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

[balderdash]

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.

This is a good point. The thread title refers to why there aren't "JDs in University Political Science Faculties." Well, the simple answer would be that no one on the faculty is there solely to teach undergraduate courses in poli sci. Everyone on the faculty is also expected to teach graduate students, run seminars, research, publish, and otherwise engage in the scholarly debate. Having substantial training in really just one of those areas is insufficient.

[SOG25]

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.

If you even look at the original post, I framed, consistently, the question only as a matter of teaching undergrad poli sci (sometimes even underlined or highlighted the point). It's simply a matter of paying close attention:

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

I think this was pretty clear.

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.

Well, then, isn't it strange that they are called professors, if they actually don't 'profess'? Shouldn't the actual title be researcher rather than professor, which implies (and has historically meant) teacher? I don't know any professors in law school who don't actually teach but delegate their job to someone else.

ETA: We're also not talking about "replacing" anyone but including qualified others for the actual job of professor.

Edited January 22, 2011 by SOG25

[UnlikelyGrad]

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.

Note from a moderator: If you don't hold off the name-calling, you're going to be banned.

Learn to discourse civilly or don't discourse at all.

[GopherGrad]

Well, then, isn't it strange that they are called professors, if they actually don't 'profess'?

They are not called professors. Every course I took in basic polisci, econ or methods was taught by someone titled "instructor" and taught by a grad student. You must be aware that grad students teach classes and aren't called professors, right? If you are, why obfuscate the debate with this?

If you even look at the original post, I framed, consistently, the question only as a matter of teaching undergrad poli sci (sometimes even underlined or highlighted the point). It's simply a matter of paying close attention:

Maybe you're right. But:

1) Saying that it's about teaching undergrads doesn't exclude research, especially considering that such a position that you describe isn't really even offered at university. To some extent, the first responses here were giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were talking about a university position that exists.

2) You haven't really responded to the point that your job description is held by a free labor force.

In any event, we come round to the same to the same conclusion. Universities don't hire J.D.s to teach undergrads because they would rather hire people qualified to teach a wider range of students and research a wider range of topics.

ETA: We're also not talking about "replacing" anyone but including qualified others for the actual job of professor.

Semantics, really. In the competition for the job of teaching PoliSci 101, the job will go to the grad student who teaches for a scholarship instead of hiring a brand new faculty member. It simply costs less.

[LACProf]

I'd just like to jump back in here to reiterate that many of us who "only" teach undergraduates are also expected to produce research so that we may both contribute to the scholarly conversation AND also be better teachers.

Edited January 22, 2011 by LACProf

[SOG25]

"They are not called professors. Every course I took in basic polisci, econ or methods was taught by someone titled 'instructor' and taught by a grad student. You must be aware that grad students teach classes and aren't called professors, right? If you are, why obfuscate the debate with this?"

HOLD up..wait a minute. Political science faculty who hold tenure at universities are not called professors? Not sure about that one, and I'd still like to know why faculty who hold the title of professor (as even their biographical profiles indicate), would spend time doing significantly anything else other than 'profess' a.k.a teach.

Some seem to take it for granted that all political science faculty consist of people who teach undergrads, graduate students, research, etc. In reality, not all political science programs have graduate programs. Most colleges do not. Still there, where there is no graduate program, only PhD faculty are hired to teach undergraduates.

Another point is that this seemingly new argument--that JDs aren't hired because of the availabity of grad 'instructors--sounds more like a cost-benefit rationale than a substantive preparation rationale (which some have been using to dispute the JD). Even with the grad student as professor model, is there some sort of evaluation to ensure that the instructor/TA or RA is really passionate or able to teach political science to undergrads? Wouldn't it be better to delegate that to someone, JD or PhD, who is prepared and passionate about the subject?

It sounds to me like this model dismisses the fact that undergraduates are there (and pay large sums of money) to learn from qualified and passionate professors, not some grad instructor (who in some cases doesn't even yet hold an MA) for the purpose of cost effectiveness. That seems to me a bit unethical.

Edited January 22, 2011 by SOG25

[LACProf]

It sounds to me like this model dismisses the fact that undergraduates are there (and pay large sums of money) to learn from qualified and passionate professors

At institutions like mine, they sure do, which is why we are damn sure to hire TT professors who hold a degree that provides rigorous grounding in an entire discipline and requires the production (and evaluation) of original scholarly research. To do otherwise would be to cheat our students out of their tuition dollars.

