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

[cogneuroforfun]

I'm sure there are more, but even just this list, at least to me, is pretty significant argument as to why JDs should be on poli sci faculty at the undergraduat level.

Why would a poli sci department want to pay a JD to teach those courses when JDs would cost more, have less training in terms of time, have less applicable training, and cannot carry out as many functions as a poli sci PhD (research, graduate training, etc.)? You're basically saying that poli sci departments should hire JDs as adjuncts, except even an ABD or PhD poli sci adjunct would be better suited in terms of training and cost far less.

Why don't practicing physician MDs teach intro biology courses? Even if a physician had basic knowledge of the material, they would likely do a worse job as an instructor (less training in biology and less training in teaching than any biology PhD would get), cost much more, and provide no benefits to the department besides teaching that undergraduate course (no research, no graduate training, etc.).

So again, tons of people have told you exactly why political science departments do not usually hire JDs to faculty positions, and you've provided no counter-arguments as to why they should beyond "the only thing they could do is teach a few courses at exorbitant cost."

Tell me why law schools should not hire English PhDs to do writing-based courses, communications PhDs to do clinics, and political science PhDs to do all the rest of the courses? I don't think you ever really responded to this. If they did this, the costs of running the law school would drop dramatically, and these savings could be passed on to all the JD students in the form of drastically reduced tuition. Even just replace the instructors for all those theory courses that JDs take that give them such good training to be a political science professor, and the savings would be huge. There's a huge glut of PhDs on the market, so any opening would get hundreds of applications, allowing law schools to pick the best and the brightest and set salaries at a reasonable level (even ~$50,000 would look great to many fresh English or poli sci PhDs).

[rsldonk]

OK, let's try a different approach. Which political science courses would you say a JD cannot teach and why? As I have evaluated it, there are few staple courses in most political science depts that a JD would not have the substantive background to teach. Furthermore, I concede that those who have speciliazed in an LLM, such as international law, may have a greater repetoire of courses they are able to teach (including IR courses).

Here is a list of the staple courses I know a JD can teach:

1. American Government

2. Constitutional Law/ Constitutional History

3. State and Local Government

4. International Law (this would also go under the subfield of IR)

5. International Organizations

6. Administrative Law

7. Federalism

8. Ethics and Policy

9. Intro to Public Poicy or American Public Policy

10. Intro to American Law

11. Political Philosophy

12. Law and Politics

I'm sure there are more, but even just this list, at least to me, is pretty significant argument as to why JDs should be on poli sci faculty at the undergraduat level.

You want a LAWYER teaching ethics?

Now I know you're smoking crack.

[catchermiscount]

For what it's worth, those of you that will be TAing next year need to work on your troll-control skills if you hope to own discussion section.

When in doubt: ignore.

[SOG25]

I'll play, I guess.

Political Philosophy.

I don't think any part of earning a JD would or could qualify a person to teach political philosophy. There are no courses in most legal programs that deal substantively with political philosophy. Knowledge of political philosophy would have to be gleaned almost entirely outside of the JD curriculum.

Of the T20, Harvard has the largest class, largest faculty and largest selection of courses. Here is a link to Harvard's course catalog:

http://www.law.harva...courses/2010-11

Using this link or any other catalog, please name courses which are actually taught at law schools which would qualify a JD holder to teach political philosophy to undergrads. Please link to descriptions of those courses. Make an argument based on what is taught in your cited course and describe the content of the course you propose the JD would teach.

If you would like, I would be willing to do the same for Harvard's KSG, highlighting courses in political philosophy that would lead to great enough knowledge to teach at the undergrad level.

I thought it's funny, Gopher Grad, that the first faculty member I looked at, in the link you provided earlier, is listed as a professor of 'law and political science.' Clearly, even Yale seems to support my argument: http://www.law.yale....y/BAckerman.htm

Now, since I know you won't agree with my perspective that the study of law is steeped in lots of philosophical discussions that are helpful in teaching a political philosophy course, let me grant that you're right about the political philosophy course (though many JDs will disagree). However, do you realize that you've just admitted that JDs have the substantive preparation to teach at least 11 common political science courses, several of which are law-related courses which "grad instructors' or PhDs do not receive the training to teach? .

