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

[SOG25]

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

Good riddance, as you seem to lack the ability to read or understand what has actually been said in this thread. Another one who has much to learn about debate. Good luck.

[hupr]

Let's try another approach: You're totally right, man. You win: J.D.'s should definitely be teaching in Poli Sci departments, and maybe in many others as well.

I guess this thread is over. Why don't we just all walk away slowly...

[SOG25]

Let's try another approach: You're totally right, man. You win: J.D.'s should definitely be teaching in Poli Sci departments, and maybe in many others as well.

I guess this thread is over. Why don't we just all walk away slowly...

Furthermore.....experience has taught that one who is confident in their argument never needs to resort to personal attacks or other irrelevant garbage. Those who resort to such tactics, apart from serious character flaws, are usually insecure about their arguments, if not in other areas as well. So, going forward, any comments that are not aimed at advancing the substance of this topic, incendiary in speech or otherwise meant to annoy, or distract from the debate will be ignored and promptly removed; take your personal vendettas elsewhere. Otherwise, all perspectives on this topic are welcome (whether you agree or disagree).

[SOG25]

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....

Perhaps I was a bit unclear. I have in mind JDs in the United States (really not the same as in Europe), which in fact are graduate level education. To think otherwise is simply to be ignorant of a fact. Furthermore, there are many, many individuals who hold both the PhD and JD who will tell you that their JD was far more rigorous than their PhDs (I only mention this to point out your misunderstanding about the nature of a JD; it is not “undergraduate” by any means). There’s really no need for me to be explaining any of this, so I only recommend you do more research.

The only other area worth clarifying (which goes to an earlier statement of yours) is that LLMs are not, as you seem to think, ‘higher’ degrees than JDs. Rather, it would help you to think of them more as ‘specialties.’ I can see how you would miss this fact, but in reality JD candidates (not having yet earned the degree) will often be in the same international law class, as an LLM candidate, ‘specializing’ in, say, a degree in international and comparative law, after having earned the JD. Despite what some posters will have you think, many pure JDs do take very relevant electives (including critical race theory, international law, administrative and regulatory state, state and local government law, and much more).

...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."

A PhD teaching public law would usually be required to also hold a JD (beats me why they need the PhD). Surely, you don’t mean to imply that a pure PhD is more qualified to each public law courses than a JD. Talk about "willful blindness."

." 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?

One of the reasons an undergraduate wouldn’t just go to the “law department” (and I assume you mean law school) is, in fact, because they are undergraduates, lacking the foundations necessary to succeed in law school courses (this is pretty obvious); the pedagogy, not to mention workload, is not geared toward undergraduates. Consider the fact that undergraduates taking a constitutional law or other law-related poli sci course can barely keep up with the case briefings or case law approach; it gets harder in law school.

I guess another, more practical reason, is because not every university or college conveniently has a “law department” or school where students can just walk over to take these courses, as you suggest.

Edited January 21, 2011 by SOG25

[Aunuwyn]

Good riddance, as you seem to lack the ability to read or understand what has actually been said in this thread. Another one who has much to learn about debate. Good luck.

Actually, I Lied.

The only one who has a chance at understanding debate here is you, you deluded worm. You don't even attempt to respond to the points I made which demolish your pseudo-intellectual babble, instead you wriggle away into the dirt like moral cowards do when exposed as frauds.

[RWBG]

...this discussion is clearly not going to be productive. I'm going to save myself some headache and not continue in it.

Out of curiosity, SOG, have you taken law school courses/do you hold a JD?

[SOG25]

...this discussion is clearly not going to be productive. I'm going to save myself some headache and not continue in it.

Out of curiosity, SOG, have you taken law school courses/do you hold a JD?

Why wouldn't it be productive? How would it affect your argument if I disclose that information to you?

[RWBG]

Why wouldn't it be productive? How would it affect your argument if I disclose that information to you?

Your argument is predicated on your asserted knowledge of exactly what a JD is and how law school courses are carried out, to the extent that you've casually dismissed the arguments of someone in this thread who actually holds a JD (GopherGrad). Personally, I've taken law school courses, and run in a circle of friends that consists to a significant degree of currently practicing lawyers and law students, and none of what you've said accords with law school as they've described it to me, or with my limited experiences in law school. I'm curious as to where you derive your extreme sense of self-assuredness.

It won't be productive because your responses do not engage with the substance of arguments made in this thread. I could try to explain why, but you wouldn't engage with the substance of my explanation.

