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

[cogneuroforfun]

Why are there not more political science PhDs teaching law school courses? As you've suggested, law school courses and political science courses are interchangeable, and since political science PhDs have spent more time in the field, they are on average going to be more qualified. In fact, since general knowledge is more important than specialized knowledge, political science PhDs should be able to teach all law school courses fairly well.

For that matter, why are legal writing courses not taught by English or comp lit PhDs, who certainly are better writers than JDs? After all, an English PhD can easily learn and teach to the standards of the legal field. A good teacher is a good teacher, and English PhDs have, on average, spent ~10 years learning and teaching topics related to writing.

Why have law school professors at all? The entire topic could easily be covered by political science, English/comp lit, communications, and maybe a little hard science for patent law. I think we can abolish law schools, open up interdisciplinary programs in legal-ish studies, and award an interdisciplinary PhD in legal-ish studies.

[SOG25]

Why are there not more political science PhDs teaching law school courses? As you've suggested, law school courses and political science courses are interchangeable, and since political science PhDs have spent more time in the field, they are on average going to be more qualified. In fact, since general knowledge is more important than specialized knowledge, political science PhDs should be able to teach all law school courses fairly well.

For that matter, why are legal writing courses not taught by English or comp lit PhDs, who certainly are better writers than JDs? After all, an English PhD can easily learn and teach to the standards of the legal field. A good teacher is a good teacher, and English PhDs have, on average, spent ~10 years learning and teaching topics related to writing.

Why have law school professors at all? The entire topic could easily be covered by political science, English/comp lit, communications, and maybe a little hard science for patent law. I think we can abolish law schools, open up interdisciplinary programs in legal-ish studies, and award an interdisciplinary PhD in legal-ish studies.

I'm pretty sure this is what they call a "red herring." Let me again clarify that this is a topic on political science at the undergraduate level, and it would be helpful to focus on that.

[Pamphilia]

I sort of feel like this is akin to suggesting that a person with a degree in linguistics, or a degree in the pedagogy of English composition, ought to be hired as English literature professors. After all, a linguist knows a lot about language, right? A comp teacher knows about good writing. Of course these individuals have skills that help us understand English and might make us better at reading and communicating about literature. But these people are not qualified to teach literature classes. They are qualified to teach linguistics and comp classes. Proposing that JDs should, generally, be hired as political science professors strikes me as being similar to this example: sure, JDs become experts in the building blocks of political science (as a linguist is an expert in the building blocks of literature--that is, language), but they are not trained as experts in political science itself.

Furthermore, arguing that a JD would be qualified to teach certain courses and therefore ought to be appointed to political science faculty seems a bit silly, and seems to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding about the way academia works (I am purposefully here discussing appointments to faculty, not adjunct positions). Professors draw not only on their particular specialties for their classes, the but whole wealth of background knowledge that they gain as experts in the discipline as a whole. To teach a class under the banner of political science, even one as specific to legal studies as a Constitutional law class, still requires the professor to have strong (read: intensive graduate level) training in the whole of the social science of poli sci--that is, political philosophy, theories of social science, and so forth. Academic areas of focus (i.e., Constitutional law) exist in conversation with one's general discipline, and a JD is not trained in the general discipline of political science. She is trained in the discipline of law.

[cogneuroforfun]

I'm pretty sure this is what they call a "red herring." Let me again clarify that this is a topic on political science at the undergraduate level, and it would be helpful to focus on that.

While a little extreme, as you say, it is just an extension of your reasoning.

Why shouldn't English PhDs take a crash course in legal writing and then teach the topic to law students? English professors make, what, a third (at best) of what law professors bring home in salary alone? That means you could have (at least) three English professors for each law professor, have each class be a third the size, and have a much better student:faculty ratio (with all the benefits to learning that come along with that). Isn't a vastly reduced class size, with no increase in costs, worth a little less of that irrelevant specialized knowledge? Won't that make our JDs much better legal writers, which is obviously the purpose of a legal writing course?

[SOG25]

Pamphilia, thanks for your comments! However, I see some fallacies in your argument:

First, simply having a PhD in political science, meaning having just graduated with a completed dissertation, does not automatically make one an expert.

As I understand it, in any field, expertise is developed though practice in a given area over a number of years (5+ years in coursework and a dissertation doesn’t quite meet the threshold). I suppose a PhD becomes an expert by regularly publishing and researching a particular area (e.g., health or welfare reform). In other words, don’t assume that a PhD = expertise. Perhaps the real experts are those who’ve actually been involved in the process and practiced in the field (e.g. a state senator or homeland security expert, maybe even a lawyer). By that standard, most program faculties aren’t experts.

Second, your comparison between a linguist and a Juris doctor strikes me as a false comparison. The intensive graduate training in jurisprudence develops more than mere “building blocks” of knowledge, in terms of understanding political institutions and processes. Again, that is how I am evaluating their competence and readiness to teach some poli sci courses at the undergraduate level (mainly those dealing with public institutions, public law and some philosophy/theory).

Keeping with your English literature scenario, the JD is more akin to the academic with an American studies background and an emphasis in American literature. While they may not have the more common degree in English (or English literature), good luck proving they can’t teach literature courses.