Edited January 27, 2011 by SOG25

[wtncffts]

I thought it's funny, Gopher Grad, that the first faculty member I looked at, in the link you provided earlier, is listed as a professor of 'law and political science.' Clearly, even Yale seems to support my argument: http://www.law.yale....y/BAckerman.htm

Now, since I know you won't agree with my perspective that the study of law is steeped in lots of philosophical discussions that are helpful in teaching a political philosophy course, let me grant that you're right about the political philosophy course (though many JDs will disagree). However, do you realize that you've just admitted that JDs have the substantive preparation to teach at least 11 common political science courses, several of which are law-related courses which "grad instructors' or PhDs do not receive the training to teach? .

The first point: no, look at the poli sci faculty page: http://www.yale.edu/polisci/faculty/index.html . The only faculty member with a law degree as their highest degree is Ackerman, and that was actually an LL.B. in 1967.

Second point: I'm assuming GopherGrad wasn't conceding that the other eleven were exceptions, but only speaking to one of your examples. None of us has the time to go through each one. And I'd be grateful if you could find real instances of such "common political science courses" as Administrative Law.

As for American Government, I go back to my earlier anecdote about TAing for such a course. As I said, we spent perhaps three or four weeks of a full-year course on topics in a JD's wheelhouse, and even then the discussion wasn't exclusively law-focused. Can you point to something on that list of Harvard law courses, or a similar source, which necessitates law student engagement with the literature on political parties, party systems, partisanship, electoral realignment, American political culture, participation, voting behavior, interest groups, media... I could go on.

[SOG25]

The first point: no, look at the poli sci faculty page: http://www.yale.edu/...ulty/index.html . The only faculty member with a law degree as their highest degree is Ackerman, and that was actually an LL.B. in 1967.

How does this dispute my argument that someone with a law degree (JD or LLB) has the substantive preparation to teach political science as a faculty member? Yale clearly recognized that someone with legal training is qualified to teach political sciences courses on faculty. Moreover, Ackerman, if you take a look at his CV, shows that JDs can and do publish as well.

Also, I realize that some might be confused by the fact that Yale used to refer to their law degree as LLB. The degree and education, however, was not and has never been ‘undergraduate.

Second point: I'm assuming GopherGrad wasn't conceding that the other eleven were exceptions, but only speaking to one of your examples. None of us has the time to go through each one. And I'd be grateful if you could find real instances of such "common political science courses" as Administrative Law.

Why assume for GopherGrad? He specifically responded to a specific question about which political science courses a JD could not teach. I think the response was pretty clear. Administrative Law is certainly increasingly common in political science, and covers primarily the administrative state. If a program does not offer Administrative Law, specifically, the same material would be covered in a course on the bureaucracy, regardless of what it is called.

As for American Government, I go back to my earlier anecdote about TAing for such a course. As I said, we spent perhaps three or four weeks of a full-year course on topics in a JD's wheelhouse, and even then the discussion wasn't exclusively law-focused. Can you point to something on that list of Harvard law courses, or a similar source, which necessitates law student engagement with the literature on political parties, party systems, partisanship, electoral realignment, American political culture, participation, voting behavior, interest groups, media... I could go on.

Again, when you say things like “the course wasn’t exclusively law-focused,” one must assume you don’t really know what is discussed in law courses. Even using Administrative Law as an example, do you realize that such a course will discuss topics such as ‘iron-triangle’, describing the relationship between interest groups, congressional committees and administrative agencies? Studying law through the case law approach or the Socratic method is not simply about learning legal jargon or holdings in a case. You actually learn the material regarding all the topics you mentioned in various courses and understanding the case law. In your TAing experience, you weren’t nearly as prepared as a JD to teach the legal topics of the American government course, as that was not your specialty. But I’m sure such a deficit did not disqualify you to teach the course. Similarly, why would a lack of specialty in the other areas you mention disqualify a JD from teaching such courses?

Edited January 27, 2011 by SOG25

[SOG25]

Can you point to something on that list of Harvard law courses, or a similar source, which necessitates law student engagement with the literature on political parties, party systems, partisanship, electoral realignment, American political culture, participation, voting behavior, interest groups, media... I could go on.

Here you go :

http://www.law.harva...010-11/?id=9060

and for political philosophy:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/courses/2010-11/?id=8336

Edited January 27, 2011 by SOG25

[GopherGrad]

Again, when you say things like “the course wasn’t exclusively law-focused,” one must assume you don’t really know what is discussed in law courses.

