close this thread at this time. If you don't like reading the posts, please stop visiting the thread. Thank you.

[SOG25]

Nobody here (rightly) denies that political science departments may choose to allow JD's to teach undergraduate courses in law and the practice of government. They do-- my department had a JD teach constitutional law, and a course on international law probably had at least one professional school faculty member with only a JD (the PS department chose to award credit to the class). The reason they allow these classes, however, is to give undergrad's who have no plans to continue on to academia a chance to learn a bit about the real world, or to provide some knowledge for the many PS students who plan to go to law school.

I couldn’t have said it any better myself, and it’s refreshing to see that you’re paying attention to what’s actually been said and the reality in political science departments.

… They do NOT regularly take on JD's as tenured faculty, and such cases when they do are always exceptions to the rule. The reason they do not is because political science does not merely seek to provide substantive facts about law, institutions, or political/legal ideas, but to understand their causes at a theoretical level and conduct research into the causes and empirical influence of those things.

I agree that political science departments do not regularly take on JDs, though I think they should. Being reasonably familiar with the field, I would disagree with the notion that political science is principally about understanding the causes at a theoretical level and conducting research into the causes rather than substantive facts. Your definition of political science seems more like a description of political science research, rather than teaching at the undergraduate level.

Courses like American government, state and local government, constitutional law, judicial process, administrative law, federalism, international law, etc, are indeed primarily about understanding substantive facts about “law, institutions, or political/legal ideas.

But even going with your description of political science, I don’t see a reason why a JD would not be sufficient to lead undergraduate students in the discovery of the “causes at the theoretical level and conduct research into the causes and empirical influence of those things.” Aren’t students required to conduct their own research and present papers on appropriate policies to various issues?

Take the international law course you mentioned, as an example. Isn’t it accurate to say that in such a course, a JD will not only teach about the substantive facts of international law (e.g. nation-states, sovereignty, sources of international law, passive personality principle, etc), but also about the theoretical causes of war, or theoretical issues of human rights, etc? I guess I don’t see a sensible reason why a JD could not ‘possibly manage’ the theoretical aspects of political science, and I’m interested in your perspectives on that.

We have already established here that the PhD is a research degree, and political science departments do not exist solely to teach undergrads. It seems to me that the only argument you can make from this point is that the enterprise of political science is flawed, but I don't see how you can do that without challenging the basis of academic/social science departments in general, insofar as you wish to prove that the skills gained in a professional degree program like law school (even one with a respectable background in theoretical issues related to the professional field) deserves a permanent position in such a department.

Well, those are some interesting points and questions. I would definitely say much of the status quo in the academic system is indeed flawed, most certainly the priority on research rather than teaching (even at LACs where there is no graduate program). As I’ve said before, the primary purpose of the university has (at least historically been and ought to be) to teach, not to research; that is why there are students. Undergraduate students are cheated when they’re not taught by professors (JDs or PhDs) but TAs and others who are not as educated (simple). Bare in mind that there is no system in place to evaluate TAs to ensure the quality of teaching; they may be cheap but that’s not fair to the students.

You would also need to concede that a master's or other professional degree program of sufficient rigor qualifies someone to be on social science department's faculty. And if that's the case, there would be no need to write a dissertation or stay on in a PhD program more than 3 years.

Is that your argument? Because this amazing thread seems to either go around in circles or to devolve into fights over trivia.

I certainly think many ‘masters only’ can teach very competently, in fact, even better than some PhDs (who would be better off researching for some think-thank or other organization), since such “doctors” are not interested in teaching undergrads. They only pursue the profession because there’s this silly notion out there that the professorship is about researching, and adjuncts or TAs will do most of the teaching.

I don’t know any other professional programs other than JDs who would be as qualified as a JD or a PhD. I also don’t understand the big deal attached to the dissertation as a qualification to a faculty. Yes, it’s hard, rigorous work, but so is writing several books, which is what many JDs, MAs, etc, have done post graduation.

I wonder, would Jeremy Bentham (masters only), if he were alive today, be denied a tenured political science faculty position, for lack of a PhD?

Also don’t forget another unique value a JD brings to the table is his or her specialty in public law, which is only acquired in law school and from which undergraduates benefit when there is a JD on faculty. Diversify the faculty with those (JDs and PhDs) who want to teach undergrads is my argument, not replace PhDs who are passionate about teaching.

Edited February 21, 2011 by SOG25

[acquinas]

That's an interesting question. Or in the same logic, we can still ask, why most JDs but not PhDs teach in Law School?

JD is equivalent to a Master? OMG, a JD degree requires more than 90 credits to graduate. How about a MA or MS degree?

It seems that people need to dig more about the history of higher education.

Doctor, a latin word, which has origin in Arabic, means the qualification to teach law and offer legal advice. In the earliest university in Rome, only three majors (could be four) can be granted a Doctor degree: Theology, Law (civil and canon), and Medicine. Doctor refers to a professional qualification to teach and practice. At then time, the highest degrees all other majors can be confered on is Magistrate or Master. In many countries, law prohibits any graduates other than those in the three majors from using the designation of Doctor. Why? because other disciplines (all under the general name of philosophy)were highly soft and socially useless. However, those students in philosophy (either in natural or in moral) were so frustrated that they added a strage suffix Master and Doctor to their names. Till 19th century, it is Leipzig University that granted the first Doctor of Philosophy or PhD in the world. Obviously, it tries to euqalize the majors in philosophy to three privileged subjects in terms of social recognition. Also, enhancing master to dotor also belies that the scholars in philosophy intended to imitate those three highly developed subjects to Professionalize their own discipline. This is why they use the defining word Philosophy, which indicates their intellectual feature as well as historical imprint. But don't get it wrong, PhD in any sense is not higher than Doctor in other professional majors.

