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

[Tufnel]

Dude, just let it go.

[SOG25]

Tufnel,

This is the political science forum, is it not? Since this forum is intended for discussions on political science, it's appropriate to continue this discussion in the appropriate forum. All are welcome to share their perspectives as they please and when they please. If you'd like to let it go (or stop following), please, by all means, feel free to do so. I, however, am still interested in the topic, and encourage others also interested in the topic to share their insights and perspectives. Thanks for your thoughts.

[JMoo]

The very fact that you're asking this question shows that you have limited knowledge of how a political science department works. You've just demonstrated why a JD isn't sufficient.

[SOG25]

JMoo,

Understand that I honestly would like to understand better how a political science department works. Maybe you're right, I don't completely understand how a poli sci department works (part of the reason I'm asking these questions: to better understand). So rather than becoming so defensive at challenging questions (completely perplexed as to why!), how about some real responses clearly articulating why a PhD is preferred over a JD in teaching political science courses where both can reasonably claim experience and education for teaching such courses. You are demonstrating a poor debater.

For further clarification, as part of their doctoral training, PhDs take courses in areas of American government and other areas. Juris Doctors, as part of their training, take courses where they learn very much the same material in depth, which convinces me that they are similarly qualified, at least on courses for US institutions and public policy processes (Con law being the most obvious). If you disagree, make your case.

A good example would be Wesson's response in which he clearly articulated that JDs would be qualified to teach some courses on US institutions, but not on the vast majority of courses outside American politics (given, sometimes, the lack of training in areas of comparative, international and poli theory subfields). That seems reasonable. From Wesson and others, I also understand that it is because Universities prefer PhD researchers over JDs that you find most departments staffed with PhDs instead of JDs who are trained in a different kind of research, legal research. I personally don't think that being a researcher necessarily makes one a better professor or teacher; in fact, sometimes it's just the opposite, since some professors are more concerned about their research than their students, or may have a difficult time communicating the depths of their esoteric trade to a bunch of undergrads.

If one maintains, that PhDs are the ONLY ones who can teach poli sci courses, why then are so many courses taught by TAs, who (I think) are not yet PhDs? These are just some of the reasons I'm skeptical about the positions held by some in most departments; the preference seems to be based more on tradition than anything else.

For future reference, if you have nothing substantive to contribute to this end (other than snide, anti-intellectual remarks), perhaps it's best to just say nothing at all.

Edited December 23, 2010 by SOG25

[wtncffts]

SOG25,

I think that the negative response on the part of some is due to your inquiries coming across as personally motivated and oblivious to counter-arguments. I'm not going to impute anything about your motivations, but I'll try to give my take as clearly as possible. First, let me say that I I don't know everything about poli sci depts; I have an MA (well, to be received in Feb, anyway) from a Canadian university but certainly don't claim extensive knowledge on the inner workings.

As people have been pointing out, there's the pragmatic argument. Like all disciplines, political science has an interest in perpetuating itself through the process of training and creating jobs for their own PhD students. Frankly, there are more than enough jobs for law school graduates as it is, while the academic job market is, as you know, very slim. Another thing to consider is the disparity in salary. Both of these go to the question of why, in fact, there are mostly PhDs than JDs on poli sci faculties.

Your more trenchant question is, I gather, not "Why is it this way?" but "Does it necessarily have to be this way?". I certainly don't think that ONLY PhDs are qualified to teach poli sci courses; I don't know anyone who does. As you know, JDs sometimes do teach courses with substantial legal aspects in poli sci departments. Often, eminent people (former politicians, diplomats, civil servants, etc.) also teach poli sci courses, many of whom, needless to say, don't have PhDs specifically in poli sci. And of course, Graduate Students, usually ABDs, often are given opportunities to teach their own courses (which is a part of the professional training I mentioned).