Edited January 22, 2011 by LACProf

[RWBG]

Wow, it's really quite difficult to check gradcafe without looking at this thread.

I agree with humanprovince that we should ignore this thread. Most people here aren't finding it fun, they're finding it aggravating, but can't bring themselves to stop engaging every time SOG posts something new that misses the point. However, while debating can be helpful in clarifying one's original perspective, that's only true if discussion happens on a substantive level. Right now, SOG has resorted to silly semantic arguments (seriously, no-one cares whether or not professor has "to profess" in their title), and to attacking straw mans of people's arguments, while consistently missing the point.

When I mentioned that public law in political science is a different subject than public law in law school, due to the degree of focus on case law, the response was simply:

"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.""

Totally ignoring the substance of my point. When I mentioned that JDs are qualitatively distinct degrees from regular graduate degrees, noting that there is not worldwide acceptance of them as graduate degrees, and that they generally imply fewer years of preparation in a subject than a Ph.D, given both the length of the JD and the fact that JDs need not enter the program from a cognate discipline, I was treated to:

"There’s really no need for me to be explaining any of this, so I only recommend you do more research."

While being told that I was "ignorant of a fact." This is not a productive discussion. Given that there is no-one on his "side" but him, it would be advisable that people stop wasting their time. Easier said than done though...

[SOG25]

At institutions like mine, they sure do, which is why we are damn sure to hire TT professors who hold a degree that provides rigorous grounding in an entire discipline and requires the production (and evaluation) of original scholarly research. To do otherwise would be to cheat our students out of their tuition dollars.

...and for some courses in the subfields of politial science, many JDs are TT professors. Many are also published, though I don't necessarily see the link beween publishing original scholarly research and teaching undergrads.

[SOG25]

Wow, it's really quite difficult to check gradcafe without looking at this thread.

I agree with humanprovince that we should ignore this thread. Most people here aren't finding it fun, they're finding it aggravating, but can't bring themselves to stop engaging every time SOG posts something new that misses the point. However, while debating can be helpful in clarifying one's original perspective, that's only true if discussion happens on a substantive level. Right now, SOG has resorted to silly semantic arguments (seriously, no-one cares whether or not professor has "to profess" in their title), and to attacking straw mans of people's arguments, while consistently missing the point.

When I mentioned that public law in political science is a different subject than public law in law school, due to the degree of focus on case law, the response was simply:

"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.""

Totally ignoring the substance of my point. When I mentioned that JDs are qualitatively distinct degrees from regular graduate degrees, noting that there is not worldwide acceptance of them as graduate degrees, and that they generally imply fewer years of preparation in a subject than a Ph.D, given both the length of the JD and the fact that JDs need not enter the program from a cognate discipline, I was treated to:

"There’s really no need for me to be explaining any of this, so I only recommend you do more research."

While being told that I was "ignorant of a fact." This is not a productive discussion. Given that there is no-one on his "side" but him, it would be advisable that people stop wasting their time. Easier said than done though...

C'mon, at least be accurate about the context. What you actually said was that JDs are UNDERGRADUATE degrees. Anyone can go back and see that. That is no 'straw man' in your argument my friend.

Edited January 22, 2011 by SOG25

[LACProf]

...and for some courses in the subfields of politial science, many JDs are TT professors. Many are also published, though I don't necessarily see the link beween publishing original scholarly research and teaching undergrads.

I'm procrastinating because I don't feel like grading. You say you care about undergraduate education? Let's look at some of the best liberal arts colleges...

Amherst College: https://www.amherst.edu/people/facstaff/adsarat Yes, he has a JD (from YALE), but he received that degree years after he earned his Ph.D. (Dr. Sarat has been at Amherst since finishing his Ph.D. in the 1970s).

Williams College: http://polisci.williams.edu/faculty/jec3 He holds his Ph.D. from Princeton and does not have a JD

Wellesley College: http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/Scherer/index.html She earned her Ph.D. after her JD and did not become a tenure-track professor UNTIL she had received her Ph.D.

Grinnell College: http://www.grinnell.edu/academic/polisci/faculty/hamlin She holds a Ph.D. and does not have a JD.

