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

[SOG25]

....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.

Wow. Is that really all your argument has come to (or is that how you conclude a debate)? Good luck to you.

[kaykaykay]

Wow. Is that really all your argument has come to (or is that how you conclude a debate)? Good luck to you.

Well, you never actually gave any reply to me why the world should accept that a JD is more capable to teach an intro to American Politics than an undergrad who took the class the previous year . Where should be the treshold in training? Where you say it should be?? Who are you?? You did not explain why you think you are a better authority to decide on what is the proper training to teach at a PoliSci department than a hiring comittee. I do not think that you have any logic in your argument. You get this kind of argumentation from children or from people who have huge gaps in their knowledge (hence the example of the undergrad) but cannot even gasp what they lack. You just keep belittleing any intelligent answer to your question and keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

Yes I would say the exact same thing to a two year old (or if an undergrad would like to become a prof of poli sci from now on ), thank you.

[SOG25]

Well, you never actually gave any reply to me why the world should accept that a JD is more capable to teach an intro to American Politics than an undergrad who took the class the previous year . Where should be the treshold in training? Where you say it should be?? Who are you?? You did not explain why you think you are a better authority to decide on what is the proper training to teach at a PoliSci department than a hiring comittee. I do not think that you have any logic in your argument. You get this kind of argumentation from children or from people who have huge gaps in their knowledge (hence the example of the undergrad) but cannot even gasp what they lack. You just keep belittleing any intelligent answer to your question and keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

Yes I would say the exact same thing to a two year old (or if an undergrad would like to become a prof of poli sci from now on ), thank you.

Kalapocska,

Speaking of logic, I think any reasonable individual can see that you're drawing a false comparison between the argument I've been making and the one you're suggesting an "undergrad can make." There is obviously no real equation between an undergrad who claims abilty to teach political science based on ONE course in American politics, and a graduate who has extensively studied at the graduate level a subject area (namely law) which significantly covers, in depth, much of the topics and material a PhD would study. It is not worth explaining any further to you why that is a false comparison.

You claim that I am "belittling" any intelligent answer to my question. Really? please offer even one example where any of my comments "belittled" as you claim (feel free to quote me even). Perhaps, in your mind, to challenge is to belittle; in that case, tant pis pour vous; you have a lot to learn about debate and disagreeing agreeably.

If you say a JD does not have the background to teach courses in political science, the onus is on you to prove that point. Furthermore, if you say research is inextricably linked to being a professor on faculty, when historically that has not always been a part of the professorship, then share with us why that must be the case today.

Otherwise, if you have nothing better to say than petty personal attacks or how "belittled" you feel by my arguments, then maybe you should quit arguing? Just a thought. .

[balderdash]

[4 pages of debate...]

Gotta say, though I'm not convinced by what you're arguing, I respect the thought and tenacity which you've put into it.

Edited January 19, 2011 by balderdash

[kaykaykay]

"If you say a JD does not have the background to teach courses in political science, the onus is on you to prove that point." WHY ON EARTH? Do I also have to prove that an undergrad does not have the preparation to teach if he self volunteers? I am not saying that the onus is on you. This is not something that we have to decide.

I am not drawing false comparisons at all but I tried to show the fallacy of your argument with extreme examples . An MA is a graduate degree and people with MA in political science do not get hired to be professors. Back at the time when there were no graduate school maybe advanced students taught first years. Preparation for this profession is a continium and it is relative to the preparation of the other applicants to the same job. The matter of the fact that the treshold of adequate preparation to teach is somewhat arbitrary but it does not depend on self assessment.

You may think that research is not necessary to teach but hey an undergrad might think that your precious graduate degree is not necessary to teach. In fact when you are arguing here that you can teach an intro to American Politics class without having knowledge on the newest research, having been in dialogue with it, without knowing political models and theories, you do the same if an undergrad would argue that you can teach an intro to American Politics class without " extensively stud(ying) at the graduate level a subject area ... which significantly covers, in depth, much of the topics and material a PhD would study". Yes a JD may be able to teach an intro class without those skills but given undergrad may be able to equaly teach that intro class without having any in depth knowledge about any other area.

See that is why I said you are subjective and argue without logic not because I want to take this to the personal level. Personally you may be very convinced about your truth and in your world this all make sense and you may be a very nice person though a bit fanatic.