[Penelope Higgins]

font="Calibri"]Being reasonably familiar with the field, I would disagree with the notion that political science is principally about understanding the causes at a theoretical level and conducting research into the causes rather than substantive facts. Your definition of political science seems more like a description of political science research, rather than teaching at the undergraduate level.

Courses like American government, state and local government, constitutional law, judicial process, administrative law, federalism, international law, etc, are indeed primarily about understanding substantive facts about “law, institutions, or political/legal ideas.

This is just not true. Students should be learning how social scientists think, make arguments, and explain the phenomena they observe. For example, should you teach the facts of the civil rights movement, or instead use it as an opportunity to introduce students to framing, the collective action problem, the relationship between economic and social change, etc? Should you teach the facts of the 1992 LA riots, or use them to introduce theories of ethnic conflict? Should students memorize the political parties behind each president, or understand the theories of political party chance over time?

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.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Penelope Higgins

[SOG25]

This is just not true. Students should be learning how social scientists think, make arguments, and explain the phenomena they observe. For example, should you teach the facts of the civil rights movement, or instead use it as an opportunity to introduce students to framing, the collective action problem, the relationship between economic and social change, etc? Should you teach the facts of the 1992 LA riots, or use them to introduce theories of ethnic conflict? Should students memorize the political parties behind each president, or understand the theories of political party chance over time?

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.

Are you really arguing that a JD (who was educated through the socratic method and case study approach to understand overarching principles and theories) can't teach undergraduate students about important facts, principles and theories, through the same case study approach? Really?

[SOG25]

That's an interesting question. Or in the same logic, we can still ask, why most JDs but not PhDs teach in Law School?

JD is equivalent to a Master? OMG, a JD degree requires more than 90 credits to graduate. How about a MA or MS degree?

It seems that people need to dig more about the history of higher education.

Doctor, a latin word, which has origin in Arabic, means the qualification to teach law and offer legal advice. In the earliest university in Rome, only three majors (could be four) can be granted a Doctor degree: Theology, Law (civil and canon), and Medicine. Doctor refers to a professional qualification to teach and practice. At then time, the highest degrees all other majors can be confered on is Magistrate or Master. In many countries, law prohibits any graduates other than those in the three majors from using the designation of Doctor. Why? because other disciplines (all under the general name of philosophy)were highly soft and socially useless. However, those students in philosophy (either in natural or in moral) were so frustrated that they added a strage suffix Master and Doctor to their names. Till 19th century, it is Leipzig University that granted the first Doctor of Philosophy or PhD in the world. Obviously, it tries to euqalize the majors in philosophy to three privileged subjects in terms of social recognition. Also, enhancing master to dotor also belies that the scholars in philosophy intended to imitate those three highly developed subjects to Professionalize their own discipline. This is why they use the defining word Philosophy, which indicates their intellectual feature as well as historical imprint. But don't get it wrong, PhD in any sense is not higher than Doctor in other professional majors.

Agreed!

[acquinas]

Now in political science, case study as a method is broadly and repeatedly discussed. Is it really worth it? As a legal method that has been invented and employed for centuries, in the end of 20th century it is Re-discovered by political scientists. Oh, is that we can call the progress?

For reference, those great thinkers who have a law degree: Descartes, Leibniz, Weber, Marx, and even Kafka and Lukacs. In political scinece, a contemporary example, Thomas Carother. supplements are welcomed.

[Penelope Higgins]

Yes I am. Social science methods are completely distinct from the legal 'case study' approach. Being trained in one gives you no grounds for practicing, let alone teaching, the other.

Notice here that you dropped your earlier claim that political science courses are mainly fact-based. You don't want to defend that claim any further?

Are you really arguing that a JD (who was educated through the socratic method and case study approach to understand overarching principles and theories) can't teach undergraduate students about important facts, principles and theories, through the same case study approach? Really?

[acquinas]

it could be a more meaningful and productive discussion if a speaker has trianing in both law and political science.

In which way are they different? logic of difference or logic of agreement? or not syllogism? or no so-called theory development?

BTW, in a past IR class taught by a well-known scholar, his TA reminded us of how pretentious political science is. No science calls itself science. ye, right, economics, sociology, physics, chemistry, biology, geology,etc. Can you imagine an counter example?

[SOG25]

Yes I am. Social science methods are completely distinct from the legal 'case study' approach. Being trained in one gives you no grounds for practicing, let alone teaching, the other.

Notice here that you dropped your earlier claim that political science courses are mainly fact-based. You don't want to defend that claim any further?

Notice that I did not drop my claim that policial science courses, (e.g. introduction to american government, constitutional law, federalism, international law, etc) are principally substantive courses. You might be surprised that concepts such as rhetoric, framing or even 'synechdoches', if you wish (which are learned in a public policy process course) are all substantive concepts of political science, which JDs can teach. I only showed that even according to your perspective, JDs have the background and training to teach many courses of political science. Certainly not all, but many courses, mainly related to public law and institutions.

Edited February 21, 2011 by SOG25

[kaykaykay]

it could be a more meaningful and productive discussion if a speaker has trianing in both law and political science.

In which way are they different? logic of difference or logic of agreement? or not syllogism? or no so-called theory development?

BTW, in a past IR class taught by a well-known scholar, his TA reminded us of how pretentious political science is. No science calls itself science. ye, right, economics, sociology, physics, chemistry, biology, geology,etc. Can you imagine an counter example?

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.

[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.

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