These are just some examples. There are many, many more.

[SOG25]

I'm procrastinating because I don't feel like grading. You say you care about undergraduate education? Let's look at some of the best liberal arts colleges...

Amherst College: https://www.amherst....acstaff/adsarat Yes, he has a JD (from YALE), but he received that degree years after he earned his Ph.D. (Dr. Sarat has been at Amherst since finishing his Ph.D. in the 1970s).

Williams College: http://polisci.willi...du/faculty/jec3 He holds his Ph.D. from Princeton and does not have a JD

Wellesley College: http://www.wellesley...erer/index.html She earned her Ph.D. after her JD and did not become a tenure-track professor UNTIL she had received her Ph.D.

Grinnell College: http://www.grinnell..../faculty/hamlin She holds a Ph.D. and does not have a JD.

These are just some examples. There are many, many more.

I do care about undergraduate education. What exactly is the point you're making in providing this list?

Edited January 22, 2011 by SOG25

[LACProf]

I do care about undergraduate education. What exactly is the point you're making in providing this list?

The best liberal arts college in this country--institutions that are devoted to providing a quality education to exceptional undergraduates--seem to believe (if we can take their hiring practices as an expression of their preferences) that professors who hold a Ph.D. are well suited to teach all aspects of political science, including public law.

[SOG25]

The best liberal arts college in this country--institutions that are devoted to providing a quality education to exceptional undergraduates--seem to believe (if we can take their hiring practices as an expression of their preferences) that professors who hold a Ph.D. are well suited to teach all aspects of political science, including public law.

And what is their rationale for their suitability to teach public law (particularly when they lack a JD)?

[LACProf]

And what is their rationale for their suitability to teach public law (particularly when they lack a JD)?

The fact that all the scholars I've listed have published some sort of original research (with leading presses or in leading journals) on various aspects of the law?

[GopherGrad]

HOLD up..wait a minute. Political science faculty who hold tenure at universities are not called professors?

Dude. People who teach PoliSci 1001 or Methods 201 at university are not usually tenured faculty. They weren't at my uni. Ever. The aggregate job description we're working with now (a tenured professor who only teaches intro courses to undergrads and is not expected to research) doesn't even exist.

This is really not a difficult point.

-J.D.s are not preferred for "professor" or "tenured faculty" jobs because those jobs largely require research, participation in conferences and/or teaching grad students or advanced undergraduate courses.

Law programs do not focus on many of the things that make Ph.D.s better candidates, like extremely deep historical knowledge, teacher training, research methods, and academic writing styles. Hiring committees see these skills as valuable, even if you don't, and will prefer candidates whose record might establish that they have them.

-J.D.s are not preferred for jobs whose ONLY duty is to teach undergrads because:

a ) you can have grad students do that for free, or

b ) you can easily add those classes to the portfolio of tenured professors who can also provide you with other services (like research or teaching grads).

-J.D.s are not preferred to teach courses even in legal topics because there are J.D.s who also have Ph.D.s and thus cover all the bases.

You're basically asking why universities don't hire extremely specialized faculty to take on a job any utility player in the department can do. Hell, most top tier law schools don't even hire straight-up J.D.s to teach. Teaching requires a Ph.D., LL.M. or an extremely distinguished practice career (and in those cases, you are generally an adjunct who teaches only in your specialty).

Given that there is no-one on his "side" but him, it would be advisable that people stop wasting their time. Easier said than done though...

At this point it's like gawking at a train wreck. If I wasn't procrastinating there's no way I'd be here.

[balderdash]

...

How come you haven't responded to my points? Everyone else gets a point by point rebuttal except for me?

I still think it's good that you're pouring yourself into this debate, but part of it is knowing when the game is up. Substantive answers have been given to all the points you have raised; answers of every type short of a formal model. At this point, your argument is becoming "but it's turtles all the way down!"

[SOG25]

Dude. People who teach PoliSci 1001 or Methods 201 at university are not usually tenured faculty. They weren't at my uni. Ever. The aggregate job description we're working with now (a tenured professor who only teaches intro courses to undergrads and is not expected to research) doesn't even exist.

This is really not a difficult point.

-J.D.s are not preferred for "professor" or "tenured faculty" jobs because those jobs largely require research, participation in conferences and/or teaching grad students or advanced undergraduate courses.