I was talking about the comments that were arguing about that it is necessary to have research experience and or teaching experience to be the professor of PoliSci. All were very useful and intelligent arguments that you did not consider just kept repeating your idea what the proper treshold for teaching intro classes to American Politics. Very well, you may think so but hiring committees have different idea what they think is the proper preparation for the job.

Edited January 19, 2011 by kalapocska

[wtncffts]

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.

Well, I certainly agree that students benefit from different perspectives. The question is whether political science as a discipline and an organizational structure within a university has justifiably imperative reasons to incorporate those different perspectives within itself, and any justifiable reasons for keeping the boundaries relatively clear. I think what this basically boils down to is your believing that 'political science' is and should be more permeable than it is, while some of us in disagreement suggest that political science is a distinct, complex and developed set of methods, areas of inquiry, and theoretical assumptions which requires special training. Teaching political science, therefore, ought to be in the service of relating knowledge and appreciation of those distinct characteristics.

Now, of course, in reality it doesn't work that way: that's why there's an increasing drive towards interdisciplinary work. Historians, lawyers/legal scholars, psychologists, economists, and so on: each has a recognizable place within 'political science'. Why don't we have PhDs in economics teach IPE? I mean, if we want diverse faculty why stop at JDs and PhDs in political science? No, the point is that the diversity is among different faculties/departments. Your above point could easily extended to others. A poli sci PhD will not be best prepared to answer historical questions, nor questions about economic implications, etc. Clearly, though, we don't employ historians and economists within poli sci faculties just to be 'go-to' people. We recognize that other disciplines have their own legitimate specialties. Political science courses are intended to be introductions both to the substantive material and the culture/methods/'ways of doing things' of the discipline. Thus, instructors in political science need to be able to relate to students such things. They have no especial obligation to know the case law of substantive due process in detail, the federal rules of criminal procedure, or what have you.

Just by way of anecdote: I TAed for a US Politics and Government course. This was a full-year (two semester) course, and we spent, if I recall, three or four weeks, at most, on topics that I would consider to be in a JD's wheelhouse. Of course, in the beginning, we did the whole intro to the constitutional system, federalism, etc. We looked at precisely two cases at length, Marbury and McCulloch, and we briefly explicated a few others (Gibbons v. Ogden comes to mind). In discussing the presidency, we ran the usual gamut of presidential power cases: Steel seizure, US v. Nixon, some Bush-era Guantanamo cases. We did a section on civil rights/civil liberties, in which of course, we discussed Brown v. Board, Korematsu, Dennis v. US, Texas v. Johnson, Roe v. Wade, and some others that I can't recall right now. Now, I would venture to say that a legal scholar could do a more in-depth job of teaching the course in these areas. But my point is that the vast majority of the course was spent on areas in which legal training simply doesn't enter into it, or perhaps peripherally so. To go back to a much earlier point in this thread, I think there's simply a misapprehension of what the study of political reality is. For you, it's basically all derivative of the legal/constitutional institutions and structures in a polity. Everything, so to speak, flows from that fundamental source, and so a deep understanding of that source allows one to claim expertise on everything else. This just isn't the case.

I generally hate the use of quotes as though they were facts or evidence, but I think Hamlet's line that "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" sums up, if inexactly, my argument.

[SOG25]

Gotta say, though I'm not convinced by what you're arguing, I respect the thought and tenacity which you've put into it.

Thank you balderdash. I enjoy advancing all our knowledge in this area through thoughtful debate.

[SOG25]

wtncffts,

Let me start off by saying, great points again. You certainly offer thought-provoking arguments and convey them impressively well.

Having said that, I find a few problems with what you are arguing. Let me note again that my argument is that JDs can teach political science courses at the undergraduate level, and I disagree with your description of what political science entails at the undergraduate level. The majority of undergraduate poli sci courses introduce students to political systems and issues, not methodology or theoretical assumptions. While it is true that even at the undergraduate level, there are courses that introduce students to methods of the discipline, they are offered only as a general survey (e.g. an intro to political science course or a scope and methods course). Even political science journals tell us that the majority of departments lack a methods course for undergrads. Among the ones that offer such a course, there is then the question of how a course on scope and methods ought to be taught (considering that there is a diversity of perspectives and methods, which methods do you teach? how do you teach them?).