[foosh]

I don't know why there is such a large discussion. A law degree (JD) is a professional agree that qualifies you to practice law. Unless you're a law professor (incredibly difficult sector to crack), then you're likely not qualified to be a PS researcher solely based off your JD and/or admission to the bar. A PhD in PS has had 5+ years of intensive education/research prior to being considered for a faculty position.

This is like asking why aren't there more MDs in Biology faculties? The reason is an MD (without a PhD) is designed as a professional degree geared towards practicing medicine. Unless you get the research degree along with that (MD/PhD, just like you would do a JD/PhD to be a PS prof), you're not really qualified to be on the faculty at a university.

[SOG25]

I don't know why there is such a large discussion. A law degree (JD) is a professional agree that qualifies you to practice law. Unless you're a law professor (incredibly difficult sector to crack), then you're likely not qualified to be a PS researcher solely based off your JD and/or admission to the bar. A PhD in PS has had 5+ years of intensive education/research prior to being considered for a faculty position.

This is like asking why aren't there more MDs in Biology faculties? The reason is an MD (without a PhD) is designed as a professional degree geared towards practicing medicine. Unless you get the research degree along with that (MD/PhD, just like you would do a JD/PhD to be a PS prof), you're not really qualified to be on the faculty at a university.

You seem to be suggesting that JDs and MDs are professional, while the PhD is not. Perhaps it would be helpful to consider this point made by an earlier poster:

PhDs are, by and large, taught a different professional skill - academic research in Political Science. For all the puffery surrounding academia, PhDs are professional degrees as well. You learn to research and you're expected to utilize those skills. Yes, you teach too. But at elite universities, tenure hinges on research productivity. Teaching is well and good but it is rarely the priority.

[wtncffts]

You seem to be suggesting that JDs and MDs are professional, while the PhD is not. Perhaps it would be helpful to consider this point made by an earlier poster:

To be fair, I think foosh was using 'professional degree' in its strict sense, which refers to a course of study preparing a student for a particular practice requiring licensing or accreditation, e.g., bar examinations. The distinction between these and graduate degrees is pretty clear, IMO. You need a recognized and regulated license to practice medicine or law; it seems very odd to say one needs a 'license' to practice political science.

[GopherGrad]

But JDs and MDs are known as "professional" degrees in common reference. Law, medicine and some other jobs (but not college professors) are known in the US as "the professions".

Even if you want to get into sematics, if a Ph.D. is a "professional" degree, they are trained to be professional professors. The whole point of the majority of Ph.D. degrees is to train academics (and yes, FFS, I understand that plenty of Ph.D.s don't become professors).

The whole point of a J.D. is to train a practicing lawyer. I know you disagree that the purpose of the J.D. degree is to train lawyers, but you are wrong. If you had a J.D., you would understand. And before you descend to insulting my substantive preparation again, be aware that I sat for a very academic legal degree, earned an LL.M. and took as many courses outside law school as was allowed by my program.

When I say that law school trains lawyers, no matter how hard you look outside the program, I mean that.

[foosh]

To be fair, I think foosh was using 'professional degree' in its strict sense, which refers to a course of study preparing a student for a particular practice requiring licensing or accreditation, e.g., bar examinations. The distinction between these and graduate degrees is pretty clear, IMO. You need a recognized and regulated license to practice medicine or law; it seems very odd to say one needs a 'license' to practice political science.

Yes thank you wtncffts, I meant professional in the sense of striving for accreditation. No offense to any lawyers here, but I think you a skewed perspective of what the scope of a JD actually is. For the rest of you, take comfort from the fact that the general consensus here is a JD does not prepare you to be a PS faculty except perhaps in the case of coming from legal academia.

[rsldonk]

Why would someone who can make a decent living as a lawyer go to academia where they make $45,000/yr. when they can get a legal job for much more?

[SOG25]

But JDs and MDs are known as "professional" degrees in common reference. Law, medicine and some other jobs (but not college professors) are known in the US as "the professions".

Even if you want to get into sematics, if a Ph.D. is a "professional" degree, they are trained to be professional professors. The whole point of the majority of Ph.D. degrees is to train academics (and yes, FFS, I understand that plenty of Ph.D.s don't become professors).

The whole point of a J.D. is to train a practicing lawyer. I know you disagree that the purpose of the J.D. degree is to train lawyers, but you are wrong. If you had a J.D., you would understand. And before you descend to insulting my substantive preparation again, be aware that I sat for a very academic legal degree, earned an LL.M. and took as many courses outside law school as was allowed by my program.

When I say that law school trains lawyers, no matter how hard you look outside the program, I mean that.

