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

[GopherGrad]

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

At least 80% of JDs couldn't properly define Federalism the day they leave law school.

You might have a point about "Intro to American Law", depending on what the course teaches. I'm not sure why a polisci Ph.D. would want to know the elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, though.

[GopherGrad]

Why on Earth is this still going on?

Because my life is an empty shell of what it was before I got my JD.

[SOG25]

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.

The feeling is mutual because you don't even seem to know what you said or what I am saying. Read your own comments and mine more carefully.

[coqui21]

The feeling is mutual because you don't even seem to know what you said or what I am saying. Read your own comments and mine more carefully.

Diversion: the final mode of retreat?

[balderdash]

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" ?!?

I must have missed it then.

The turtles quotation comes from a famous exchange between Bertrand Russell and an old woman who asserted that the earth was flat and rested on the back of a tortoise. Russell responded by asking what the tortoise was standing on. The old lady replied, "you're very clever, young man, very clever. But it's turtles all the way down!" It's a joking expression for when one dogmatically asserts what essentially turns into an infinite regress.

In this debate, you're claiming that JDs have the same proficiencies as do PhDs, or at least a comparable set that should allow them to take up faculty positions to teach political science. When many posters have picked at the assumptions and implications of your argument, you've gone further into definitions. They've responded by digging deeper, you retort by digging deeper still. Eventually, you both get into the minutiae to the point where the original topic was lost, and nothing has been solved because you've dodged the original criticism. In essence, you're on an infinite regress where you might just as well have said, but it's turtles all the way down!

[SOG25]

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.

Well, again, I agree that there are some courses the J.D. could teach. In my department, we have just over 100 undergrad courses on the books. If I really stretched it, there are 20 that I probably could teach. There are about 10-12 that I am very comfortable teaching. Depending on the breadth of the person's training, it looks like there are as many as 8-10 that a J.D. could teach, and 4-5 that most J.D.s should be able to teach. So, consistent with my earlier claim, I'd say the J.D. can teach something in the neighborhood of 5-10% of what my department offers. And, for what it's worth, we bring in some J.D.s to teach some of those courses.

Again...pay close attention, sport.

[SOG25]

I must have missed it then.

The turtles quotation comes from a famous exchange between Bertrand Russell and an old woman who asserted that the earth was flat and rested on the back of a tortoise. Russell responded by asking what the tortoise was standing on. The old lady replied, "you're very clever, young man, very clever. But it's turtles all the way down!" It's a joking expression for when one dogmatically asserts what essentially turns into an infinite regress.

In this debate, you're claiming that JDs have the same proficiencies as do PhDs, or at least a comparable set that should allow them to take up faculty positions to teach political science. When many posters have picked at the assumptions and implications of your argument, you've gone further into definitions. They've responded by digging deeper, you retort by digging deeper still. Eventually, you both get into the minutiae to the point where the original topic was lost, and nothing has been solved because you've dodged the original criticism. In essence, you're on an infinite regress where you might just as well have said, but it's turtles all the way down!

that all sounds nice, but still an inaccurate description of the way this debate has gone. Half the time some of you didn't even realize, despite the evidence, that this is about undergraduate education. Focusing on legal vs. academic research when the whole thread is about teaching qualifications seems more like the infinite regress to me, Balderdash.

Edited January 22, 2011 by SOG25

[LACProf]

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

OK, I grant that I'm not familiar with the curriculum of EVERY college or university in the land (and I really don't feel like looking it up), but none of the ones I am familiar with even have classes like "intro to american law," "administrative law" or "international law" (I'm assuming these courses are based largely on the study of cases).

I should forward this to my lawyer friends who pick up adjuncting gigs every now and again--I'm sure they'd get a total kick out of it.

Edited January 22, 2011 by LACProf

[SOG25]

OK, I grant that I'm not familiar with the curriculum of EVERY college or university in the land (and I really don't feel like looking it up), but none of the ones I am familiar with even have classes like "intro to american law," "administrative law" or "international law" (I'm assuming these courses are based largely on the study of cases).

Fair enough. It also means you simply make arguments against JDs as professors without knowing much about the subfield of public law, American institutions or about the nature of law school education in general. Hopefully, the lawyer friends you call are actually interested in teaching undergraduate political science, otherwise you miss the whole point.

Edited January 22, 2011 by SOG25

[balderdash]

that all sounds nice, but still an inaccurate description of the way this debate has gone. Half the time some of you didn't even realize, despite the evidence, that this is about undergraduate education. Focusing on legal vs. academic research when the whole thread is about teaching qualifications seems more like the infinite regress to me, Balderdash.

Well, you're the one that framed the debate by the title - "in University Political Science Faculties." Nothing about teaching specifically undergraduates there.