I support that students most benefit by taking methods courses from faculty who are trained in the methodology and approaches they seek (even the case-study approach utilized in law school). However, the reality is that the complex and developed set of methods are largely tackled and best understood at the graduate level, when a foundation has most likely already been established....oh, and the interest is there too . Recently, I read an op-ed piece in which the author criticized the prevalence of rational choice theory in our political science graduate programs; notice how the writer made no mention of undergraduates. This omission was obviously because many of the theoritical assumptions and methodology considerations are of a graduate level and would not be appreciated by undergraduates who have yet to receive an adequate foundation in the discipline.

If in fact political science, again, at the undergraduate level is primarily about understanding the nature of political systems and political issues (and not methods or theoretical assumptions), then it stands to reason that a Juris Doctor--whose training requires analysis of political systems and issues--is fully qualified to relate such knowledge to undergraduates. Now, as you say, relating knowledge of developed methods, areas of inquiry and distinct characteristics ought to be done by one with special training. No argument there. I only add that such knowledge is related to, and intended for, graduates seeking that knowledge, not undergrads; so fundamentally, I disagree with your description of what political science entails at the undergraduate level.

One must consider, also, the fact that while some undergrads major in political science as preparation for grad school, most sign up for the major with little interest in the "distinct, complex and developed set of methods, areas of inquiry, and theoretical assumptions which requires special training." Rather, they sign up for courses that will broaden their understanding about the society in which they live.

........ But my point is that the vast majority of the course was spent on areas in which legal training simply doesn't enter into it, or perhaps peripherally so.

In which areas does legal training not enter into it?

"To go back to a much earlier point in this thread, I think there's simply a misapprehension of what the study of political reality is. For you, it's basically all derivative of the legal/constitutional institutions and structures in a polity. Everything, so to speak, flows from that fundamental source, and so a deep understanding of that source allows one to claim expertise on everything else. This just isn't the case"

Not quite. But, the profound understanding of legal/constitutional institutions and structures certainly gives juris doctors a distinct advantage in teaching political science courses, including constitutional law and federalism among others.

Furthermore, if history and economics were subfields of political science or as closely related as the law is to the discipline, I would argue for their faculty to teach poli sci as well. Certainly, some historians can teach American constitutional history, at least. No, I set the JD apart because there are a greater range of courses within political science which the JD is more readily able to teach as a result of the subject matter s/he grasped during law school, and because public law is in fact a subfield of political science. I welcome further thoughts.

Edited January 20, 2011 by SOG25

[wtncffts]

I will, of course, try to respond later in more depth. I just want to make a very quick point now, and that is that 'public law' is not, in fact, a generally recognized subfield. The four which are universally recognized are Comparative, IR, theory/philosophy, and American (or Canadian, in my case). Public law, where it is recognized, is usually a specialization, grouped with things like formal methods or political psychology. Now, you may just be using 'subfield' in a more general sense, which is fine. But there are many poli sci departments with no public law at all. The two institutions I've attended did not, and they weren't small departments.

[SOG25]

I agree that not all departments offer public law (perhaps not unrelated to the fact that they lack JDs); not all departments offer comprative government, either. Yet, public law is, in fact, among the subfields of political science. The following resource should provide more details on this:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467721/political-science/247901/Fields-and-subfields

[Penelope Higgins]

Are you seriously citing the Encylcopedia Britannica as a source? I'd advise you to do better than that if you want to study or teach political science! How about this definition of the field - it reflects how the mainstream of political science actually thinks about what it does...

http://www.apsanet.org/content_9181.cfm?navID=727

I agree that not all departments offer public law (perhaps not unrelated to the fact that they lack JDs); not all departments offer comprative government, either. Yet, public law is, in fact, among the subfields of political science. The following resource should provide more details on this:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467721/political-science/247901/Fields-and-subfields

[SOG25]

Are you seriously citing the Encylcopedia Britannica as a source? I'd advise you to do better than that if you want to study or teach political science! How about this definition of the field - it reflects how the mainstream of political science actually thinks about what it does...

http://www.apsanet.o...1.cfm?navID=727

The source you provided does not dispute the point I made. Furthermore, why wouldn't I cite Britinnica in this context?

[Penelope Higgins]

You're right. The source I cited does not dispute your argument. But if you want to be taken seriously by academics, an encyclopedia ain't going to help in this or any other context. Your inability to understand that is not unrelated to your inability to understand the other issues people have raised on this thread.

The source you provided does not dispute the point I made. Furthermore, why wouldn't I cite Britinnica in this context?