"PhDs are, by and large, taught a different professional skill - academic research in Political Science. For all the puffery surrounding academia, PhDs are professional degrees as well. You learn to research and you're expected to utilize those skills. Yes, you teach too. But at elite universities, tenure hinges on research productivity. Teaching is well and good but it is rarely the priority."

These aren't even my words, and you guys seem to still be missing it, almost as if you don't want to see something that is clearly there. The point of a PhD is not to become a "professional professor" but a professional researcher or the 'practice of research'. In fact, that is why plenty of PhDs don't become professors. Unfortunately, though, IMO, the unsubstantiated tradition or "norm" has been that only PhDs are 'allowed' to teach in some departments. And no, I don't disagree that JDs are trained for the practice of law; don't know where you got that. However, I also understand that being trained for a profession does not imply that one cannot teach or 'profess.' JDs can teach public law courses and courses on American institutions (which happen to fit into the political science discipline) because it is their background. MDs indeed also can teach biology or human anatomy (I think this should be common sense).

[SOG25]

Your argument is predicated on your asserted knowledge of exactly what a JD is and how law school courses are carried out, to the extent that you've casually dismissed the arguments of someone in this thread who actually holds a JD (GopherGrad). Personally, I've taken law school courses, and run in a circle of friends that consists to a significant degree of currently practicing lawyers and law students, and none of what you've said accords with law school as they've described it to me, or with my limited experiences in law school. I'm curious as to where you derive your extreme sense of self-assuredness.

It won't be productive because your responses do not engage with the substance of arguments made in this thread. I could try to explain why, but you wouldn't engage with the substance of my explanation.

Rest assured that my self-assuredness is with good reason. Contrary to what you say, I have not casually dismissed anything but have indeed engaged with the substance of your arguments. Feel free to provide an example of my statements that do not "accord with law school" as your friends described it to you. In any case, regardless of what I disclose to you, it's not like you can verify my credentials or those of GopherGrad (you'd simply have to take our word for it), so why not focus on the strengths of the arguments presented (which you can actually verify)?

[SOG25]

....And before you descend to insulting my substantive preparation again, be aware that I sat for a very academic legal degree, earned an LL.M. and took as many courses outside law school as was allowed by my program. .

I'm sorry you felt insulted by my rebuttal, but you were the one who seemed to be claiming that a JD is in no way academic or substantive. Maybe you changed your mind?

[wtncffts]

SOG25, you obviously feel very strongly about this. So much so, in fact, that what I think you should do is write an e-mail summarizing your position to the chairs of and other professors in the top poli sci departments: say, HYP, Stanford, Michigan. If your quibble is with hiring committees, why not go at them directly? The whole exercise in this thread is one in frustration on both sides, it seems. Nothing anyone says here is going to cause a change in your views, which seems the definition of a pointless debate. So hear it from the horse's mouth, put your 'money' where your mouth is, etc. and tell us about the responses you get.

I'm only being slightly facetious here; I really would find it interesting to see what responses you receive, if any.

Edit: While you're at it, I'd be keen to hear the views of law professors as well. Feel free to solicit their views on the criminal under-representation and utilization of JDs in poli sci departments.

Edited January 22, 2011 by wtncffts

[foosh]

JDs can teach public law courses and courses on American institutions (which happen to fit into the political science discipline) because it is their background. MDs indeed also can teach biology or human anatomy (I think this should be common sense).

Yes, professors are professionals in the sense they are researchers. Lawyers have not been trained to do the kind of academic research professors have. Also, a JD who can teach "public law courses and courses on American institutions" has a very limited specialization that makes him a poor asset for a Political Science department. And herein lies your answer- JDs are not common on PS faculties b/c hiring a PhD in PS with a deeper comprehension of the field is a better deal for the university.

Edited January 22, 2011 by foosh

[GopherGrad]

I did not claim that a J.D. is not "substantive". I don't even know what you mean by that. To say that a lawyer didn't learn the substance of law school is so ridiculous it threatens to give the reader a nosebleed.

You seem to argue that "substantive" courses in law school relate to some nebulous confluence of law and political science. They do not. Law schools offer very few courses on public law or American legal institutions that would interest a student of political science and the programs severely limit a J.D. candidate's options to take courses which are not focused on passing the bar. Only schools in the top half of the top tier even offer courses to train academics; the vast majority of schools focus solely and explicitly on training future attorneys.

As an aside, RWGB could verify my credentials if he or she wanted. When the basis of disagreement is only the content of a J.D. curriculum, it might afford some finality to know that one side includes an attorney while the other side does not. You are at the point where this is totally 'he-said, she-said', and you weren't even in the room for the conversation. The only reason my credentials won't be necessary is that you are the only person participating in the argument who is not convinced of the viewpoints I (and everyone else) has evinced.