When challenged on the point, you retreated to the teaching aspect. You were then challenged on the fact that most professors give greater value for money in that they can teach undergraduates as well as serve other purposes, ie research. Then you narrowed it further to places where education is the main purpose of the department (which, by the way, LACProf has pointed out not to exist). This too was rebutted by those who showed that should such a place exist, it is sure to hire grad students to teach these courses, as they're cheaper, and fill the gaps with PhDs who are still better value for money for their range of specialities.

I'm not sure where you still see a hole in the opposition to your claim. Do you refer to institutions focusing on both teaching and research? If yes, PhDs are obviously better for their research training. If no, next question. Do you mean anything beyond Public Law? If yes, then PhDs are better for the same reason as above. If no, then PhDs are still better for their range of subjects.

So I'd say I have it about right with the analogy, actually.

By the way, I went to a school with a top-10 poli sci department. We had exactly zero law classes. I took one course titled Institutional Development of the Congress and Presidency. It was taught by a PhD, as it charted institutional change over the long duree, public pressures to existing legal principles, the use of extralegal powers by political actors, et cetera.

[SOG25]

Well, you're the one that framed the debate by the title - "in University Political Science Faculties." Nothing about teaching specifically undergraduates there.

When challenged on the point, you retreated to the teaching aspect. You were then challenged on the fact that most professors give greater value for money in that they can teach undergraduates as well as serve other purposes, ie research. Then you narrowed it further to places where education is the main purpose of the department (which, by the way, LACProf has pointed out not to exist). This too was rebutted by those who showed that should such a place exist, it is sure to hire grad students to teach these courses, as they're cheaper, and fill the gaps with PhDs who are still better value for money for their range of specialities.

I'm not sure where you still see a hole in the opposition to your claim. Do you refer to institutions focusing on both teaching and research? If yes, PhDs are obviously better for their research training. If no, next question. Do you mean anything beyond Public Law? If yes, then PhDs are better for the same reason as above. If no, then PhDs are still better for their range of subjects.

So I'd say I have it about right with the analogy, actually.

By the way, I went to a school with a top-10 poli sci department. We had exactly zero law classes. I took one course titled Institutional Development of the Congress and Presidency. It was taught by a PhD, as it charted institutional change over the long duree, public pressures to existing legal principles, the use of extralegal powers by political actors, et cetera.

You can say I narrowed it down all you want. The evidence is clearly there since the beginning where, as I've shown, this has always been clarified as concerning teaching undergraduates. For most of the debate most of you have argued that JDs don't have the substantive preparation to teach political science, referencing the fact that JDs take disparate and other unrelated (to poli sci) courses. It's fine to retreat from the argument now, but it's another thing to say those arguments weren't made.

Edited January 22, 2011 by SOG25

[LACProf]

Fair enough. It also means you simply make arguments against JDs as professors without knowing much about the subfield of public law, American institutions or about the nature of law school education in general. Hopefully, the lawyer friends you call are actually interested in teaching undergraduate political science, otherwise you miss the whole point.

In my posts from my earlier appearance in this rather Sisyphean affair, I discussed some of the major theories of American institutions, so I'm pretty sure that I understand them, thanks much. I don't know the intricacies of law school education, but never claimed I did. However, you have presented absolutely no specific evidence in this thread that proves that a law school education makes one as qualified as a Ph.D. in these areas. Others who have experience with law school have added evidence that meshes with the testimonial evidence I have obtained from friends who practice law and students in law school and suggests that the law school curriculum does not adequately prepare 99.9999...% of those who complete it to be a TT professor.

By the way, I have been searching liberal arts college websites looking for the types of courses (esp. in administrative law and international law) you have cited as being a 'regular' part of the political science curriculum and I haven't found a single institution that offers said courses regularly (I suppose some places might offer them as a topics course, but the catalogs have limited information on those courses). This isn't to say that there aren't college that do offer such courses, but I don't think you can claim that such courses are taught in "most" political science departments, particularly political science departments at institutions that serve undergraduates.

Edited January 22, 2011 by LACProf

[SOG25]

At least 80% of JDs couldn't properly define Federalism the day they leave law school.

You might have a point about "Intro to American Law", depending on what the course teaches. I'm not sure why a polisci Ph.D. would want to know the elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, though.

And you get your stats from where?

[SOG25]

In my posts from my earlier appearance in this rather Sisyphean affair, I discussed some of the major theories of American institutions, so I'm pretty sure that I understand them, thanks much. I don't know the intricacies of law school education, but never claimed I did. However, you have presented absolutely no specific evidence in this thread that proves that a law school education makes one as qualified as a Ph.D. in these areas. Others who have experience with law school have added evidence that meshes with the testimonial evidence I have obtained from friends who practice law and students in law school and suggests that the law school curriculum does not adequately prepare 99.9999... of those who complete it to be a TT professor.