As others have, I simply have to dispute your premise that what a PhD student learns, say, doing American Politics, is the same as what a JD learns. Now, if you can point me to a syllabus of a course in law school which teaches the same material and in the same way as a graduate course in US Politics, I'd be happy to accept your argument. As you point out, law students learn Constitutional Law. They may learn Administrative Law and other kinds of law which are relevant to the political process. But, again as others have said, there is more to politics than law. Political parties, elections, electoral systems, social movements, political and voting behavior, decision-making, political psychology, political history, workings of legislative bodies, political culture, participation, socialization, interest groups, formal methods, and so on; none of these are integral parts of a law school education. To be sure, you may run into many of these areas in law courses; after all, law and politics are intertwined on many levels. Just so, many poli sci students will also deal with many questions of law and jurisprudence during their studies. But political scientists specialize in these areas, and we want to encourage that. Departments, and undergraduates, want to have the assurance that faculty have at least been exposed to these areas and are comfortable with them. Remember, as a teacher you would need to be able to handle inquiries of students adeptly, especially in an intro survey course which covers a lot of ground.

You may feel that you are capable of teaching poli sci courses, and that's fine. Perhaps your course of study in law school did expose you to all these areas and you have an extensive knowledge of the literature in each of them. I guarantee you that not every law graduate has. Comparatively, the best choice in most cases is to go with a specialist who's spent upwards of five or six years closely studying a given area than someone who is trained for a different profession but has some experience and education to bring to bear.

As to your point about the quality of teaching, you're right that "some professors are more concerned about their research than their students", so it isn't necessarily the case that good researchers make good teachers. It is also the case, though, that having a JD doesn't necessarily mean one is a good teacher. I would suggest, in fact, that it's probably the case that PhDs will, on average, be better teachers. First, I've found that the best teachers are those with the most passion for their subjects, and I think having studied one or two (or more) specific areas for years in grad school usually attests to such passion. Second, PhD programs almost always include both training for teaching ("Teaching Political Science" courses, for example) and concrete opportunities to teach, whether as a TA or with your own courses. Again, you may feel like you would be a good teacher, which is fine, but such 'individual consideration' is simply not a part of academia. Which brings me to my final point...

To return to the question of personal motivation, I'm sorry if you feel your options are limited because of this, but you just have to accept that, in the eyes of the profession, you are less qualified than others. I imagine I know enough to be able to teach intro or even intermediate Canadian or American history just from the reading I've done within and without the classroom, but I fully accept that no history department would consider me for a faculty position, or at least that I'm inadequate in comparison to a history PhD (assuming I had a poli sci PhD, which, fingers crossed, I will have in a few years' time).

[SOG25]

wtncffts,

Thank you for your excellent points and comments, very refreshing. Let me also clarify that while I do have some personal interest in this topic, my interest is primarily driven by a desire to foster understanding. You've said a lot of things, some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with. Counter-arguments, I believe, are meant to challenge ideas and further clarity as well as understanding, and I am not oblivious to yours or others' arguments.

You are absolutely correct that my question is more focused on "Does it necessarily have to be this way?", rather than why is it this way? Thank you for pointing that out.

One of the statements I most agree with is that "the best teachers are those with the most passion for their subjects." I couldn't agree more, and add that many JDs and PhDs are equally passionate about the subjects, for which they would probably be good teachers of poli sci. I also agree that having a JD doesn't necessarily make one a good teacher, but certainly the practice in public speaking, debating, and experience with the socratic method provide good tools for effective teaching. You're also right that not all JDs are academically-oriented, in that some JDs are only interested in courses that are more professionally-oriented and clinical, rather than in the substantive coursework (in reality the profession is learned on the job). My arguments assume that a JD is academicaclly inclined (the ones I'm referring to are), and is not the ambulance chaser type with no interest in the substantive areas of the law; I'm sure there are also PhDs out there with no interest being anywhere near academia.

Here's where we begin to disagree: "As others have, I simply have to dispute your premise that what a PhD student learns, say, doing American Politics, is the same as what a JD learns. Now, if you can point me to a syllabus of a course in law school which teaches the same material and in the same way as a graduate course in US Politics, I'd be happy to accept your argument."

Certainly, I would not argue that JDs learn "the same material in the same way" as a graduate student in poli sci. However, I am arguing that they are both prepared. Simply put, I'm confident that if you test both JDs and PhDs on their knowledge of US institutions and public policy processes (ceteris paribus), you'll find that they are both sufficiently knowledgeable and prepared to teach others on the topics. The methods, process and tools of preparation may differ, but I doubt that the end result is significantly different as some claim. Now, I have conceded that for other subfields (e.g. comparative, IR, poli theory and formal methods), a JD does not have similar training as a PhD with those specializations; although, some JDs with LLMs in international and comparative law, among others, could reasonably teach some of those courses. There are a host of courses that JDs can choose as electives, not limited to the ones I have mentioned earlier. These expose them to the substantive issues of American government, human rights, interest groups, United Nations and international organizations, international law, Islamic Law (middle east governments), election law and much, much more. Now for more theoretical courses on political psychology, political behavior and voting, and socialization I would not argue for the JD but the PhD; these are not some of the courses I would expect a JD to be strongest in based on education alone. I would make an exception for political history or philosophy though.