[SOG25]

You're right. The source I cited does not dispute your argument. But if you want to be taken seriously by academics, an encyclopedia ain't going to help in this or any other context. Your inability to understand that is not unrelated to your inability to understand the other issues people have raised on this thread.

In other words, never reference Briannica or even consider it in "any context." OK, fair enough. The important and more relevant point is that the more credible source does not dispute my argument; public law is in fact a subfield of political science. Thanks.

[hupr]

Yeah, I've always wondered why there are so many M.D.s teaching at medical school, too.

[wtncffts]

I agree that not all departments offer public law (perhaps not unrelated to the fact that they lack JDs); not all departments offer comprative government, either. Yet, public law is, in fact, among the subfields of political science. The following resource should provide more details on this:

http://www.britannic...s-and-subfields

As I said, if you're defining 'subfield' generally, then fine. But the first four (IR, comparative, theory, domestic) are universally recognized as the subfields. If a department doesn't have comparative (and please let me know of one which does not), it really isn't a 'full-service' department. I understand if it's small or poorly-funded that it may not have the resources but any minimally respectable dept. will have at least one or two faculty in comparative, and the requisite intro courses. Public law is on par with specializations, as I noted: methodology, political psychology, public policy/public administration (which I suggest has the greater claim to being on par with the subfields). That's not to say it's not important, at all, just that it's not thought of as the core of the discipline.

Since we're (potential) grad students, let's take a look at the field requirements.

Harvard:

Every student will sit for a General Examination in May of their second year, with the exam administered orally by three faculty not known in advance. The 90-minute exam will cover two of the four major substantive fields in political science (chosen by the student from among American Politics; Comparative Politics; International Relations; and Political Theory), plus an additional focus field defined by the student.

Yale:

Courses are offered in five substantive fields—political theory, international relations, comparative politics, American politics, and political economy—and three methods fields-quantitative empirical methods, qualitative and archival methods and formal theory.

Princeton:

Graduate students in Politics may specialize in American politics, comparative politics, formal and quantitative methods, international relations, political theory, or public law.

Stanford:

Each student chooses two fields from American Politics, Comparative Politics, International Relations, Political Theory, and Political Methodology.

Michigan:

Major Fields:

i. American Government and Politics

Comparative Government and Politics

Political Theory

Public Law

Research Methods

World Politics

ii (first minor and second minor only)

Public Policy and Administration

I could go on, but the pattern will only be confirmed: the four universal subfields are constant, and some others are included when the department has the faculty resources. If anything, political economy and methods seem to be much closer to the core than public law. Again, that's not to say that it isn't a useful or important approach to questions in the discipline, but that it clearly is not recognized as a fundamental or essential part.

[SOG25]

I could go on, but the pattern will only be confirmed: the four universal subfields are constant, and some others are included when the department has the faculty resources. If anything, political economy and methods seem to be much closer to the core than public law. Again, that's not to say that it isn't a useful or important approach to questions in the discipline, but that it clearly is not recognized as a fundamental or essential part.

wtncfftts,

We really aren't in much disagreement here. Sure, you are right that public law is not one of the universal subfields in the departments, but it is available in at least some, such as the major ones you displayed. This, at least in my opinion, makes it an important part of political science.

............... some others are included when the department has the faculty resources.

Doesn't this statement serve my argument? The majority of departments do not have public law faculty only because of neglecting to diversity their faculty by including Juris Doctors who are qualified to teach public law courses and other political science courses on institutions.

Edited January 20, 2011 by SOG25

[wtncffts]

Well, yes, but my point was simply directed towards your use of 'subfield' to describe public law. I was arguing that public law isn't a core part of political science, and I cited the 'elite' schools to that effect. That is, public law is nice to have in a department but is not at all crucial to that department's being a 'full-service' poli sci department. As I suggested earlier, the 'diversity' argument really doesn't stop with JDs. Why not have a psychology PhD? Economics? History? Hell, even biology? (look up 'biopolitics' or 'politics and the life sciences'). Why not have political science PhDs teaching in various other depts. where they may be competent or useful?

It seems to me that you simply take issue with the entire 'artifice' of field boundaries and the structure of the academy. I mean, you're not alone in that, and there's some justification for it, but you're not going to get anywhere against tradition and institutional inertia.

