Round 2: Why Mostly PhDs and Not JDs in University Political Science Faculties?

[SOG25]

For a re-cap of a rather spirited debate on qualifications to teach political science at the undergraduate level, please follow the link below.  I'm back on the forum.

However, my focus now is on one of the last responses, in the last debate, suggesting that political science education (at the undergraduate level) is not about institutions, but about behavior.  Is this true in your experience with the discipline and in your opinion?  Or would you say that in undergrad, political science courses are more about policy and institutions?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Edited October 31, 2015 by SOG25
clarification

[kaykaykay]

Do not feed the troll.

[SOG25]

Still bitter about losing the debate, are we?  And who in his/her right mind uses the handle, "kaykaykay"? Someone not very subtle or self-aware apparently.  Not sure how the moderators let that one slide. .

All perspectives and thoughts on my,the OP's, question are welcome.

Edited November 2, 2015 by SOG25
typo

[cooperstreet]

get a life?

[SOG25]

On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2015‎ ‎12‎:‎25‎:‎49‎, cooperstreet said:

get a life?

Don't be a follower, cooperstreet.

[SOG25]

Despite a bit of rudeness, I thought Bobcatpolisci1 had a great and interesting perspective in the last debate regarding the value proposition of a PhD in poli sci vs. a JD.  Bobcatpolisci1 said the following:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I can't argue that every single intro to American Government class is (or should be) taught the same way. But since Canon wrote the most widely-used intro to American Government textbook in American universities, it might stand to reason that his approach represents something of a core consensus among political scientists about what kinds of materials ought to be taught in a 101 class. The fact that you seem to suggest that your course would differ markedly from what most political scientists would teach provides some evidence, I would think, of why JDs are not often hired to teach these kinds of classes, except at marginal institutions.

Also, I do enjoy your arguments about what is and isn't appropriate material for intro classes as opposed to graduate school courses. I suppose that the fact that topics (like judicial behavior) in Canon's text are in fact being taught in community colleges might surprise you. Perhaps you've not been an undergraduate for a while, or you attended an especially inferior college, but this "level" of material is being taught in intro-level political science course by my colleagues and I everyday, and we generally find that students have no trouble following it. Perhaps we should dumb down to your standards, but I'd prefer not to.

But the bigger point is that, despite the fact that you suggest all political science theories and explanations are "made-up," the things you cite in response that you've apparently heard of ("iron triangles," "donkey voters") don't really represent the mainstream ways in which political scientists think about these issues anymore. I'd agree that a good class should encourage critical thinking, but I'd also argue that one especially good way to do that is to provide students with the major controversies in political science, and help them to parse them out. Canon's text, along with every other text I've used at this level, presents multiple approaches to answering questions like "how do people choose how to vote?" and encourages students to adjudicate among them. In my class, they leave with more than the half-dozen theories I remember from my law classes--they leave with a general notion of how our explanations for political phenomena have changed over time, and what that might mean for our future. They also learn how academic knowledge is produced, which is a crucial skill for teaching students how to think critically about the information they encounter (and I see you didn't really respond to the portion of my comments in which I defended the teaching of "methods" in intro classes).

The sad truth is that the course you propose between the lines would look a lot like an American Government course did before the behavioralist revolution of the 1950s: Focused mostly on institutions and laws, with little attention to how people act (strategically or otherwise) inside them. What you propose teaching sounds outdated, not particularly sophisticated, and doesn't really reflect all the things we know about how political systems function that we didn't 60 years ago. So why would anyone hire you, if they could get even a mediocre PhD? It sounds like you don't think students can handle complex material (and so would suggest they save it until "graduate school"), would offer atheoretical, oversimplified, and outdated explanations of political phenomena, and would generally not provide students with either the breadth or depth that a generically trained actual no-shit political scientist would.

So, perhaps the answer is this. An average JD (or you, based on my reading of your comments) might be qualified to teach a course entitled "Intro to American Government." But this class would not offer the same depth or breadth of material, would not involve any instruction about how political science knowledge is produced, would not offer the theoretical groundwork necessary for students to succeed in upper-level course, and would traffic in a limited range of outdated theories. Instead, what they'd get is "I'm just a bill on Capitol Hill" and some stuff on what the law says. Sweet. But I'm sure there'd be critical thinking, right?

PS. Lawyers don't really have a monopoly on the socratic method. But since you've shifted your argument some to one based on pedagogy (You PhDs teach all that boring theory, but I make them engage!), consider this: A actually balanced classroom approach involves more than socratic quizzing. At its best, an intro to American class can deliver the opportunity to help students create political knowledge, but working hands-on with polling data, or re-districting studies, or with elected officials, or any number of other primary sources. Even a mediocre class involves getting students to think like social scientists in some way or another. Are you a social scientist? Can you teach others how to think like one? Again, this is a reason departments prefer PhDs."

``~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

in part, this perspective is want I want to follow up on. If you've had political science/government in undergrad, either as a major or minor, would you agree with Bobcatpolisci1?  In your experience, is this perspective true?  Is the focus of political science courses/teaching about political behavior, rather than institutions or policy?

While I respect bobcatpolisci1's point of view, I disagree with this observation. Rather, I think the focus of political science in undergrad is increasingly on institutions and public policy, not on the behavior of political actors, as some might suggest.  Insightful thoughts welcomed. 

Edited November 4, 2015 by SOG25