I wonder if some might think having "law" in the course name implies that only legal jargon is discussed. I previously referenced constitutional law and adminstrative law as examples because these are among the most common law-related poli sci courses in most departments. While JDs often take these courses through the case study approach, reading judicial decisions, such an approach imparts in-depth understanding about institutions, processes and philosophy. In constitutional law, you learn about the important legislation known as the constitution (the very foundation of US institutions and processes), its history, development, its supremacy in terms of the hierarchy of laws, etc. Similarly, administrative law is not just about legal jargon, but about the administrative state (same as a course called "the bureaucracy"). You learn its role, history, politics in terms of its relationship to congressional committees and interest groups, etc. JDs take a course in legislation or seminars in Federalism, etc. The concepts and ideas attained in these and many other law classes which law students take, more than adequately equip them to teach undergrads, not only in law-related courses, but courses dealing with insitutions and procesess of government. I also agree that law and politics are intertwined.

" But political scientists specialize in these areas, and we want to encourage that. Departments, and undergraduates, want to have the assurance that faculty have at least been exposed to these areas and are comfortable with them." Juris Doctors also specialize by default, since they are educated in law. As I noted previously, public law is among the subfields of political science, and in that sense I think one can argue that JDs are also political scientists, given their natural specialization in a subfield of the discipline.

Moreover, the fact that PhDs "spent upwards of five or six years closely studying a given area" is not a very important factor in my opinion. Consider that the reasons it takes longer to complete a PhD than a JD are not entirely related to substance or rigor. As you pointed out many ABDs have other roles, such as teaching, which inhibit them from taking as much of a course load as the JD. So what could potentially take less than five years tends to take more, though I know some still get it done in only three to four.

As to your statement, " I imagine I know enough to be able to teach intro or even intermediate Canadian or American history just from the reading I've done within and without the classroom, but I fully accept that no history department would consider me for a faculty position, or at least that I'm inadequate in comparison to a history PhD (assuming I had a poli sci PhD, which, fingers crossed, I will have in a few years' time)." Perhpas you shouldn't accept the rationale of such departments, and similarly challenge their ideas when it can be shown that they are are unreasonable.

Edited December 24, 2010 by SOG25

[Aunuwyn]

This whole topic is absolutely retarded. No I am not going to beat around the bush with civilities because this argument that JDs can serve a role within a political science faculty is absolute drivel.

Here is why:

JDs are trained in the function, execution, and letter of the law and legal process. Political scientists are trained in how to be a political scientist which means theorizing and conducting research in social science phenomena. These are two completely unrelated fields. While a JD might have enough "knowledge" to teach some pointless undergrad seminar on policy or law, they are not trained competently to be successful as a social scientific researcher, in any of the disciplines, not just including political science.

There is much more to being a political science professor than giving some trite lecture about some interesting facts to mostly dullard undergraduates. By the OP's logic a political scientist who specializes in international legal institutions would be equally qualified as an LLM to argue a trade case before the WTO.

[SOG25]

This whole topic is absolutely retarded. No I am not going to beat around the bush with civilities because this argument that JDs can serve a role within a political science faculty is absolute drivel.

Here is why:

JDs are trained in the function, execution, and letter of the law and legal process. Political scientists are trained in how to be a political scientist which means theorizing and conducting research in social science phenomena. These are two completely unrelated fields. While a JD might have enough "knowledge" to teach some pointless undergrad seminar on policy or law, they are not trained competently to be successful as a social scientific researcher, in any of the disciplines, not just including political science.

There is much more to being a political science professor than giving some trite lecture about some interesting facts to mostly dullard undergraduates. By the OP's logic a political scientist who specializes in international legal institutions would be equally qualified as an LLM to argue a trade case before the WTO.