[RWBG]

So I don't know if this has already been mentioned, since I haven't really read through this thread. However, JDs aren't really graduate degrees, so much as second entry undergraduate degrees. Political science graduate degree holders generally have some degree of undergraduate preparation in political science or a cognate discipline in addition to their graduate preparation. So generally, their preparation can be said to be greater on average than a JD who could easily have entered from a program in chemical engineering. Also, the distinction made by SOG between undergraduate political science graduates and JD graduates (saying JDs have graduate preparation) is a false one. If anything, a political science undergraduate would likely have more preparation for teaching political science related courses, whereas a JD holder would only potentially have some knowledge in fields related to political science on the periphery, such as public law.

JDs also tend to emphasize breadth in their preparation over specialization, not to mention the qualitatively distinct focus on practical application over research. So it is unlikely that a JD would be thoroughly versed in a field like public law upon graduation. Really, that's a big part of the reason why you have LL.Ms and SJDs; to provide graduates with substantive knowledge in a particular area, as well as familiarity with the discipline as an academic one, instead of a practical one. That plus signalling.

Ultimately, it becomes a matter of line-drawing, and you could say that there are SOME JDs that have adequate preparation for teaching a restricted set of undergraduate courses. However, you need those lines in order to reduce the applicant pool to some extent, especially when you have some schools with 250 people applying for one position. As well, given that JDs would have to compete with LL.M holders and SJD holders, the probability of someone who holds only a JD being better qualified to teach undergraduate courses seems relatively small. SOG's argument as of the last few posts I've read seems to have become more and more restricted; less so why there aren't more JDs in political science faculties, but why JDs shouldn't be automatically excluded from teaching undergraduate-only classes in a small subset of areas which are sometimes considered part of political science. If that's SOG's argument, he may have a (very restricted) point under idealized circumstances where you don't need signalling to lessen the applicant pool, and could just review everyone. But in the real world, where lines are drawn, the argument doesn't withstand any kind of scrutiny, and no amount of willful blindness will change that.

Sorry again if this has all already been said.

Edited January 20, 2011 by RWBG

[SOG25]

.....................JDs aren't really graduate degrees, so much as second entry undergraduate degrees. Political science graduate degree holders generally have some degree of undergraduate preparation in political science or a cognate discipline in addition to their graduate preparation. So generally, their preparation can be said to be greater on average than a JD who could easily have entered from a program in chemical engineering.

I'm really not sure where to begin with that.

[kaykaykay]

So I don't know if this has already been mentioned, since I haven't really read through this thread. However, JDs aren't really graduate degrees, so much as second entry undergraduate degrees. Political science graduate degree holders generally have some degree of undergraduate preparation in political science or a cognate discipline in addition to their graduate preparation. So generally, their preparation can be said to be greater on average than a JD who could easily have entered from a program in chemical engineering. Also, the distinction made by SOG between undergraduate political science graduates and JD graduates (saying JDs have graduate preparation) is a false one. If anything, a political science undergraduate would likely have more preparation for teaching political science related courses, whereas a JD holder would only potentially have some knowledge in fields related to political science on the periphery, such as public law.

JDs also tend to emphasize breadth in their preparation over specialization, not to mention the qualitatively distinct focus on practical application over research. So it is unlikely that a JD would be thoroughly versed in a field like public law upon graduation. Really, that's a big part of the reason why you have LL.Ms and SJDs; to provide graduates with substantive knowledge in a particular area, as well as familiarity with the discipline as an academic one, instead of a practical one. That plus signalling.

Ultimately, it becomes a matter of line-drawing, and you could say that there are SOME JDs that have adequate preparation for teaching a restricted set of undergraduate courses. However, you need those lines in order to reduce the applicant pool to some extent, especially when you have some schools with 250 people applying for one position. As well, given that JDs would have to compete with LL.M holders and SJD holders, the probability of someone who holds only a JD being better qualified to teach undergraduate courses seems relatively small. SOG's argument as of the last few posts I've read seems to have become more and more restricted; less so why there aren't more JDs in political science faculties, but why JDs shouldn't be automatically excluded from teaching undergraduate-only classes in a small subset of areas which are sometimes considered part of political science. If that's SOG's argument, he may have a (very restricted) point under idealized circumstances where you don't need signalling to lessen the applicant pool, and could just review everyone. But in the real world, where lines are drawn, the argument doesn't withstand any kind of scrutiny, and no amount of willful blindness will change that.

Sorry again if this has all already been said.

Exactly.