Finally, could you elaborate or clarify on these theories of social/political science theories which are necessary to teaching even academic areas of focus (e.g. constitutional law)? You raise an interesting point, but it becomes necessary to show how such theories are essential.

[Pamphilia]

Pamphilia, thanks for your comments! However, I see some fallacies in your argument:

First, simply having a PhD in political science, meaning having just graduated with a completed dissertation, does not automatically make one an expert.

As I understand it, in any field, expertise is developed though practice in a given area over a number of years (5+ years in coursework and a dissertation doesn’t quite meet the threshold). I suppose a PhD becomes an expert by regularly publishing and researching a particular area (e.g., health or welfare reform). In other words, don’t assume that a PhD = expertise. Perhaps the real experts are those who’ve actually been involved in the process and practiced in the field (e.g. a state senator or homeland security expert, maybe even a lawyer). By that standard, most program faculties aren’t experts.

Second, your comparison between a linguist and a Juris doctor strikes me as a false comparison. The intensive graduate training in jurisprudence develops more than mere “building blocks” of knowledge, in terms of understanding political institutions and processes. Again, that is how I am evaluating their competence and readiness to teach some poli sci courses at the undergraduate level (mainly those dealing with public institutions, public law and some philosophy/theory).

Keeping with your English literature scenario, the JD is more akin to the academic with an American studies background and an emphasis in American literature. While they may not have the more common degree in English (or English literature), good luck proving they can’t teach literature courses.

Finally, could you elaborate or clarify on these theories of social/political science theories which are necessary to teaching even academic areas of focus (e.g. constitutional law)? You raise an interesting point, but it becomes necessary to show how such theories are essential.

Thanks for your response too! As much as I disagree with you, I find this question quite interesting.

Of course I am not suggesting that simply having "PhD" after one's name makes a person an expert, any more than I presume you are suggesting that three years of law school makes one an expert (if you are suggesting this, your argument is, I'm afraid, utterly silly*). I do take issue with your suggestion that most professors are not experts. Of course they are experts! (No doubt some charlatans slip through the cracks, as they do in every profession.) But they are experts in the field of academic study, the academic study of their fields. Again I suspect that this argument may be based on a misunderstanding (or underestimation) of the academic discipline and the rigor of academic training. No, academics are not experts in the same way as professionals are. But professionals are not experts in the way that academics are, either, which is precisely why professionals are not necessarily qualified to teach at the university level (just as PhD in poli sci is not qualified to practice law).

You seem to think that I am underestimating the rigor of law school and its "intensive graduate training in jurisprudence." I'm certainly not doing that--it's of course rigorous and profound training. But again, it does not qualify a person to teach in the social sciences (political science) because it does not train one as a social or political scientist. It trains one to be a lawyer.

Your comparison of a JD to a PhD in American studies is facile at best. And once again, it suggests to me that you don't fully grasp the nature of academics or graduate training at the academic level (as opposed to professional school such as law school). A PhD in Am Studies (with a focus on literature) trains one in a way much more closely aligned with an English graduate program than a law school does with political science as a discipline. American Studies doctorates are trained in theory, criticism, literature, pedagogy, and so forth, just as English PhDs are. Law school graduates receive a completely different kind of training than do poli sci PhDs, because ultimately they are trained for different purposes: law school prepares a person specifically for a professional career, and doesn't necessarily immerse its students in the body of work that is foundational to the social sciences or the ongoing conversations about the state of social sciences or the discipline of political science, such as the theories and criticisms that I mentioned in my previous post.

Re: those theories. I'm in tue humanities, so I can't really name specific theorists. Sorry. But just because I'm not qualified to discuss specific social/political science theorists and theories doesn't mean that they are not integral to the academic study of political science. Besides, this may be beside the point. My earlier point was that political science professors always draw on the wealth of knowledge that they have accrued by participating in the larger discipline of political science even when they are speaking or teaching about a specific topic (e.g., con law) that it is possible to grasp well without a social science background.

* I hope I don't sound insulting or anything by using "silly" here; I'm in a hurry and that's the best word the springs to mind at the moment, inadequate as it is.

[SOG25]

“No, academics are not experts in the same way as professionals are. But professionals are not experts in the way that academics are, either, which is precisely why professionals are not necessarily qualified to teach at the university level (just as PhD in poli sci is not qualified to practice law).”

How would you define an academic expert as opposed to a professional expert?

Maybe that would help me better understand your argument that most professors are “experts in the field of academic study.” In the meantime, I simply have to disagree with that argument.

My comparison between PhDs in American Studies and those in English literature is absolutely fair and relevant. It is one example that professors from different but related disciplines can effectively teach some of the same courses in a related discipline. Of course, their approaches and perspectives will be different (it will reflect those of their graduate training and overall academic backgrounds). Therefore, it’s not at all a stretch to see that Juris doctors both understand and can effectively teach courses on political institutions and processes (known as political science courses).

*I won’t be insulted by the use of “silly”, but it won’t make your argument.

I do appreciate your perspectives and challenging ideas.