See, when you make the debate about the substance of law courses, I'm inclined again to point out that you've never taken one. You said that plenty of JDs would disagree with my characterization of legal courses being mostly practical. If you can find one, let me know and I'll talk to him. You seem to base your intuition on legal coursework from watching The Paper Chase.

Bruce Ackerman is not a tenured political science professor. He holds an office there by courtesy because he is one of the most thundering giants of Constitutional scholarship and litigation living in America today.

If your argument is that someone like Bruce Ackerman is qualified and attractive to polisci departments to teach a ConLaw course here and there, you have the field. Congratulations.

But law schools currently graduate 45,000 new lawyers a year. Very few are like Ackerman. We have all happily admitted that someone with only a JD and some other amazing, off-the-charts experience would make a great addition to polisci faculty. Your original question, after all, is why faculty are MOSTLY Ph.D.s. The half-dozen Bruce Ackermans in the world wouldn't tip the balances (in fact, those people are probably all on the balance already).

However, do you realize that you've just admitted that JDs have the substantive preparation to teach at least 11 common political science courses

Hardly. wtn is right; I'm having some fun with this, but hardly enough to list every objection, only to have you switch the goalpost from "qualified" to "competitive"* and back again. There are a couple on your list that make sense to me (International Law), but some of them don't even sound like polisci courses (Federalism? How many departments have undergrad courses specifically in American Federalism?)

*Depending upon which of these you actually want to talk about, you'll get vastly different responses.

For what it's worth, those of you that will be TAing next year need to work on your troll-control skills if you hope to own discussion section.

I'm happily able to keep my time-wasting internet personality fully segregated from my work self. Except when I post at work.

[balderdash]

x

[GopherGrad]

and for political philosophy:

http://www.law.harva...010-11/?id=8336

Oh, FFS. A two-credit seminar? That's it?

So. On one hand, you've got a Harvard lawyer that could make six figures doing just about anything related to law and he's taken two credits of political philosophy.

On the other, you've got a Ph.D. who's highest paying job offer will probably be teaching and who has spent six years studying political philosophy.

And you seriously have to ask why MOST people on polisci faculty are Ph.D.s?

Edited January 27, 2011 by GopherGrad

[GopherGrad]

Blew. My. Mind.

[balderdash]

Blew. My. Mind.

Just goes to show, you can't argue with facts.

[SOG25]

See, when you make the debate about the substance of law courses, I'm inclined again to point out that you've never taken one. You said that plenty of JDs would disagree with my characterization of legal courses being mostly practical. If you can find one, let me know and I'll talk to him. You seem to base your intuition on legal coursework from watching The Paper Chase.

I'm happily able to keep my time-wasting internet personality fully segregated from my work self. Except when I post at work.

When you make arguments disputing the substance of legal courses, I simply point to the course description, and since you dispute even the description, I know you have never been near a law course. You asked me to show you a course out of the Havard Law catalog, and I did just that.

There are many, many more courses which a JD draws upon, even courses which you deem solely as 'practical' courses. Law school, since you apparently didn't know, is both about substantive and procedural education, and that is how I distinguish the courses. In terms of teaching political science, many JDs have more than adequate substantive preparation to teach political science courses, as I've shown with even the links you provided.

Edited January 27, 2011 by SOG25

[balderdash]

When you make arguments disputing the substance of legal courses, I simply point to the course description, and since you dispute even the description, I know you have never been near a law course. You asked me to show you a course out of the Havard Law catalog, and I did just that.

There are many, many more courses which a JD draws upon, even courses which you deem solely as 'practical' courses. Law school, since you apparently didn't know, is both about substantive and procedural education, and that is how I distinguish the courses. In terms of teaching political science, many JDs have more than adequate substantive preparation to teach political science courses, as I've shown with even the links, you provided.

You're seriously going to dispute the JD curriculum with a dude who has a JD when you don't?

[GopherGrad]

You have not pointed to a single description that I have disputed.

I'd love to see a description of a tort litigation course that includes material truly applicable to political science.

ETA: "practical" and "substantive" are not exclusive, as you seem to suggest.

Edited January 27, 2011 by GopherGrad

[SOG25]

You're seriously going to dispute the JD curriculum with a dude who has a JD when you don't?