By the way, I have been searching liberal arts college websites looking for the types of courses (esp. in administrative law and international law) you have cited as being a "regular" part of the political science curriculum and I haven't found a single institution that offers said courses regularly (I suppose some places might offer them as a topics course, but the catalogs have limited information on those courses). This isn't to say that there aren't college that do offer such courses, but I don't think you can claim that such courses are taught in "most" political science departments, particularly political science departments at institutions that serve undergraduates.

Correction: You merely referred to some of the major theories a PhD in American politics would learn; I don't recall you discussing them, except for where they are used. I also think you said you're not comfortable speaking for American politics scholars, since your area is political theory.

"...But I don't think you can claim that such courses are taught in "most" political science departments, particularly political science departments at institutions that serve undergraduates."

That only goes to my argument. You need JDs to teach these courses which are in fact political science courses.

Edited January 22, 2011 by SOG25

[LACProf]

Correction: You merely referred to some of the major theories a PhD in American politics would learn; I don't recall you discussing them, except for where they are used. I also think you said you're not comfortable speaking for American politics scholars, since your area is political theory.

I said I was not comfortable speaking for all American politics scholars as a professional courtesy and in deference to any of my colleagues in American politics who might read this discussion. However, like many political theorists, I also took qualifying exams in American politics and have taught American politics courses. As for the theories, fine, I named them and briefly suggested how some might work together and be useful, but I did not discuss them in extended detail.

That only goes to my argument. You need JDs to teach these courses which are in fact political science courses.

So your contention is that political scientists--who consistently hire PhDs over JDs and do not regularly offer the type of courses that you feel are indeed political science courses--do not understand their own discipline?

Edited January 22, 2011 by LACProf

[SOG25]

So your contention is that political scientists--who consistently hire PhDs over JDs and do not regularly offer the type of courses that you feel are indeed political science courses--do not understand their own discipline?

Though that is not my contention, you seem to have implied or indicated that not all PhDs are familiar with, at least, the political science subfield of public law.

I would only fault you for that when you insist on arguing against the merit of a JD, while, at the same time, you simply don't know enough about a JD or the courses s/he can teach (most of which are public law and american institutions courses).

Edited January 22, 2011 by SOG25

[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...

[SOG25]

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

[wtncffts]

A few not so substantive comments:

This isn't so much 'Sisyphean', as that would imply we've moved the stone up the mountain only to have it fall back again. This is more an 'immovable object' situation...

SOG25, as has been pointed out, your whole argument about the meaning of 'professor' is just silly. It's simply a title used to denote someone on a college/university faculty and has nothing necessarily to do with teaching. Emeritus professors, for instance, obviously do not teach but are not stripped of their 'rank'. On the other hand, my experience differs from GopherGrad's; every school I've attended has had tenured faculty teaching the intro courses, though not exclusively. Maybe it's a Canada/US thing, I don't know. In fact, the only time I've seen grad students teach a course on their own has been 'special topics' or upper-level undergrad courses. This brings to mind what a professor once told me, and that is that teaching intro courses is actually a lot harder in some ways than advanced courses because the material is so broad and wide-ranging, if more elementary. You really have to know your stuff. Actually, given the dearth of public law in undergrad as LACprof notes, one place where a JD could teach a poli sci course is at the graduate level. I'm sure poli sci grad students could benefit from some exposure to the rigorous study of legal institutions. Even then, though, we could just pull from the law school and not dedicate a faculty position within poli sci just for this.

I understand the mechanic/urban planning analogy, though it should be noted that, at least in the US, 'mechanics' fully run one branch of the 'planning' structure and are overwhelmingly represented in the other branches. In fact, a 'mechanic' is President of the planning board right now. I'm not sure what the previous occupant was...

And lastly, PhDs already know about Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. It's called graduate school.

[GopherGrad]

I would only fault you for that when you insist on arguing against the merit of a JD, while, at the same time, you simply don't know enough about a JD or the courses s/he can teach (most of which are public law and american institutions courses).

Oh, so you'd trust an attorney on that score?

It's called graduate school.

Rim-shot!!

Edited January 22, 2011 by GopherGrad

[LACProf]

Though that is not my contention, you seem to have implied or indicated that not all PhDs are familiar with, at least, the political science subfield of public law.

I would only fault you for that when you insist on arguing against the merit of a JD, while, at the same time, you simply don't know enough about a JD or the courses s/he can teach (most of which are public law and american institutions courses).

The fact remains that the academy, in its collective wisdom, believes (in most cases) that candidates who wish to attain full time, tenure-track employment in political science departments at research universities and good liberal arts colleges as professors who teach American politics (institutions, APD, behavior, whatever) or public law (including, but not limited to, the study of the political-sociological effects of law in American politics and culture; how law affects the interaction among different institutions; how law protects liberty and provides for justice; how appointments to judicial offices are made; the effects of criminal laws and punishment on political access and participation; etc., etc.) need to have a Ph.D., not a JD. Leave me as an individual aside--are you saying the collective wisdom of the academy is incorrect?