[SOG25]

While a little extreme, as you say, it is just an extension of your reasoning.

Why shouldn't English PhDs take a crash course in legal writing and then teach the topic to law students? English professors make, what, a third (at best) of what law professors bring home in salary alone? That means you could have (at least) three English professors for each law professor, have each class be a third the size, and have a much better student:faculty ratio (with all the benefits to learning that come along with that). Isn't a vastly reduced class size, with no increase in costs, worth a little less of that irrelevant specialized knowledge? Won't that make our JDs much better legal writers, which is obviously the purpose of a legal writing course?

If you're speaking about legal writing courses, specifically, I can agree with that. I don't see a reason why not. I wouldn't agree, however, with the other "extreme", as you say, conclusions you made about the whole law school curriculum.

*Different topic for different discussion.

Edited October 21, 2010 by SOG25

[LACProf]

Being able to teach any subject, including political science, at the college/university level requires a high level of theoretical understanding, and most JD programs are not set up to provide their students with that sort of theoretical understanding. OP, you asserted that a JD might be able to teach political theory classes. The fact of the matter is that many JDs couldn't even teach a class in jurisprudential theory because their law school education did not give them a proper understanding of jurisprudential theory (at least that's what my former students who have finished or are currently in law school tell me). Even fewer JDs would be properly prepared to teach fairly standard undergraduate political theory courses like classical political theory, contemporary democratic theory, critical theory, feminist theory, history of the social contract, etc., and those JDs who would be able to teach such courses would be able to do so in spite of, not because of, the standard legal education. While it's true that a political theorist with a Ph.D. will choose to conduct his or her research primarily in one area of political theory, his or her graduate training properly introduced him/her to the subfield of political theory as a whole by presenting the subfield's major questions and important theoretical frameworks. That's why a political theorist with a Ph.D. can teach (or should be able to teach) across the subfield and not just within his/her research specialty.

I have sent many intelligent students off to some very excellent schools in the T14 (though I admit that I do not have a HLS, YLS or SLS student yet...but I've only been at this for five years), and the very best of these students always expressed frustration with their legal education because it constantly eschewed the study and consideration of larger theoretical concepts and questions for a practical, vocational focus on the profession of law. That sort of education does not prepare one to be a full-time faculty member at a college or university. Of course those JD students who attend exceptional institutions, take fullest advantage of the exceptional opportunities afforded by those institutions (I mean more than just law review) and then go on to outstanding achievements like clerking for a Supreme Court justice can make excellent contributions to academia (see Ronald Dworkin, for example). However, individuals like Dworkin are rare.

[SOG25]

Thanks for your contribution, LACProf.

While I have heard the arguments or complaints that law school is primarily vocational training, I've also heard, as I'm sure you have as well, that it is not sufficiently vocational. At least some law school students and graduates would argue that it is significantly theoretical. They would add that most vocational/lawyer training was learned on the job, not in courses. These perspectives as well as my personal assessment of the curriculum leave me convinced that law school is much more academic than technical as some argue.

Your argument seems to focus on my assertion that a Juris Doctor could teach political philosophy/theory. You don't seem to challenge the idea that they can teach courses in political institutions, such as national, state and local government courses or federalism. The basis of my argument is that success in legal reasonsing is contignent upon understanding political insititutions and processes and philosopies which is acquired in analyzing and expounding upon judicial decisions and myriad texts.

As to your claims, could you provide an example of the theoretical understanding that you propose a PhD acquires but a JD does not? How is such an understanding acquired in the PhD doctoral process yet lacking in the Juris doctoral process, as you say? Also, considering that classical political theory courses normally involve little more than exposition of the political philosophies of great thinkers, why would a JD not be able to teach such a class? I look forward to your perspectives.

[LACProf]

While I have heard the arguments or complaints that law school is primarily vocational training, I've also heard, as I'm sure you have as well, that it is not sufficiently vocational.

While it is true that the summer associate experience is an important part of the legal education and that some students wonder about the direct relevance of their coursework, it does not follow that this coursework serves as proper preparation to teach undergraduates.

Your argument seems to focus on my assertion that a Juris Doctor could teach political philosophy/theory. You don't seem to challenge the idea that they can teach courses in political institutions, such as national, state and local government courses or federalism.

I am a political theorist, not a American politics scholar, and I don't feel comfortable speaking for my colleagues in American politics. However, I will say that I am skeptical of the idea that someone with a JD could teach these classes as effectively as someone with a Ph.D.

The basis of my argument is that success in legal reasonsing is contignent upon understanding political insititutions and processes and philosopies which is acquired in analyzing and expounding upon judicial decisions and myriad texts.

I am not that familiar with the law school curriculum, but given what I do know about classes like contracts, property law and torts it seems that while there is some recognition of the fact that such exchanges take place within a legal-political framework, there is only an effort to understand very specific parts of the framework. There is little focus on how the whole system of political institutions fits together. For example, as I understand it, a property law class does not spend a lot of time focusing on normative questions of property distribution, the definition of property, etc. Now since I don't know the law school curriculum, I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong.