And you verified our credentials or background how?

[GopherGrad]

And you verified our credentials or background how?

You haven't offered anything to verify.

If my credentials or background are seriously in doubt, I can verify them to a poster we agree on.

[SOG25]

You have not pointed to a single description that I have disputed.

I'd love to see a description of a tort litigation course that includes material truly applicable to political science.

ETA: "practical" and "substantive" are not exclusive, as you seem to suggest.

Procedural courses such as legal writing or Appellate Advocacy and Procedure' are markedly different from substantive courses as administrative law, constitutional law, election law, international law etc.

"If your argument is that someone like Bruce Ackerman is qualified and attractive to polisci departments to teach a ConLaw course here and there, you have the field. Congratulations."

I also don't see how you can recognize Ackerman's ability to teach such advanced courses as constitutional law but not in other areas of political science I mentioned, such as American national government; that truly "baffles the mind."

[balderdash]

And you verified our credentials or background how?

Someone asked you earlier. You gave a dismissive reply about how you were familiar enough with the topic. Any reasonable person with a JD would've just said they have a JD. So either you're unreasonable or you don't have a JD. And as much as I dislike the way you've gone on with this whole affair, I like to believe the best about people, so I'm going with the latter.

[SOG25]

Someone asked you earlier. You gave a dismissive reply about how you were familiar enough with the topic. Any reasonable person with a JD would've just said they have a JD. So either you're unreasonable or you don't have a JD. And as much as I dislike the way you've gone on with this whole affair, I like to believe the best about people, so I'm going with the latter.

HAHA..OK. How do you know that "any resonable person with a JD would've just said they have a JD"? Do you have one, and can you speak for every JD or every reasonable person, for that matter?

I haven't disclosed my credentials, nor am I impressed by the arguments which claim to be 'the authority' by virtue of their credential; lots of JDs will agree or disagree with me, as many PhDs will agree with me as well. Focus on the arguments not the credentials, and when in doubt, do some research to verify my arguments. Poli sci grad students are trained researchers, right?

Edited January 27, 2011 by SOG25

[GopherGrad]

Most people on this board don't have any experience to judge for themselves the exact balance of the substance of a legal education, so they rely on the only person in the room who has some. Because your argument boils down to a great extent on trusting your opinion about legal education, it's natural to ask how informed that opinion is.

Procedural courses such as legal writing or Appellate Advocacy and Procedure' are markedly different from substantive courses as administrative law, constitutional law, election law, international law etc.

Agreed. That doesn't mean that the substance of those topics is relevant to political science, though. Torts is a substantive course, too. Even when it is relevant, substantive offerings in such courses add up to a the depth of knowledge required to be qualified or competitive with Ph.D.s in terms of teaching those topics.

You might call it a two-pronged test.

I also don't see how you can recognize Ackerman's ability to teach such advanced courses as constitutional law but not in other areas of political science I mentioned, such as American national government; that truly "baffles the mind."

What's really baffling is why you think I said any such thing, or why you think that argument is even relevant to your original question about the number of JDs teaching.

[SOG25]

Well, when you seem to be arguing that "the substance of topics" learned in law school are not "relevant" to political science, that seems to me like you're arguing that JDs don't have the substantive preparation to teach political science courses. Let me ask you directly, then, are you making that argument, or do you think JDs have the substantive prepration to teach political science courses? which ones, and which ones are they not qualified?

Alternatively, if your argument is that JDs aren't as qualified to teach political science courses, please clarify the deficit in JDs' education: Keeping in mind the courses I listed earlier, what exactly is it that a PhD candidate specializing in, say, American politics, learns that a JD does not, which qualifies him/her to teach the courses in that list better than the JD?

It also relates to my original question, because I understood the substantive preparation argument as one of the arguments which some use to tell JDs who want to teach undergraduates that they must first have a PhD. I know there are other arguments as well, such as the fact that PhDs do research, as nano focused as such research may be, with very, very little correlation to any course they would teach to undergrads (whenever they do actually teach).

Edited January 27, 2011 by SOG25

[wtncffts]

SOG25, the burden of proof is on you to show that there should be a greater number of JDs in poli sci faculties. I'm not trying to shift the argument, but it's so clearly the case that poli sci departments do not and have not thought this to be the case. Surely, you don't think you're the first person to consider the question. And I would reiterate my earlier suggestion that you e-mail the chair of the Harvard government department or law school, or another top school, and politely explain to them why their hiring practices are wrong and why JDs are tragically discriminated against simply because of their degree.