[SOG25]

A few not so substantive comments:

This isn't so much 'Sisyphean', as that would imply we've moved the stone up the mountain only to have it fall back again. This is more an 'immovable object' situation...

SOG25, as has been pointed out, your whole argument about the meaning of 'professor' is just silly. It's simply a title used to denote someone on a college/university faculty and has nothing necessarily to do with teaching. Emeritus professors, for instance, obviously do not teach but are not stripped of their 'rank'. On the other hand, my experience differs from GopherGrad's; every school I've attended has had tenured faculty teaching the intro courses, though not exclusively. Maybe it's a Canada/US thing, I don't know. In fact, the only time I've seen grad students teach a course on their own has been 'special topics' or upper-level undergrad courses. This brings to mind what a professor once told me, and that is that teaching intro courses is actually a lot harder in some ways than advanced courses because the material is so broad and wide-ranging, if more elementary. You really have to know your stuff. Actually, given the dearth of public law in undergrad as LACprof notes, one place where a JD could teach a poli sci course is at the graduate level. I'm sure poli sci grad students could benefit from some exposure to the rigorous study of legal institutions. Even then, though, we could just pull from the law school and not dedicate a faculty position within poli sci just for this.

I understand the mechanic/urban planning analogy, though it should be noted that, at least in the US, 'mechanics' fully run one branch of the 'planning' structure and are overwhelmingly represented in the other branches. In fact, a 'mechanic' is President of the planning board right now. I'm not sure what the previous occupant was...

And lastly, PhDs already know about Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. It's called graduate school.

For the most part, wtncffts, I've found your arguments reasonable. I don't think it's reasonable (frankly silly) to suggest, however, that words have no meaning. Professor means just that, one who professes/teaches. Emeritus Professor indicates one is a retired professor (no longer teaching).

Yes, JDs should also and do teach at the graduate level in Law School (a specialization area). I don't suggest they should teach at the graduate level in political science outside law, because graduate school is more about specialization and research, and PhDs who are familiar with the research methods and theories of other specilizations will be more appropraite for students seeking the research methods and approaches of those specializations. Graduates interested in learning the legal research and education in law will go to law school.

Edited January 22, 2011 by SOG25

[SOG25]

The fact remains that the academy, in its collective wisdom, believes (in most cases) that candidates who wish to attain full time, tenure-track employment in political science departments at research universities and good liberal arts colleges as professors who teach American politics (institutions, APD, behavior, whatever) or public law (including, but not limited to, the study of the political-sociological effects of law in American politics and culture; how law affects the interaction among different institutions; how law protects liberty and provides for justice; how appointments to judicial offices are made; the effects of criminal laws and punishment on political access and participation; etc., etc.) need to have a Ph.D., not a JD. Leave me as an individual aside--are you saying the collective wisdom of the academy is incorrect?

First, are you sure it's the collective wisdom (what are you basing that on)? Clearly not even all PhDs would agree with your views on the JD. Even if it is the 'collective wisdom', if the "collective wisdom" says someone else--other than one who has studied law and earned a JD--is better qualified to teach law or law-related courses, aboslutely I would say YES; it is wrong. In such a case, the collective wisdom is WRONG.

Edited January 22, 2011 by SOG25

[coqui21]

Fair enough.

I think a consensus has been reached. JD's are probably qualified for imagined PS faculty positions that do not exist (teaching undergrads, no grads, no research), teaching a small handful of peripheral courses that are hardly a staple of most political science programs.

Good job SOG25, you win.

[LACProf]

First, are you sure it's the collective wisdom (what are you basing that on)?

Well, I have spent some of my afternoon looking at the websites of good liberal arts colleges and other types of schools so that I can examine the degrees held by their tenure-track faculty. In the vast, vast number of cases (I'm pretty sure the finding is easily statistically significant, though I don't have SPSS on this computer) those faculty hold a Ph.D. In some cases they also hold a JD, but as far as I can tell, these individuals weren't hired until they earned their Ph.D. There's also the fact that virtually all advertisements for jobs in political science express a preference for the Ph.D. I think that if the collective wisdom of the academy was that JDs were as adequate as Ph.Ds, then the ads would be more inviting and we might see more JDs in tenure-track positions (though there's always that possibility that JDs would turn down such positions because of salary disparities).

In such a case, the collective wisdom is WRONG.

Ah, this represents an advance in the discussion. On what specific grounds is it wrong? In answering this question you will need to explain what you feel the total scope of the discipline of political science should, in your opinion, contain.

Edited January 22, 2011 by LACProf