"While a JD might have enough "knowledge" to teach some pointless undergrad seminar on policy or law, they are not trained competently to be successful as a social scientific researcher, in any of the disciplines, not just including political science."

Here it seems you're agreeing that a JD can teach undergraduate policy/political science courses. As to the other point of your argument, I don't see why they would not "be successful as a social scientific researcher" in teaching, "any of the disciplines, not just political science" as you claim. Care to share why? Thanks.

Edited January 17, 2011 by SOG25

[GopherGrad]

I feel like I'm going to be repeating a lot of what has already been said, but as a JD applying for Ph.D. programs, here are some reasons why Ph.D.s dominate JDs in political science faculty jobs.

1) Focus. Few J.D.s attend law school in order to teach political science. Law school is a professional program, applicants to which usually want to be lawyers. Also, I think the average age of matriculation to law schools is higher, meaning that few people completely re-consider their career mid-school.

2) Job Prospects. A lawyer qualified to teach by reason of institutional reputation and grades is also sought after for partner track positions at white shoe firms and challenging, competitive government posts. Students who attended law school for pay, to have social or political impact or because they enjoy litigation will not be tempted by faculty jobs.

3) Research. Particularly outside the T20, few attorneys receive any real training or focus on academic research. If it's not on Westlaw, they don't have any better idea how to find it than the average undergrad. More importantly, lawyers rarely if ever receive any sort of methods training. On a whole, J.D.s are simply not competitive with doctorates in terms of producing publishable polisci research.

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

5) Depth and scope of knowledge.

a) Most law schools require attorneys to take at least basic courses in areas of law with little academic relationship to one another. Preparation for the bar, mixed with desire to be as broadly hire-able as possible prevents most law students from studying a cognizable topic deeply enough to think originally about it. Hell, even most LAW professors need an LL.M. or some relevant work experience before they become attractive in the LEGAL education market. (Some even get Ph.D.s!)

Legal reasoning and thought is not really very similar to academic processes (although it can be a powerful tool for creating academic work).

c) Legal topics are a relatively small subset of all political science. Within the scope of the entire discipline of polisci, most J.D.s will lack the perspective to couch their jurisprudential work firmly in the language and theory of political science.

[kaykaykay]

I thought that even law schools know the difference between their training and PhD training and that is why they confer SJD degrees which involves a lot of research and probably teaching as well. I am wondering SOG25 why you seem to be the only person that just cannot get it .

[Aunuwyn]

I said JDs "MIGHT" have the knowledge to teach one incredibly small focused list of courses. Polsci faculty have much broader teaching repertoires. Additionally, the primary job of a polsci faculty member is 1: to conduct social science research, 2: to train grad students to become social science researchers. JDs can do neither of those things.

[SOG25]

......and that is why they confer SJD degrees which involves a lot of research and probably teaching as well......

kalapocska,

While the existence of the SJD provides opportunity for academic research for JD holders and LLMs (allowing them to become researchers if they so choose), it does not nullify the academic and professional preparation of the Juris Doctor, nor is it meant as an "answer" to the PhD. I understand how you could reach the false conclusion which you did, but it is inaccurate.

Edited January 17, 2011 by SOG25

[SOG25]

Thanks for your thoughts GopherGrad. They do in some cases re-state why many political science faculty consist primarily of PhDs rather than JDs. Basic assumptions of my arguments: I think a more diverse faculty is necessary for poli sci departments, and I am of the opinion that the primary job of a professor is to teach, as the NAME signals, "to profess", not "to research." As was noted earlier, my argument is aimed at the status quo and asks "does it or should it be this way?"

In relation to your points specifically:

1)"Focus. Few J.D.s attend law school in order to teach political science. Law school is a professional program, applicants to which usually want to be lawyers. Also, I think the average age of matriculation to law schools is higher, meaning that few people completely re-consider their career mid-school."

Agreed. Law school is a professional program, insofar as it is the standard preparation to practice law; it is also an academic program, as significant substantive education is acquired. An MD also is a professional and academic program, and I would expect some MDs to possess the interest and skills to teach relevant courses in natural sciences. A PhD in political science, while clearly an academic program, is also a professional/trade program (as noted by others earlier) insofar as it trains its students to practice research. A product of any of these programs may very well focus on practicing their respective profession exclusively, or, alternatively, desire to teach undergraduates as a professor in relevant courses for which they are competent and prepared.