As I said in my previous post, there are certainly some JDs who focus on constitutional law or other areas that allow them to focus on these broad questions and system-wide effects, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule.

As to your claims, could you provide an example of the theoretical understanding that you propose a PhD acquires but a JD does not? How is such an understanding acquired in the PhD doctoral process yet lacking in the Juris doctoral process, as you say?

Let's take institutions. Someone teaching classes on institutions needs to be able to talk about the Constitutional institutions that are formally tied to the process of creating laws (i.e., the legislature, the executive and the judiciary), and should also be able to talk about those parts of the political system that aren't formally tied to the process of creating laws, like interest groups and the media. People who receive Ph.D.s and concentrate in American politics are taught about these institutions AND the theories about how these institutions work together. It's hard to teach a course on the Congress without understanding the other institutions, because part of understanding Congress is understanding how Congress relates to the Presidency, and to understand why the Presidency reacts to Congress in the way that it does, you have to understand the basic theories about the Presidency as an institution. As I understand it (and I'm willing to be corrected), this sort of information is not covered in the law school curriculum.

Also, considering that classical political theory courses normally involve little more than exposition of the political philosophies of great thinkers, why would a JD not be able to teach such a class?

Please show me where in the law school curriculum students are asked to do the following:

1. Read a wide variety of primary texts including (but most certainly not limited to) most of the dialogues of Plato, the Politics and Ethics of Aristotle, the essays of Seneca, the treatises and major speeches of Cicero, and the histories of Thucydides and Herotodus

2. Read secondary literature on those texts

3. Gain a basic historical understanding of the period

4. Demonstrate through discussion and writing that they understand not ONLY the content of the texts and secondary literature, and not ONLY the controversies surrounding each individual author's corpus, but ALSO how the themes of the primary texts and the controversies of the scholarly literature relate back to the significant questions of the larger field of political theory

and then we can talk about people who hold a JD being qualified to teach classical political theory.

Edited October 25, 2010 by LACProf

[SOG25]

HI LACProf, thank you again for your comments.

I especially like your statement that you are willing to be corrected if you are wrong about certain matters, and I hold the same viewpoint.

As to your argument regarding the ability of a juris doctor to teach courses on political institutions and processes, you said:

"Let's take institutions. Someone teaching classes on institutions needs to be able to talk about the Constitutional institutions that are formally tied to the process of creating laws (i.e., the legislature, the executive and the judiciary), and should also be able to talk about those parts of the political system that aren't formally tied to the process of creating laws, like interest groups and the media. People who receive Ph.D.s and concentrate in American politics are taught about these institutions AND the theories about how these institutions work together. It's hard to teach a course on the Congress without understanding the other institutions, because part of understanding Congress is understanding how Congress relates to the Presidency, and to understand why the Presidency reacts to Congress in the way that it does, you have to understand the basic theories about the Presidency as an institution. As I understand it (and I'm willing to be corrected), this sort of information is not covered in the law school curriculum."

I take it you haven't ever been exposed to a course on Administrative law. Let me challenge you to take a look into the content of this course, just as an example of how it abundantly meets the criteria you mention. Particularly with respect to the relationship between the constitutional institutions, I'm sure you'll be surprised to find concepts such as the "iron triangle" and constituency service discussed in great detail. Additionally, what do you suppose law students learn about in analyzing judicial decisions or the opinion of the court regarding legislative power, the constitutionality of the line-item veto (powers of the executive), the role of regulatory agencies, interstate commerce, etc? These are all topics discussed in a constitutional law class, and are just some basic examples of how legal education provides insight into the issues which even a PhD might not have. To understand the law one also needs to understand the institutions and processes within which the law operates. You can't really have one without the other, so it remains clear that juris doctors have the substantive knowledge to teach political science courses in these areas.

To your point about the essential qualifications to teach introductory political theory, are you suggesting those four points (your list) as the essential criteria in order to introduce students to political philosophers in an intro to political philosophy course? Perhaps you could add to your list the fact that you read de Tocqueville's "Of Democracy in America" (IN THE ORIGINAL FRENCH!!). At the end of the day, "c'est quoi le rapport?" I would think It's really inconsequential. I mean, are you arguing that undergraduate students will directly benefit (or be interested for that matter) in all those aspects of your knowledge (vast as it may be)?

I'm not sure that I would agree with that assessment, particularly given the constraints (time being a major one) of a single course at that level. Again, at the undergraduate level, I think students are more likely to benefit from being introduced to the philosophies of the most influential western philosophers, and a JD, equipped with the course material, will do just fine.

* I say all that with all due respect, as I appreciate and admire the rigors of both the PhD and the JD.

Edited October 26, 2010 by SOG25

[LACProf]

I take it you haven't ever been exposed to a course on Administrative law. Let me challenge you to take a look into the content of this course, just as an example of how it abundantly meets the criteria you mention. Particularly with respect to the relationship between the constitutional institutions, I'm sure you'll be surprised to find concepts such as the "iron triangle" and constituency service discussed in great detail. Additionally, what do you suppose law students learn about in analyzing judicial decisions or the opinion of the court regarding legislative power, the constitutionality of the line-item veto (powers of the executive), the role of regulatory agencies, interstate commerce, etc? These are all topics discussed in a constitutional law class, and are just some basic examples of how legal education provides insight into the issues which even a PhD might not have. To understand the law one also needs to understand the institutions and processes within which the law operates. You can't really have one without the other, so it remains clear that juris doctors have the substantive knowledge to teach political science courses in these areas.