Perhaps they ought to since their clients, undergraduates, (who pay large sums of money for their instruction) expect they exist. To say you’re a professor signals that you teach (profess), and to mainly do other things, in practice, is simply false advertising. It’s more accurate to say you’re a researcher who mainly researches, attends conferences/conventions but also occasionally teaches, also not a difficult point.

Law programs do not focus on many of the things that make Ph.D.s better candidates, like extremely deep historical knowledge, teacher training, research methods, and academic writing styles. Hiring committees see these skills as valuable, even if you don't, and will prefer candidates whose record might establish that they have them.

Plenty of JDs who are interested in undergraduate political science have those skills, deep historical knowledge, teaching and public speaking ability, research and great academic writing. Even according to this criteria you say hiring committees look for, many PhDs would lack these skills (quite a few in fact are not good writers). Not sure why you think the PhD training guarantees or even produces some of these skills.

Many of the courses which JDs are qualified to teach are advanced courses, including again, constitutional law, administrative and regulatory state, international law, federalism, international organizations, etc. You also keep assuming that the college or university has grad students in the political science program. What is the justification for not primarily teaching when there is not a graduate program?

-J.D.s are not preferred for jobs whose ONLY duty is to teach undergrads because:

a ) you can have grad students do that for free, or

b ) you can easily add those classes to the portfolio of tenured professors who can also provide you with other services (like research or teaching grads).

“Not preferred” At least you’re now acknowledging it’s not because JDs lack the substantive background, as you at least seemed to be arguing before. BUT if the argument is now grad students can do that for free, even though the quality would be less, and cost effectiveness is a more important priority than educational quality, then clearly the university or college doesn’t care about undergraduate education. You here again are assuming the university or college needs professors to teach a graduate program.

-J.D.s are not preferred to teach courses even in legal topics because there are J.D.s who also have Ph.D.s and thus cover all the bases.

And which of their graduate programs (JD or PhD) do they draw knowledge from to teach such courses? How does having the PhD make them more qualified to teach public law than a pure JD?

. Hell, most top tier law schools don't even hire straight-up J.D.s to teach. Teaching requires a Ph.D., LL.M. or an extremely distinguished practice career (and in those cases, you are generally an adjunct who teaches only in your specialty).

Really!? Because most of the law professors still seem to be only pure JDs, particularly at the top tier law schools. Moreover, lots of LLM programs are taught by the same pure JD faculty. You also seem to think that an LLM is a ‘higher’ law degree than a JD, when in fact it is more of a specialty (e.g. tax law, international law, international and comparative law or constitutional history). As I stated before, if the LLM were higher why do you have JD students in the same class as LLM students? You certainly don’t have undergrads in the same class as a grad student. No, more faculty in law school go for the LLMs and PhDs because of other factors such as personal interest and simply a desire to set themselves apart from the competition. This does not imply that “teaching requires a PhD or LLM”; it does not.

At this point it's like gawking at a train wreck. If I wasn't procrastinating there's no way I'd be here.

It could also be because you recognize the truth of these arguments, as hard as it may be to admit it.

Edited January 22, 2011 by SOG25

[SOG25]

The fact that all the scholars I've listed have published some sort of original research (with leading presses or in leading journals) on various aspects of the law?

So let me go ahead and ask. In your view, does this make them more qualified as teachers of public law than Doctors of Jurisprudence?

[LACProf]

So let me go ahead and ask. In your view, does this make them more qualified as teachers of public law than Doctors of Jurisprudence?

If we're talking about 99.99999...% of JDs versus PhDs, without question (assuming that we're defining public law as the theoretical and empirical study of the interaction of law, courts, etc. with other political institutions).

Edited January 22, 2011 by LACProf

[GopherGrad]

To say you’re a professor who does mostly other things but profess is simply false advertising.

Who said the professors don't teach? Are you even reading the things you're trying to rebut? I asked a while back if you'd studied law. Now I'm not sure you've even been to university.

Plenty of JDs who are interested in undergraduate political science have those skills, deep historical knowledge, teaching and public speaking ability, research and great academic writing. Even according to thiscriteria you say hiring committees look for, many PhDs would lack these skills (quite a few in fact are not good writers). Not sure you think the PhD training guarantees or even produces some of these skills.