2) "Job Prospects. A lawyer qualified to teach by reason of institutional reputation and grades is also sought after for partner track positions at white shoe firms and challenging, competitive gsovernment posts. Students who attended law school for pay, to have social or political impact or because they enjoy litigation will not be tempted by faculty jobs."

Also true. However, there are also some competent JDs who will be interested in faculty jobs.

3) "Research. Particularly outside the T20, few attorneys receive any real training or focus on academic research. If it's not on Westlaw, they don't have any better idea how to find it than the average undergrad. More importantly, lawyers rarely if ever receive any sort of methods training. On a whole, J.D.s are simply not competitive with doctorates in terms of producing publishable polisci research."

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

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

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

5) "Depth and scope of knowledge."

JDs (again, assuming they are not only professionally oriented) have received significant depth and scope of knowledge to qualify them for courses in national institutions, public law and some political philosophy.

a) "Most law schools require attorneys to take at least basic courses in areas of law with little academic relationship to one another. Preparation for the bar, mixed with desire to be as broadly hire-able as possible prevents most law students from studying a cognizable topic deeply enough to think originally about it. Hell, even most LAW professors need an LL.M. or some relevant work experience before they become attractive in the LEGAL education market. (Some even get Ph.D.s!)"

The fact that many Law professors have an LLM or PhD, does not imply that they need one to be competent as a professor. Being competitive and being competent are separate issues. Furthermore, just as there are many JDs who are only profesionally-oriented (based on their course electives), there are also many PhDs that are not interested in and/or able to teach (because they prefer only to be researchers). Nonetheless, there are many PhDs and JDs who as a result of their interests, and focus in grad school or law school are prepared to be successful professors.

"Legal reasoning and thought is not really very similar to academic processes (although it can be a powerful tool for creating academic work)."

Not sure what your point is here, but OK.

c) "Legal topics are a relatively small subset of all political science. Within the scope of the entire discipline of polisci, most J.D.s will lack the perspective to couch their jurisprudential work firmly in the language and theory of political science."

Legal topics or public law are a subfield of political science, just as American, Comparative, IR and poli theory are subfields. Preparation in the substantive areas of law school (assuming one is not only professionally oriented, taking only courses to pass the bar), is good preparation to teach core topics in political science (e.g. american, state and local government, federalism, constitutional law, poli philosophy, etc), particularly in the areas of public law and american government. If this were not the case, many state and LACs would not hire JDs for tenured and adjunct poli sci positions . More departments should follow suit and stop using the argument that researching is part of being a professor. The research aspect is a recent phenomenon and is not consistent with the history or idea of higher education.

Edited January 17, 2011 by SOG25

[kaykaykay]

"While the existence of the SJD provides opportunity for academic research for JD holders and LLMs (allowing them to become researchers if they so choose), it does not nullify the academic and professional preparation of the Juris Doctor, nor is it meant as an "answer" to the PhD. I understand how you could reach the false conclusion which you did, but it is inaccurate."

Sorry this may be my misinterpretation of the degree. BUT if this is your argument I have to ask back: What do you think Political Scientist PhD students study during the 5 years they study and why do they do it? An undergrad American Politics course may give enough prepapartion for one to teach the next batch of undergrads. I am actually starting to wonder what do you have in mind about the work that is being done in PoliSci departments.

Edited January 17, 2011 by kalapocska

[SOG25]

I said JDs "MIGHT" have the knowledge to teach one incredibly small focused list of courses. Polsci faculty have much broader teaching repertoires. Additionally, the primary job of a polsci faculty member is 1: to conduct social science research, 2: to train grad students to become social science researchers. JDs can do neither of those things.

Aunuwyn,

It's a good thing, then, that I haven't been suggesting JDs could "1:) conduct social science research; or 2: train grad students to become social science researchers," despite the fact that there are some who can, in fact, do either of those things. My point remains that some JDs, given their teaching skills, interests and substantive education in law school, are qualified to teach undergraduate poli sci , and "those things" you referenced are not inextricably linked with teaching political science to undergraduates.