OK, I've looked at some outlines and syllabi for courses in Administrative Law. While these concepts and ideas are introduced and there does seem to be some attempt to spur discussion about the normative and systematic implications of administrative law (and I granted that in my first response), these courses tend to rely on a text and not on the original scholarship. While the specific legal content covered in these classes is surely advanced, I would be willing to bet that the discussion about normative issues and the systematic implications of the law is not much more than what you would see in a class of very good undergraduates. While it is true that Ph.D.s will teach material that they only took one course on in graduate school, they also build on that coursework through research and constant engagement with the scholarly literature. While JDs have a related type of following-up in that they keep up with relevant legal precedents, etc., that sort of keeping up is more oriented to the practice of law and I think it would not necessarily be relevant in the classroom. It is the exposure to that original scholarship and the conversation around scholarly questions that helps Ph.D. students develop the critical faculties necessary to understand (and thus teach) a field of study at both the macro-level and the micro-level. Ph.D. students also write papers, and almost all of these classes base the grade on a final exam. I don't think these classes do the best job of developing the skills necessary to be a professor.

Now I would be willing to grant that someone who took an administrative law class, remained engaged with administrative law issues, and practiced in the area would probably be able to at least co-teach a course or add valuable insight to someone else's course and might even be able to teach their own course.

To your point about the essential qualifications to teach introductory political theory, are you suggesting those four points (your list) as the essential criteria in order to introduce students to political philosophers in an intro to political philosophy course?

Yes, I am. All college courses should be taught by professors who understand those four things (the primary texts/data, the scholarly literature, the context of the ideas, and the relationship of sub-disciplines to the larger field as a whole).

I would think It's really inconsequential. I mean, are you arguing that undergraduate students will directly benefit (or be interested for that matter) in all those spects of your knowledge (vast as it may be)?

My students in all my classes, intro and otherwise, benefit from this knowledge every single day. Ideas don't exist in a vacuum, and if a professor teaching a political theory course doesn't understand the history of Athenian democracy, the specifics of some of the main Athenian democratic institutions, or what the Romans meant when they called themselves a "republic," then s/he is not going to be prepared to answer questions that students WILL ask, at both the intro and advanced levels, when they read texts from Aristotle and Cicero.

Again, at the undergraduate level, I think students are more likely to benefit from being introduced to the philosophies of the most influential western philosophers, and a JD, equipped with the course material, will do just fine.

No, s/he will not. Do you honestly think that all it takes is some partial exposure to some of the ideas of Western theorists to teach an intro course (please tell me WHERE major canonical theorists like Machiavelli and Marx--thinkers who CANNOT be left out of a standard intro course--are thoroughly covered in the law school curriculum anyway)?

Edited October 26, 2010 by LACProf

[SOG25]

"OK, I've looked at some outlines and syllabi for courses in Administrative Law. While these concepts and ideas are introduced and there does seem to be some attempt to spur discussion about the normative and systematic implications of administrative law (and I granted that in my first response), these courses tend to rely on a text and not on the original scholarship. While the specific legal content covered in these classes is surely advanced, I would be willing to bet that the discussion about normative issues and the systematic implications of the law is not much more than what you would see in a class of very good undergraduates. While it is true that Ph.D.s will teach material that they only took one course on in graduate school, they also build on that coursework through research and constant engagement with the scholarly literature.

While JDs have a related type of following-up in that they keep up with relevant legal precedents, etc., that sort of keeping up is more oriented to the practice of law and I think it would not necessarily be relevant in the classroom. It is the exposure to that original scholarship and the conversation around scholarly questions that helps Ph.D. students develop the critical faculties necessary to understand (and thus teach) a field of study at both the macro-level and the micro-level. Ph.D. students also write papers, and almost all of these classes base the grade on a final exam. I don't think these classes do the best job of developing the skills necessary to be a professor."

Why would a Juris Doctor's "following up" on legal debates not be relevant in the classroom? How is it any different from a PhD's ongoing engagement and exposure to scholarly questions?

"Now I would be willing to grant that someone who took an administrative law class, remained engaged with administrative law issues, and practiced in the area would probably be able to at least co-teach a course or add valuable insight to someone else's course and might even be able to teach their own course."

In other words, you agree that JDs have the substantive knowledge to teach on political institutions and processes given their academic background in adminstrative law, constitutional law and the like? What about the insights I referenced earlier, such as those gained from other courses in the law school curriculum (e.g. constitutional law)?

