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

Weird trolling attempt, for sure

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 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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

Years ago I had a poli sci professor who had both a PhD and a JD. His PhD was in some sort of sub poli sci field and he had been some sort of state-level rep at one point. He argued about EVERY damn thing. Everything was a debate to him. Dude was a neurotic jabrone.

Ended up getting arrested for coke possession

JDs can teach in poli sci departments, they're just not going to get tenured in them. Akhil Amar's Constitutional Law class is likely the most popular undergrad political science class at Yale. He is tenured and primarily teaches in the Law School, but he typically teaches 1-2 undergrad poli sci classes each year. (I'm sure there's a host of other examples, but this is a well-known, easily verified one.)

They probably can as an adjunct lecturer in some not particularly selective school. Adjuncts are paid peanuts and sometimes schools will hire "practitioners" rather than academicians into those spots,

You lawyers are no more than technicians. To teach you need to be a philosopher king. And that requires a PhD in this day and age.

I had two adjuncts with JDs when I studied international affairs as an undergraduate, but if I am not mistaken they were also working on PhDs. They also had rather unusual (but quite interesting!) post-JD career paths and had not practiced law.

I went on to law school, taking the typical elite law school to biglaw path, and would not be qualified to teach in the political science/IR realm. I could *maybe* make a case to teach a softer elective like doing business in emerging markets.