Why can't JDs teach in political science departments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone with a JD who took a couple Poli Sci classes in college (but it was not my major or minor): I would not be remotely qualified to teach that class. We read a lot of philosophy in those classes, not the kind of thing you learn as a JD at all.

My JD had a lot of required philosophy, jurisprudence specifically.

My JD classes focused heavily on case law. We didn't read any philosophers like Locke or Hobbes like I read in undergraduate poli sci.

Having worked as an attorney in government for a decade, I think I could potentially teach a JD class specifically on my very specific area of practice. But my skillset absolutely does not apply to undergrad poli sci.

+1. I was a poli sci major and couldn't teach any of that stuff. I could teach in my niche area of practice (but I'm not a skilled teacher and don't desire to teach or publish).
I sometimes think about pitching a "professional skills" course about basic office expectations and how to be a junior attorney. I've trained enough of them.

[Anonymous]

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. Similarly, MDs are qualified to teach biology or human anatomy.

[Anonymous]

As a JD, I am extremely confused by this post. Is this a weird trolling attempt??

[Anonymous]

The OP statement is talking about general "Doctorate" requirements for jobs or pay scales. It is not saying anything about a JD being equivalent to a PhD in any specific field of study.
OP is too illiterate to be either a lawyer or a professor.
Fortunately, that same document also puts forth the view that a mere degree should not be enough to practice law, but an examination (which OP would fail) should also be required.
IMO, periodic reexamination should also be required.

[Anonymous]

Since the PhD and JD are both doctorates (the JD may be for professional practice but also has a research component), I don't see why a JD is not qualified to teach American government, public law, international institutions etc. Denying such prospective professors strikes me as irrational.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand most of this discussion. You're not getting an academic appointment without a publication record. I doubt a JD with an impressive poli sci publication record would be denied a position, just like I doubt a poli sci PhD will get a position without good publications.

[Anonymous]

Tell me you’ve never read a political science journal without telling me…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a JD, I am extremely confused by this post. Is this a weird trolling attempt??

I'm another confused JD. I'm also married to someone with a PhD (STEM, not poli sci) and anyone who thinks those are equivalent is fooling themselves. PhD is way, way more work (and takes about 1.5 to 2 times as long).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ABA has noted that the JD and PhD are equivalent levels of education.

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/misc/legal_education/Standards/2013_2014_council_statements.authcheckdam.pdf

Lawyer with a Ph.D. here. Thanks for this—it's the funniest thing I've read all day.

Of course the ABA, which is made up of lawyers, would claim that a JD and PhD are equivalent. But they're not. Not even close. My JD was much easier.

Sorry, fellow lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a JD, I am extremely confused by this post. Is this a weird trolling attempt??

Weird trolling attempt, for sure

[Anonymous]

JDs are in now way equivalent to a PhD. I think you are mistaken. A JD is more like a MD and both are below a PhD in terms of expertise.

[Anonymous]

JD with another terminal grad degree here (I did a 3 yr MFA in writing, not a Phd).

A JD is a professional degree, and zero scholarly research is required of students in a JD program. Which makes sense, they are going to be asked to practice law for clients -- not publish research on Postmodern Constitutionalism. A professor is a scholar -- the primary job would be to advance research in the field of political science (and teaching is necessary, but secondary). Publish or perish, right? JD's are not qualified to do that; at least they certainly haven't proven an ability to do that with a dissertation.

JDs and PhDs are apples and oranges.

OP, you are an excellent example of that phrase "You don't know what you don't know." And there seems to be a great deal about political science scholarship, probably 99% of it, that you don't know. You are embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ABA has noted that the JD and PhD are equivalent levels of education.

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/misc/legal_education/Standards/2013_2014_council_statements.authcheckdam.pdf

So why do political science departments consider one path of study (the PhD) more qualified than another (the JD)? The study of law should provide an adequate knowledge about American government, at the very least. In fact, I feel that with the study of law, one might even have a better understanding of government than in any other field, since American government is primarily based on the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution.

political science is heavy into numbers and math. Lawyers don't do those.

Speak for yourself.

-- a tax attorney

[Anonymous]

Law professors are usually the highest paid profs. Why would you want to be anything else in academia?

[Anonymous]

If MFAs can teach in English departments, why can't JDs teach in political science departments?