".....All college courses should be taught by professors who understand those four things (the primary texts/data, the scholarly literature, the context of the ideas, and te relationship of sub-disciplines to the larger field as a whole). My students in all my classes, intro and otherwise, benefit from this knowledge every single day. Ideas don't exist in a vacuum, and if a professor teaching a political theory course doesn't understand the history of Athenian democracy, the specifics of some of the main Athenian democratic institutions, or what the Romans meant when they called themselves a "republic," then s/he is not going to be prepared to answer questions that students WILL ask, at both the intro and advanced levels, when they read texts from Aristotle and Cicero."

I'm sure they do benefit, but I doubt that, for an intro course, having a focus in those areas is as essential as you claim. Just as it isn't absolutely essential that you studied the primary texts of political theorists in the original languages (i.e., Greek, French, Latin or German). Certainly, such an undertaking would have provided added knowledge, but that deficit does not impede your understanding or capacity to communicate important ideas of the major theorists to your students.

"No, s/he will not. Do you honestly think that all it takes is some partial exposure to some of the ideas of Western theorists to teach an intro course (please tell me WHERE major canonical theorists like Machiavelli and Marx--thinkers who CANNOT be left out of a standard intro course--are thoroughly covered in the law school curriculum anyway)?"

Easy . Most issues and exposure will be covered in the relevant primary and secondary texts used in the class (e.g. The Prince by Machiavelli), which the undergraduate will be required to read for him/herself and further grasp through class discussions.

Edited October 26, 2010 by SOG25

[LACProf]

Legal decisions are but one aspect of political institutions; one needs to keep up with more than legal decisions in a certain area to be able to teach undergraduates about the way institutions work, and a class in administrative law might, depending on how and where it is taught, provide a foundation for further study that would allow an individual to one day effectively teach.

Your statements about teaching political theory are so ignorant that I have no choice but to simply not respond to them.

I must concur with Pamphilia's earlier sentiment: you don't understand the nature of academic training and what it takes to teach undergraduate courses. Many folks have explained it to you--clearly--and until you acknowledge what they are saying, I don't see this thread leading to productive conversation.

Best of luck to you in your endeavors.

Edited October 26, 2010 by LACProf

[SOG25]

"Your statements about teaching political theory are so ignorant that I have no choice but to simply not respond to them."

Not so. Instead, you disagree with my statements on teaching political theory which is completely fine, and the reason one debates with persuavive arguments and counterarguments.

In any case, thanks for your input. I also wish you well in your future endeavors.

[Troll]

There is a simple answer here. Only a very small percentage of law school graduates are academically focused, most of those go on to clerkships,then go on to either lucrative white shoe firm jobs or tenure track law school positions.These positions are far better remunerated that political science positions. Why would a lawyer give up $250k a year to teach civil procedure to teach intro to American government to a bunch of kids who were in high school the year before for $60ka year?

The remainder are only professionally trained and not interested and/or able to teach.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Troll

[SOG25]

Thanks for your comments, Troll

I think you make a valid point. But for the small percentage of law school graduates who are interested in an academic position, they may be told to "go back to graduate school and get a PhD," despite the substantive and rigorous training one receives in law school. The arguments I've heard in this forum so far have only reaffirmed my views on this.

Some have argued, for example, that there are theories one learns in a PhD program that are essential to teaching political science courses. However, no one seems to know what those theories actually are (or be able to back them up). At least in the area of American politics, public law, international relations (mainly international law and international organizations), JDs should be, and are, familiar with how the systems operate. Probably not as much in the areas of comparative government. I still maintain that they can teach introduction to political theory/philosophy or ideas; for political theory courses beyond that I would defer to the PhD in political theory (obviously).

Therefore, I don't understand the logic or argument that a JD must attain another credential when he or she is already qualified in the subject areas. Juris Doctors are, I would argue, politicial scientists of a different specialization, training and "school of thought."

Look forward to your thoughts on that.

* I do appreciate the arguments that professorships are more than teaching and often focused on research. In other words, universities value the reasearch approaches and skills of a PhD than a JD, and they value research over teaching. If that is indeed the case, it sounds like "higher ed" has its priorities mixed up; the primary purpose and idea of the university (and its faculty) is to teach (not research), otherwise there would be no need for students!

Edited October 30, 2010 by SOG25

[LACProf]

Going against my better judgment/previous promise to be silent...

I think that if you asked most political theorists, you would find that many of them believe that teaching a good intro course is the biggest pedagogical challenge that a political theorist faces. OP, you don't seem to understand that political theory =/= history of ideas/study of great ideas. You just can't call reading Plato and discussing whatever comes to mind "political theory." The texts in an intro to theory course need to be specifically organized and presented to students in such a way that the students understand (among other important things) the content/context of the texts; how the competing definitions of concepts like justice and equality were generated; and how political theory connects to other subfields in political science. In order to accomplish these goals (and more), you need to have a knowledge of political theory and the questions that are important to political science as a discipline as well as a strong command over the content/context of the Western canon. One learns these things by earning a Ph.D. in political science and taking political theory as the major subfield.

As for American government and its theories--while my primary subfield is not American politics so I cannot speak with the highest expertise, it seems that my colleagues in American draw upon a number of theories when they lecture in their intro courses, such as the median voter theorem, Mayhew's theory of Congressional re-election behavior, Kingdon's theory of public policy formation, Mancur Olson's theory of collective action, various theories about how public opinion works, and maybe some political psychology theories about political behavior.