Edited January 17, 2011 by SOG25

[tauren]

SOG25,

I think the biggest point you are missing on why people say JDs are not trained in research and how that applies to teaching it is because research INFORMS teaching. You will not be able to keep up with the political science literature and correct aspects of the broad theoretical courses if you have no foundational knowledge or even know where to be looking to gain such knowledge. You won't be able to help undergraduate grasp the field let alone having your own graduate students form their own research and foundational knowledge if you do not have any of it yourself. Law school does not train you about political science, theory, and the varying aspects of research that are necessary for you to have a grasp of in order to teach it to others and to be an expert in the field.

[Aunuwyn]

Aunuwyn,

It's a good thing, then, that I haven't been suggesting JDs could "1:) conduct social science research; or 2: train grad students to become social science researchers," despite the fact that there are some who can, in fact, do either of those things. My point remains that some JDs, given their teaching skills, interests and substantive education in law school, are qualified to teach undergraduate poli sci , and "those things" you referenced are not inextricably linked with teaching political science to undergraduates.

You are just using semantics and verbal sleight of hand to construct a bullshit argument. To answer the title of your thread "Why Mostly PhDs and Not JDs in University Political Science Faculties?": because resources are scarce and JDs don't have the qualifications to be both researchers and trainers of graduate students.They might be able to teach undergrads in limited situations, but faculty are not hired for undergraduate instruction. That's what adjuncts are for. Even in the adjunct market a PhD has an advantage over a JD because they can teach a broader array of courses.

[SOG25]

You are just using semantics and verbal sleight of hand to construct a bullshit argument. To answer the title of your thread "Why Mostly PhDs and Not JDs in University Political Science Faculties?": because resources are scarce and JDs don't have the qualifications to be both researchers and trainers of graduate students.They might be able to teach undergrads in limited situations, but faculty are not hired for undergraduate instruction. That's what adjuncts are for. Even in the adjunct market a PhD has an advantage over a JD because they can teach a broader array of courses.

Whoa...let's not take this debate to the gutter. Also, I wasn't aware that faculty are not hired for undergraduate instruction; why wouldn't they be? What is the explanation, then, in the liberal arts college context, where programs are exclusively undergraduate? Are faculty hired for undergraduate instruction there?

[SOG25]

SOG25,

I think the biggest point you are missing on why people say JDs are not trained in research and how that applies to teaching it is because research INFORMS teaching. You will not be able to keep up with the political science literature and correct aspects of the broad theoretical courses if you have no foundational knowledge or even know where to be looking to gain such knowledge. You won't be able to help undergraduate grasp the field let alone having your own graduate students form their own research and foundational knowledge if you do not have any of it yourself. Law school does not train you about political science, theory, and the varying aspects of research that are necessary for you to have a grasp of in order to teach it to others and to be an expert in the field.

Tauren,

Let me say, again, that I am speaking only about political science education in the undergraduate context. I'm not sure why some seem to keep missing this. I don't suggest a JD should prepare graduate political science students. The main difference between undergraduate and graduate poli sci , as I see it, is that at the undergraduate level, courses are more introductory/foundational, and much less specialized. This is why undergraduates at most programs will be required to take intro courses in all subfields of political science, including American/national government, comparative government, political theory, international relations and, in some cases (probably depending on if they have JDs on faculty), public law. These courses, typically, are not as steeped in the theoretical and methodological approaches one would seek at the graduate level.

The graduate level of political science offers specialization in the sub-disciplines, and teaches doctrines, theoretical and methodological approaches in the discipline. At this level the graduate would choose to specialize in American, IR, Comparative, Political theory or....law. PhD students who desire to specialize and ultimately write a dissertation in IR, for example, will select their major and elect all coursework toward their individual goal to research in IR or teach in the subfield. I would obviously not suggest that a JD would be the one to prepare such IR PhD students, but even then PhD students have been known to take courses such as international law.

I would also note that while research can "INFORM" teaching, this idea is better in theory than in practice. In reality, research can, and often does, DISTRACT from teaching, as not everyone wears multiple hats well. Hence, many undergraduates find that their professors are concerned more about their research than their students.

Edited January 18, 2011 by SOG25

[GopherGrad]

SOG,

I'll just reply to the points I reacted strongly to.

Law school is a professional program, insofar as it is the standard preparation to practice law; it is also an academic program, as significant substantive education is acquired.