I agree with the poster above with no vowels in her name. You appear to believe you've stumbled across some wisdom missed by all the Ph.D. applicants, candidates, political science faculty and lawyers on the site (not to mention every political science department in the world). So, as a J.D. might say: take it to the judge.

[hupr]

This guy clearly insists on being obtuse. I'm not sure why everyone here keeps engaging him.

Let' s just let this thread die...

[wtncffts]

This guy clearly insists on being obtuse. I'm not sure why everyone here keeps engaging him.

Let' s just let this thread die...

You're right, but it's also, dare I say it... fun? In real life, this discussion would have taken a nasty turn long ago, but I'm all for anonymous internet blabber. At least it's something to think about besides applications...

[balderdash]

Has anyone pointed out that legal writing and research is nothing like academic writing and research (in the sense of what you'd see in APSA journals)?

Also, the legal system is like a car, the JD a mechanic's license. A certified mechanic knows the car inside and out, and he's qualified to know what part does what and how. But he's not qualified to tell me how to build a car, how other vehicles work, or even why cars exist at all.

[SOG25]

This guy clearly insists on being obtuse. I'm not sure why everyone here keeps engaging him.

Let' s just let this thread die...

The point of debate, I continue to think, is to challenge other ideas, so as to refine one's own thinking in an area. Of course if one is frustrated by arguments (which is common when presented with new, challenging ideas), the simple and easy conclusion is: "you're just obtuse, why even bother?" Alternatively, one could remain open to new ideas (being unafraid to having one's own viewpoints challenged), a mark of a truly educated person. In an internet forum, as wtncffts fairly points out, it can even be "fun?" In reality, such an open debate is not always possible, so this is indeed the right forum to have this discussion

I really don't see the point of trying to ascertain credentials, as it does not add to, or remove from, the credibility of an argument. The facts should speak for themselves.

You suggest that I should speak to 'the professionals' about it. Well it is interesting to do that, and in fact I have. As in any other area of life, there is not a consensus. I happen to side with those JDs and PhDs who recognize the qualifications of a JD to TEACH political science at the undergraduate level, which has been the topic of this whole debate (though some have continued to miss that point). Of couse, if the research aspect is so important, we could start another thread on the similarities and differences between 'legal research' and 'social science research,' or what bearing academic research theoretically and practically has on the undergraduate education.

Believe it or not, I have found this discussion productive, save for the occassional fool who while seemingly foaming at the mouth finds it necessary to interject irrelevant and pesonal baggage. This has, and for those genuinely interested, can continue to help understand the 'other side's' argument; that, IMO, is the whole point. Thanks for your thoughts. As always, feel free to offer them as you like, or not.

Edited January 22, 2011 by SOG25

[GopherGrad]

You've been at this for seven pages and not convinced anyone.

By turn, when one has an idea that one considers "new and challenging" and a fair, fulsome airing of that idea convinces no one, it might be time to move on. Sometimes when the crowd passes over an idea, it's because the wrongness of the idea is self-evident. Not every roundly rejected musing is the work of a misunderstood genius.

Balderdash's analogy is perfect, although I'd take it further. A J.D. is like a mechanic and political science is the study of transportation. The vast majority of mechanics just fix cars without thinking about which bus routes are best or how to incentivize manufacturers to make greener vehicles. One can imagine transportation professionals interested in how cars function and being taught by a mechanic. One can imagine a mechanic going beyond the education of the average in his trade and thereby having something to contribute to some aspect of the debate or another. But suggesting that mechanics should be more broadly included in urban development or something ... well, it sounds kind of asinine.

To that end, you can continue to represent yourself as siding with "those" who think JDs can teach undergraduate polisci, but (allowing that most people seem to agree that some courses in law, which make up a tiny minority of polisci classes on offer, could be taught by a JD) I'm not sure who "those" are. You're the only one on your side of the net.

By the way, you should be aware that in now framing your questions as a matter only of teaching undergrad polisci, most of us think you've moved the goalposts pretty substantially without acknowledging it. In doing so, you're suggesting a job description (a teacher of exclusively undergrads for whom research is not central) that applies to many, many fewer positions. To some extent, we're no longer arguing about replacing Ph.D.s with J.D.s; we're talking about replacing grad students with J.D.s.

There is an obvious reason university departments don't hire J.D.s to teach Intro to American Politics: They have grad students doing it for free.

Edited January 22, 2011 by GopherGrad