As for that elections course you pointed out, it seems to me it has a very narrow focus, being that "The project for the entire class for this semester will be to develop U. S. House districts for all of the 50 states". Again, I don't doubt that legal questions are important; legal institutions provide the structure within which political conflict takes place. But clearly the course doesn't offer a comprehensive view of the literature on US elections, not even close. As well, I notice it is a jointly-offered course with the Government Department and is, I assume, not a required course for JDs. Someone mentioned earlier that we need to be talking about the average JD, and that 's exactly right. Even assuming the course was a rigorous examination of the social science literature, which it isn't, not all, or even many, JDs will have taken the course.

Now I know your response will be to the effect that there's no guarantee a PhD will have taken such a course or been exposed to the literature, what with their "nano focused" research. Well, in case you weren't aware, there are such things as comprehensive exams. So I'll direct you to examples of Virginia's exam and reading list (the first google results):

http://www.virginia.edu/politics/grad_program/print/APAug09.pdf

http://www.virginia.edu/politics/grad_program/old_exams/aglist.html

If you can show me that JDs, as a requirement of their degree, are throughly exposed to this material, then you win, at least for me.

[SOG25]

SOG25, the burden of proof is on you to show that there should be a greater number of JDs in poli sci faculties. I'm not trying to shift the argument, but it's so clearly the case that poli sci departments do not and have not thought this to be the case. Surely, you don't think you're the first person to consider the question. And I would reiterate my earlier suggestion that you e-mail the chair of the Harvard government department or law school, or another top school, and politely explain to them why their hiring practices are wrong and why JDs are tragically discriminated against simply because of their degree.

As for that elections course you pointed out, it seems to me it has a very narrow focus, being that "The project for the entire class for this semester will be to develop U. S. House districts for all of the 50 states". Again, I don't doubt that legal questions are important; legal institutions provide the structure within which political conflict takes place. But clearly the course doesn't offer a comprehensive view of the literature on US elections, not even close. As well, I notice it is a jointly-offered course with the Government Department and is, I assume, not a required course for JDs. Someone mentioned earlier that we need to be talking about the average JD, and that 's exactly right. Even assuming the course was a rigorous examination of the social science literature, which it isn't, not all, or even many, JDs will have taken the course.

Now I know your response will be to the effect that there's no guarantee a PhD will have taken such a course or been exposed to the literature, what with their "nano focused" research. Well, in case you weren't aware, there are such things as comprehensive exams. So I'll direct you to examples of Virginia's exam and reading list (the first google results):

http://www.virginia....int/APAug09.pdf

http://www.virginia....ams/aglist.html

If you can show me that JDs, as a requirement of their degree, are throughly exposed to this material, then you win, at least for me.

As I established before, the JDs I have in mind, who puport to teach political science courses at the undergraduate level, will have had the substantive background to teach such courses (e.g. constitutional law, administrative law, international law, international organizations, election law, critical race theory, etc). If a JD intends to teach the subject matter related to elections or election law, then certainly s/he would have taken that course as an elective in law school. Law students take electives, just as PhD students do. Moreover, a JD on a political science faculty will draw upon all the knowledge learned in law school, yes even Torts, to teach relevant issues in political science courses. It's really that simple, and I issue to you the same challenge/question I issued to GopherGrad:

Please clarify what exactly is the deficit, as you see it, in a JDs' education that would make him/her less qualified to teach undergraduate political science: Keeping in mind the courses I listed earlier, what exactly is it that a PhD candidate specializing in, say, American politics, learns that a JD does not, which qualifies him/her to teach the courses in that list better than the JD?

[socme123]

This conversation is hilarious! All I can say is, I have a JD and despite being a recently minted member of the bar I feel far more qualified to teach political science courses than to practice law. Almost none of my law school classes were practical in any way, and I think the vast majority of law school classes are NOT practical and are instead theoretical and about a certain way one should think about the law and society. That is, my experience was that law school was more like grad school than vocational school. Plus, my law school actually requires independent research and writing projects in order to graduate, so that argument about how JDs never have to do research isn't 100% grounded in reality.