Why can't JDs teach in political science departments?

[Anonymous]

By virtue of their substantive education in government institutions and law, many JDs would stand to be good professors in such courses.

[Anonymous]

Dear JDs, teach me a class on the grand chessboard theory the US used during the Cold War.

Lol, practicing law is not even remotely in the same ballpark as being knowledgeable on political theory and philosophy underpinning political systems. 99% of JDs have zero knowledge of something like the grand chessboard theory and how it was put into action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dear JDs, teach me a class on the grand chessboard theory the US used during the Cold War.

Lol, practicing law is not even remotely in the same ballpark as being knowledgeable on political theory and philosophy underpinning political systems. 99% of JDs have zero knowledge of something like the grand chessboard theory and how it was put into action.

All the JDs agree with you! OP doesn't know what the study of political science is, he is confusing it with AP US Govt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dear JDs, teach me a class on the grand chessboard theory the US used during the Cold War.

Lol, practicing law is not even remotely in the same ballpark as being knowledgeable on political theory and philosophy underpinning political systems. 99% of JDs have zero knowledge of something like the grand chessboard theory and how it was put into action.

Disagree. Similar to your example, a JD can analyze historical case law and apply it to a modern fact pattern - often on his/her feet in front of a skeptical judge and opposing counsel. This is the core of legal research and writing, particularly in litigation. In fact, the entire legal profession is based on the application of precedent. Political Science PhD's couldn't even come close to this.

[Anonymous]

Having a JD in the tenured track hiring process should absolutely be something a committee considers, but think of it the way a college admissions committee views a rigorous extracurricular activity. If you attend a top 10 law school and had a prestigious clerkship they might count it as if you played a D1 sport. You still to have the required baseline qualifications (with some exceptions) but having that extracurricular JD will really make your application pop

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having a JD in the tenured track hiring process should absolutely be something a committee considers, but think of it the way a college admissions committee views a rigorous extracurricular activity. If you attend a top 10 law school and had a prestigious clerkship they might count it as if you played a D1 sport. You still to have the required baseline qualifications (with some exceptions) but having that extracurricular JD will really make your application pop

The person that you describe will teach law at a law school and will make far more money than a similarly situated poli sci professor. They won't have to teach undergrads and they will have similar research expectations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because you need to produce original research to get a PhD. You do not for a JD. That being said, JDs can and do teach in law schools. JD who are successful enough in government can pick their political science department if that is what they choose do do after retiring

FWIW our 3L dissertations at Harvard Law were supposed to be original research. Mine was, and was published in several journals. But that does not make me qualified to teach a poli sci course

Agreed. In law school, I researched and wrote a long article on joinder in very specific civil cases. That has nothing to do with an undergraduate Poli Sci. Completely different skillsets.

I never did any original research for a class. The closest that I came was a journal submission, but that was not required for a degree and plenty of students weren't on any journal.

[Anonymous]

You can also land political science teaching jobs by speaking at multiple conferences a year over a period of 3-5 years. I know several people who did this. The conferences were NOT pure legal conferences; rather, they were the same conferences that many political science professors attended. Topics focused on the political impacts of legislation, regulation, and policies. Networking at these conferences helped my friends get their names circulated at various universities where they later applied. Put simply, they were a known quantity (academic rigor, speaking/teaching ability, etc....)

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

I think we're seeing the difference between Yale/Harvard and schools aimed at creating practitioners. I didn't read Locke, but I had multiple classes on the very niche area of admin law where I ended up practicing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think we're seeing the difference between Yale/Harvard and schools aimed at creating practitioners. I didn't read Locke, but I had multiple classes on the very niche area of admin law where I ended up practicing

I don't think Harvard Law necessarily creates philosophers either. My cousin went to Harvard and she does a very specific form of business law, not philosophy.

[Anonymous]

The training is entirely different.

Who cares what the ABA (=lawyers) try to claim.

People with PhD’s learn rigorous methods for conducting scholarly research. They go to graduate school years longer than lawyers do. The process yields different types of professionals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because you need to produce original research to get a PhD. You do not for a JD. That being said, JDs can and do teach in law schools. JD who are successful enough in government can pick their political science department if that is what they choose do do after retiring

FWIW our 3L dissertations at Harvard Law were supposed to be original research. Mine was, and was published in several journals. But that does not make me qualified to teach a poli sci course

Agreed. In law school, I researched and wrote a long article on joinder in very specific civil cases. That has nothing to do with an undergraduate Poli Sci. Completely different skillsets.

I never did any original research for a class. The closest that I came was a journal submission, but that was not required for a degree and plenty of students weren't on any journal.

Our 3rd year dissertations at Harvard were supposed to be original research. Mine was published.

[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

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.

Do you really want your poly sci teacher to bill you $600 per hour ?