Sure, substantive education in how to practice law. Trade school for plumbing requires substantive education. Doesn't mean it prepares you to teach wiring.

Again, research is not the same as teaching, and ought not to have such an important connection to professorship/faculty positions.

"Ought"? I thought we were talking about why JD's don't political science very often. If you want to restructure the entire academic system to make lawyers more attractive candidates, have at it.

I don't espouse the view that receiving some training in teaching is as important as you claim.

I do. In my admitted limited teaching experience I found the training crucial. It won't guarantee a good teacher, but it sure as hell correlates to better teaching skills. The vast majority of law professors can demonstrate teaching experience, have teacher training and receive more from the law schools that hire them.

JDs (again, assuming they are not only professionally oriented) have received significant depth and scope of knowledge to qualify them for courses in national institutions, public law and some political philosophy.

Do you have a JD? Because this is laughable to me. I can't imagine anyone with a law degree believing that a normal, three-year law school career allows a person enough time to really study a given topic in depth. I was in the library 90 hours a week just to memorize civ pro rules and tort elements. The subjects were so disparate and demanding that I was probably into my third year before I thought about gaining specialized knowledge, and by the end of that I was back to generalist studies to prepare for the bar exam.

The fact that many Law professors have an LLM or PhD, does not imply that they need one to be competent as a professor. Being competitive and being competent are separate issues.

They are separate, and competitiveness is the one you want to focus on to understand the state of the job market. If you have 50 candidates for one job, you hire the best one, you don't pick competent applicants from a hat. You asked why JDs don't work as professors. To the extent they apply, their portfolios solely as JDs are dwarfed by people with training in research, methodology, teaching and a five to seven year degree that allows for deep subject knowledge and a publication record.

Legal topics or public law are a subfield of political science, just as American, Comparative, IR and poli theory are subfields.

Really? None of my application drop-downs listed "public law" as a subfield. What's further, American JDs don't learn any "public law" unless they take specialized courses which, at most schools are not very popular, owing to the fact that most students would prefer to learn legal analytical methods couched in current American law contexts.

(assuming one is not only professionally oriented, taking only courses to pass the bar)

This is what 99.9% of law students do. Of the remaining minority that look at academic foci, most apply to teach law school.

[kaykaykay]

As I said an undergrad after an American Politics course may argue that he has enough prepapartion to teach the next batch of undergrads. Funny thing it is not you or me or the given undergrad who decides what is enough preparation to teach an intro course to American Politics but the hiring committe. There were a lot of very constructive arguments here why they might prefer PhDs over JDs MAs or advanced undergrads. No one cares about your own subjective evaluation of the worth of the JD degree or your idea of the proper treshold of preparation where one could teach. Grow up. Your act like a two year old child who is banging himself to the ground because the world does not work as s/he wants to.

[wtncffts]

Tauren,

Let me say, again, that I am speaking only about political science education in the undergraduate context. I'm not sure why some seem to keep missing this. I don't suggest a JD should prepare graduate political science students. The main difference between undergraduate and graduate poli sci , as I see it, is that at the undergraduate level, courses are more introductory/foundational, and much less specialized. This is why undergraduates at most programs will be required to take intro courses in all subfields of political science, including American/national government, comparative government, political theory, international relations and, in some cases (probably depending on if they have JDs on faculty), public law. These courses, typically, are not as steeped in the theoretical and methodological approaches one would seek at the graduate level.

The graduate level of political science offers specialization in the sub-disciplines, and teaches doctrines, theoretical and methodological approaches in the discipline. At this level the graduate would choose to specialize in American, IR, Comparative, Political theory or....law. PhD students who desire to specialize and ultimately write a dissertation in IR, for example, will select their major and elect all coursework toward their individual goal to research in IR or teach in the subfield. I would obviously not suggest that a JD would be the one to prepare such IR PhD students, but even then PhD students have been known to take courses such as international law.

I would also note that while research can "INFORM" teaching, this idea is better in theory than in practice. In reality, research can, and often does, DISTRACT from teaching, as not everyone wears multiple hats well. Hence, many undergraduates find that their professors are concerned more about their research than their students.

Well, I didn't really want to wade into this again, and I don't quite share the characterization of the OP the above poster gives, but I admit I'm also a little frustrated by the seeming imperviousness to reasons on display here. I'll just say one small thing specifically to the above quote, basically reiterating what I and others have said.