Edited October 31, 2010 by LACProf

[Troll]

Therefore, I don't understand the logic or argument that a JD must attain another credential when he or she is already qualified in the subject areas. Juris Doctors are, I would argue, politicial scientists of a different specialization, training and "school of thought."

Perhaps we lawyers are qualified, but that is not the issue here. For instance an engineer could teach high school calculus. But does anyone think the teachers unions want a bunch of retired engineers entering their job market as math teachers? Similarly, political science departments have a vested interest in excluding lawyers from adjunct positions.

A PhD is not about learning how to teach or research, it isabout joining the college professors' guild and if you want the chance at a cushy academic appointment you need to spend your time learning pointless made up theories just like everyone else.

Alternately, if you are brilliant and hard working go to lawschool at a top five school, kick ass there, clerk on the Supreme Court and then teach law school for triple the money of political science teaching while giving up a seven figure firm job.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Troll

[SOG25]

Welcome back, LACProf! Glad to have your insights and zeal for the integrity of your field!

I concede your points about a good political theory course being best taught by a PhD in political science with a major subfield in political theory (hardly anyone would dispute that). Certainly, more context facilitates more understanding of the political theory. I do, however, believe that it is the intention of some programs to have intro to political theory courses that are essentially that "history of ideas course" you referenced. What in your view would be the drawbacks to this at the undergraduate level?

I am willing to be wrong or corrected on this point (as I'm not an expert in this area), but my understanding of an undergraduate intro to political theory/philosophy course is that it is a study of ideas and perspectives of great (influential) classical and western thinkers. Furthermore, it appears that by studying these great philsophers in sequence (through excerpts, primary and secondary texts) the undergraduate student will encounter "the competing ideas of justice and equality," as well as the ideal polity, since these various philosophers (e.g., Socrates, Aristole, Plato, Cicero, englightenment philosphers, etc) present their personal theories on these matters.

Also, the secondary texts used in political theory courses usually, I think, provide at least some context as to why such theorists began to question and challenge a system that no longer made sense---the general origin of political theory. In addition, the secondary texts that would be used in such a course, whether taught by by a JD or PhD, would also obviously be written by a PhD with a major subfield in politial theory. So it still seems at least plausible that a JD given their background and understanding of government could teach the course, though a PhD in poli theory would more likely, in most cases, be a better choice for this particular subfield. Just as a JD would more likely, in most cases, be a better choice for the subfield of public law, that isn't to say that a political theory PhD couldn't do a good job in teaching intro to American government or even constitutional law/history.

".....median voter theorem, Mayhew's theory of Congressional re-election behavior, Kingdon's theory of public policy formation, Mancur Olson's theory of collective action, various theories about how public opinion works, and maybe some political psychology theories about political behavior."

These all look like theories that would be relevant to a specific political science course (perhaps a public policy one at the graduate level) but completely inessential (even useless) in terms of understanding how the system works or government in general. In other words, none of these theories are important in order to understand the following: American government, State and Local government, American Legal System, Intro to Public Policy, Administrative Law, International Relations, Int. Law, Int. Organizations, (I could go on).., etc. There are, however, important/essential theories that a JD could draw upon given his/her education (e.g. Iron Triangle which I referenced earlier).

* In previous posts, I granted that a JD probably would not have much substantive training in the subfields of comparative government and political theory (without additional training such as an LLM, advanced law degree, in Comparative Law). They certainly have substantive background in American government, public law, and internation relations.

[LACProf]

I concede your points about a good political theory course being best taught by a PhD in political science with a major subfield in political theory (hardly anyone would dispute that). Certainly, more context facilitates more understanding of the political theory. I do, however, believe that it is the intention of some programs to have intro to political theory courses that are essentially that "history of ideas course" you referenced. What in your view would be the drawbacks to this at the undergraduate level?

Well, a course in political theory is a political science course--there should be a focus on the way that the central texts help address political questions.

I am willing to be wrong or corrected on this point (as I'm not an expert in this area), but my understanding of an undergraduate intro to political theory/philosophy course is that it is a study of ideas and perspectives of great (influential) classical and western thinkers.

This is a primary goal of such a course, but not the only goal. You have to help students see that those ideas and perspectives influence contemporary ethical and/or political positions, and you have to help students decide what ideals they want to privilege in their own ethical and/or political positions. You also have to get students to see that going with the set of normative assumptions that you find in one particular group of theorists tends to lead to a set of political institutions with specific qualities (i.e., if you buy classical liberal assumptions you'll want one set of institutions, but if you buy social assumptions you'll want a set of institutions that looks different). It's this second part--the part about institutions--that tends to fall out when people equate political theory to the history of ideas. However, the study of institutions is so critical to the discipline of political science as a whole that I think it is really important for political theory classes to emphasize the link between normative concepts and the form of institutions.

Also, the secondary texts used in political theory courses usually, I think, provide at least some context as to why such theorists began to question and challenge a system that no longer made sense---the general origin of political theory.