[SOG25]

Well, yes, but my point was simply directed towards your use of 'subfield' to describe public law. I was arguing that public law isn't a core part of political science, and I cited the 'elite' schools to that effect. That is, public law is nice to have in a department but is not at all crucial to that department's being a 'full-service' poli sci department. As I suggested earlier, the 'diversity' argument really doesn't stop with JDs. Why not have a psychology PhD? Economics? History? Hell, even biology? (look up 'biopolitics' or 'politics and the life sciences'). Why not have political science PhDs teaching in various other depts. where they may be competent or useful?

It seems to me that you simply take issue with the entire 'artifice' of field boundaries and the structure of the academy. I mean, you're not alone in that, and there's some justification for it, but you're not going to get anywhere against tradition and institutional inertia.

I primarily take issue with the 'artifice' of field boundaries with respect to JDs and PhDs when it comes to teaching undergraduates political science, since JDs are essentially in the same field (see our earlier discussion on public law). By virtue of the substantive, graduate education on government institutions and law, many JDs would stand to be good professors in such courses; I know I keep repeating this, but it seems to be worth repeating.

I'm not familiar enough with the other disciplines to know what they could or could not teach, but I certainly don't think they are as closely related to the discipline of political science as a JD. I do, however, think it is always a good idea for undergraduates to take courses from cognate disciplines.

Edited January 21, 2011 by SOG25

[RWBG]

In Britain, law degrees are undergraduate entry programs (LL.Bs), and in countries like Canada, they're openly considered second-entry undergraduate degrees, though some schools have changed the degree title to JD to conform with the United States. I don't think the actual content/substantive training is much different than US programs, but the US tends to have more people with a seemingly vested interest in arguing it's a graduate program. You might be able to distinguish it from undergraduate programs, calling it a professional degree program, but it's certainly not the same thing as a regular graduate degree.

On another note, it should be mentioned that public law in law school is usually significantly different than public law in political science. Courses in law school (in my experience) tend to focus on things like case law related to a particular substantive area, and how particular decisions were come to by the adjudicating bodies in question, whereas political science courses usually focus on broader theoretical implications of legal institutions. This is reflected in the huge substantive differences between legal scholarship and political science scholarship. Really, even where the substantive areas covered are similar, it's very hard to support the argument that "JDs are essentially in the same field."

While there might be something to be gained for political scientists from knowing the case law, I don't really see why there's any benefit to having such content taught by lawyers in the political science faculty. Insofar as breadth and diversity is useful, why not just have students take law courses with JDs employed in the law department?

[wtncffts]

Insofar as breadth and diversity is useful, why not just have students take law courses with JDs employed in the law department?

Perhaps I need to work on my conciseness of expression - this is pretty much exactly what I was trying to say.

[Aunuwyn]

I primarily take issue with the 'artifice' of field boundaries with respect to JDs and PhDs when it comes to teaching undergraduates political science, since JDs are essentially in the same field (see our earlier discussion on public law). By virtue of the substantive, graduate education on government institutions and law, many JDs would stand to be good professors in such courses; I know I keep repeating this, but it seems to be worth repeating.

I'm not familiar enough with the other disciplines to know what they could or could not teach, but I certainly don't think they are as closely related to the discipline of political science as a JD. I do, however, think it is always a good idea for undergraduates to take courses from cognate disciplines.

This is going to be the last time I post on this thread.

First, I'm going to go ahead and say that you are either one of the greatest trolls on the net, or you are fantastically stupid and I am amazed you are working your way through Higher ED.

Law and Politics ARE NOT essentially the same field. If this was the GRE the analogy would be Dentists:Doctors .... Lawyers: Political Scientists. Yes some political scientists study legal topics and institutions, but that by no means defines the discipline of political science, not even close! In fact if this was the early 1990s I could argue that an entire subfield of the discipline is predicated on the ABSENCE of laws.

Your argument is predicated on complete ignorance of my discipline, and when presented with facts that undermine what you say you simply brush them aside and continue this asinine argument. If you didn't notice, your original question was, "Why mostly PhDs and not JDs in University Political Science faculties?" This question implies 1. that political science faculties being mostly PhDs is aberrant and should really be JDs, and 2. that JD training is both equivalent and in some cases superior to PhD training in political science. Numerous people have blown up your argument by providing facts to negate point two. Since we can reject the second implication, left with no other validating assertion we can also reject the first assertion that underlies your question. It is in fact NORMAL for political science faculties to be mostly PhDs, and it would be aberrant if otherwise was true.