I didn't say they don't have them. I didn't say a J.D. could not. For something that gets so uppity about others getting your argument wrong, you sure don't pay much attention to anyone else's.

People who are trained are more likely to have skills. I know you disagree, so there is no need to repeat yourself.

Further, it is a lot about demonstrating those skills. I know some home cooks that would blast the average culinary school graduate out of the water, but if I'm opening a restaurant I'm going to hire the trained chef.

“Not preferred” At least you’re now acknowledging it’s not because JDs lack the substantive background, as you at least seemed to be arguing before. BUT if the argument is now grad students can do that for free, even though the quality would be less, and cost effectiveness is a more important priority than educational quality, then clearly the university or college doesn’t care about undergraduate education. You here again are assuming the university or college needs professors to teach a graduate program.

You mis-state my argument again.

Why would the quality be less? Why do you get to assume that J.D.s would do a better job than grad students when the whole premise of your argument is not to assume who has skills.

Universities need people to teach graduates and advise them. It's part of being a professor. Colleges may not, but you specifically asked about universities (I know you're a stickler for people only responding to your specific arguments).

Oh? And which of their graduate programs (JD or PhD) do they draw knowledge from to teach such courses? How does having the PhD make them more qualified to teach public law than a pure JD?

Yes.

Both.

Because they can draw from both.

Really!? Because most of the law professors still seem to be only pure JDs, particularly at the top tier law schools.

Really.

http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/faculty.htm

That is the link to Yale's law school faculty.

Every single professor with tenure has an advanced degree besides the JD.

Look for yourself. The only people lacking them are clinical and visiting faculty. Tenure at a top tier law school requires more education than a JD. Period.

You also seem to think that an LLM is a ‘higher’ law degree than a JD, when in fact it is more of a specialty (e.g. tax law, international law, international and comparative law or constitutional history).

I said no such thing. You are putting words in my mouth again.

I know exactly what an LLM is. I have one. It is both more specialized and more advanced. LLM students almost always sit in on lectures with JD students. They are graded on a different curve and produce different work product. Regardless of whether it it more advanced, I point to the LLM requirement to establish that a JD offers insufficient opportunity to specialize even to teach law.

You certainly don’t have undergrads in the same class as a grad student.

This is untrue. I took undergrad courses and a JD, graduate courses as an undergrad and had graduate students in my undergrad and JD courses.

No, more faculty in law school go for the LLMs and PhDs because of other factors such as personal interest and simply a desire to set themselves apart from the competition.

If you understand that an LLM or PhD "sets you apart from the competition", how on earth do you not understand why a JD/PhD is a more attractive candidate than a straight JD? It's mid boggling.

[SOG25]

How come you haven't responded to my points? Everyone else gets a point by point rebuttal except for me?

I still think it's good that you're pouring yourself into this debate, but part of it is knowing when the game is up. Substantive answers have been given to all the points you have raised; answers of every type short of a formal model. At this point, your argument is becoming "but it's turtles all the way down!"

I have answered the points you raised in my response. Certainly wouldn't leave you out of the discussion. If you think you've found a point that dimisses my argument please feel free to raise it.

"but it's turtles all the way down"

?!?

[SOG25]

If we're talking about 99.99999...% of JDs versus PhDs, without question (assuming that we're defining public law as the theoretical and empirical study of the interaction of law, courts, etc. with other political institutions).

Let me define it more clearly for you. Are PhDs or JDs more qualified to teach public law courses taught in most political science departments? The Public Law courses include the following:

Intro to American Law

Administrative Law

Federalism

Constitutional Law

International Law

[GopherGrad]

It could also be because you recognize the truth of these arguments, as hard as it may be to admit it.

Look, sport, you asked an interesting question about the academic intersection between law and political science.

You've had weigh in now from dozens of people including current and prospective political science Ph.D. candidates, faculty in political science, and lawyers. Absolutely everyone agrees with each other totally except you.

Maybe you're the one having a hard time admitting you're wrong?

Even if you really are a unique snowflake with an amazing new idea, you have failed utterly to communicate it to the most natural and receptive audience you could imagine. Under any circumstances, it's time to get back to the drawing board on this one.

[catchermiscount]

Why on Earth is this still going on?