I don't know anyone who uses secondary texts [by this I mean textbooks or other readings designed to "simplify" classic texts] in anything but the most minor way in their intro to political theory courses. The primary texts are always at the center and there are too many primary texts to go through [whether those texts are in a reader or otherwise] during the course of a semester. Contextualization comes from the professor.

In addition, the secondary texts that would be used in such a course, whether taught by by a JD or PhD, would also obviously be written by a PhD with a major subfield in politial theory.

This type of resource isn't that common. I'm not even aware of anything like a "textbook" for political theory that isn't just a reader (and since I haven't had some goddamned textbook rep incessantly calling me, showing up unbidden at my office door, or wasting precious natural resources by mailing me copies of a book I will never use, it wouldn't surprise me if there isn't one). There are two major secondary sources for helping students understand the entire Western canon as a whole--the books by Sabine and Strauss. However, both of those books are sophisticated works in their own right, and since both Sabine and Strauss were writing from very particular interpretive perspectives the guidance of a Ph.D. with knowledge of the history of the subfield is necessary, even if you use these secondary sources.

ETA: I actually found two "Introduction to Political Theory..." books that are like standard textbooks. Both are fairly recent, and, as far as I can tell, not commonly used. Sometimes they are on a "recommended" list or suggested for students who are struggling (an Ohio State Intro to Theory syllabus uses one of the texts this way). A number of political theorists have written "Introduction to..." or "History of..." books, but I am of the opinion that people who read those books and are not acquainted with the subfield of political theory would still benefit from the contextualization that a Ph.D. in the classroom can provide.

So it still seems at least plausible that a JD given their background and understanding of government could teach the course, though a PhD in poli theory would more likely, in most cases, be a better choice for this particular subfiield.

I'm still not willing to concede this.

These all look like theories that would be relevant to a specific political science course (perhaps a public policy one at the graduate level) but completely inessential (even useless) in terms of understanding how the system works or government in general. In other words, none of these theories are important in order to understand the following: American government, State and Local government, American Legal System, Intro to Public Policy, Administrative Law, International Relations, Int. Law, Int. Organizations, (I could go on).., etc. There are, however, important/essential theories that a JD could draw upon given his/her education (e.g. Iron Triangle which I referenced earlier).

Well, you should tell that to the folks at Harvard where they cover Kingdon's theory of public policy and various theories of public opinion and political behavior (in the Classics... reader) and the folks at Berkeley (the Principles and Practice of American Politics reader is full of works that contribute to our understanding of the theories I listed in my previous post). I'm pretty sure if I asked my colleagues in American politics if the theories I listed were "useless" for the understanding of American government, etc. that they would literally laugh in my face and tell me that they were, in fact, central to that understanding.

Edited October 31, 2010 by LACProf

[SOG25]

"Well, you should tell that to the folks at Harvard where they cover Kingdon's theory of public policy and various theories of public opinion and political behavior (in the Classics... reader) and the folks at Berkeley (the Principles and Practice of American Politics reader is full of works that contribute to our understanding of the theories I listed in my previous post). I'm pretty sure if I asked my colleagues in American politics if the theories I listed were "useless" for the understanding of American government, etc. that they would literally laugh in my face and tell me that they were, in fact, central to that understanding."

Kingdon's theory of public policy isn't useless, and I actually didn't have that in mind. However, I personally find various theories I've encountered to be at least verbose and inessential (perhaps useless is not an overstatement). "Political psychology" (?)

Additionally, Kingdon's theory deals with public policy and primarily, I think, legislative politics (best addressed at the graduate level). Juris Doctors who should be able to teach public policy should have no problem teaching these concepts. Again, many of these ideas coincide with topics covered in administrative law, at least. For example, you will have case studies on how an issue is raised to the legislative agenda due to a public crisis for which the legislature enacts "enabling legislation" to establish regulatory agenices, etc... (sound like Kingdon?). I'm a fan of Martha Derthick and Kingdon, and their insights regarding government are captured in some law or law-related courses.

Edited October 31, 2010 by SOG25

[SOG25]

I was actually looking at the catalog of a political science department in New York, and was interested to see that business law is now one of the offerings in the political science department, as well as environmental law. I wonder which faculty in the political science department will be teaching these courses. Very interesting.

[SOG25]

. "Well, you should tell that to the folks at Harvard where they cover Kingdon's theory of public policy and various theories of public opinion and political behavior (in the Classics... reader) and the folks at Berkeley (the Principles and Practice of American Politics reader is full of works that contribute to our understanding of the theories I listed in my previous post). I'm pretty sure if I asked my colleagues in American politics if the theories I listed were "useless" for the understanding of American government, etc. that they would literally laugh in my face and tell me that they were, in fact, central to that understanding."

Reading your post, one would think there's consensus within the political science community regarding research methods and theories. In reality, however, there's not! So while some PhDs might draw upon the theories you mention in teaching political science, even other PhDs (not just JDs) would not. In short, I'm keeping with my earlier statement in saying that some of these theories are INESSENTIAL (not necessary) to explain political institutions, processes and phenomena, and a JD can teach any of the courses on these topics well.

Edited December 19, 2010 by SOG25