I'd agree that a JD, ABD or other knowledgeable person may be competent to teach an intro poli sci course, if by teach one means delivering course material which is foundational and essentially follows or shadows a text. As kalapocska said, even a smart undergrad who excelled in the course could conceivably do this. The job of a professor, though, is more than just lecturing or instructing - it's being available to students for questions and, one hopes, guiding especially inquisitive students towards the more complex material. This is where the expertise that should be gained in a PhD program is essential.

What happens if a student of yours asks about the "theoretical and methodological approaches one would seek at the graduate level", or some other substantive question that she would expect you to know? Do you just shrug your shoulders and say, "that's not my wheelhouse, go ask someone else" or "save those questions for grad school"? "I'm only an undergrad instructor, stop bothering me with all these pesky difficult questions"? Surely this isn't what students or departments want. Now, of course, being a JD doesn't mean you can't handle such inquiries, nor does a PhD, especially a recently obtained one, mean you can with ease, but all else equal, it's much more likely that PhDs will have the necessary engagement in the field than JDs will. Again, you may feel you would be competent, but we're talking about aggregate trends here, not your specific situation.

[SOG25]

"......This is what 99.9% of law students do. Of the remaining minority that look at academic foci, most apply to teach law school."

This is a gross over generalization. The fact that you were individually focused on practicing law and under prepared in the substantive coursework offered in law school does not imply that all JDs have the same experience. Remember, JDs who would be able to teach poli sci, did not only take professional courses necessary to pass the bar (but even among those who did, some would still be prepared to teach). Many, in fact, are interested in and do take advantage of various electives, and sometimes even go on to attain further specializations with LLMs such as international law and comparative law or constitutional history. Please pay closer attention before making such gross generalizations.

And no, JDs interested in teaching are not only interested in teaching law school.

[SOG25]

Well, I didn't really want to wade into this again, and I don't quite share the characterization of the OP the above poster gives, but I admit I'm also a little frustrated by the seeming imperviousness to reasons on display here. I'll just say one small thing specifically to the above quote, basically reiterating what I and others have said.

I'd agree that a JD, ABD or other knowledgeable person may be competent to teach an intro poli sci course, if by teach one means delivering course material which is foundational and essentially follows or shadows a text. As kalapocska said, even a smart undergrad who excelled in the course could conceivably do this. The job of a professor, though, is more than just lecturing or instructing - it's being available to students for questions and, one hopes, guiding especially inquisitive students towards the more complex material. This is where the expertise that should be gained in a PhD program is essential.

What happens if a student of yours asks about the "theoretical and methodological approaches one would seek at the graduate level", or some other substantive question that she would expect you to know? Do you just shrug your shoulders and say, "that's not my wheelhouse, go ask someone else" or "save those questions for grad school"? "I'm only an undergrad instructor, stop bothering me with all these pesky difficult questions"? Surely this isn't what students or departments want. Now, of course, being a JD doesn't mean you can't handle such inquiries, nor does a PhD, especially a recently obtained one, mean you can with ease, but all else equal, it's much more likely that PhDs will have the necessary engagement in the field than JDs will. Again, you may feel you would be competent, but we're talking about aggregate trends here, not your specific situation.

Good points and questions! While it is true that a JD will not be best prepared to answer the theoretical and methodological approaches questions, a PhD will not be best prepared to answer the constitutional and legal implications questions posed by bright students, either. This only serves to support my position that you need more diverse faculty (both PhDs and JDs), allowing students the benefit of various perspectives. Thanks for your thoughts.

[GopherGrad]

"......This is what 99.9% of law students do. Of the remaining minority that look at academic foci, most apply to teach law school."

This is a gross over generalization. The fact that you were individually focused on practicing law and under prepared in the substantive coursework offered in law school does not imply that all JDs have the same experience. Remember, JDs who would be able to teach poli sci, did not only take professional courses necessary to pass the bar (but even among those who did, some would still be prepared to teach). Many, in fact, are interested in and do take advantage of various electives, and sometimes even go on to attain further specializations with LLMs such as international law and comparative law or constitutional history. Please pay closer attention before making such gross generalizations.

And no, JDs interested in teaching are not only interested in teaching law school.

I will never understand what people get out of trolling internet fora.