Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A reference from a diploma mill "professor" doesn't carry weight among faculty members who do the hiring at real colleges and universities. I supposed diploma mill PhD's are qualified to...teach diploma mill PhD's?

There is zero risk of someone with a diploma mill phd (these really exist?) getting hired or even interviewed for a tenure track position. I worked in a job that had a dossier service, storing and sending out LORs for people applying to academic jobs, so I have some insight. Even the folks with "real" Phds are finding it almost impossible to get jobs in academia, aside from adjuncting (which is hellish). There are many reasons for this.

But bottom line: OP doesn't know what they are talking about.

They exist. School districts pay more for more education. It's lot easier to get an online doctorate very part time than to actually do the work for a real PhD. As long as the school is accredited, you get the salary bump

JD is a doctorate but in half the time as the PhD.

A JD is absolutely a doctorate.

Getting a master's or a PhD in a humanities subject (say in political science or history) is nothing compared to getting a JD.

You will read over 1000 pages of complex legal opinions per month. The vocabulary you have to master is daunting. You have to commit to memory the facts of each case, the issues, the holdings, and the significance to Federal or State jurisprudence. You must develop the capacity to analyze each case to see if it reverses, modifies, or extends another case. You will have to have the ability to apply the case law to various fact situations you may see on your exams.

Compared to grad school, the workload is higher, the material much more difficult, and the professors use the Socratic Method - which would put tears in the eyes of most graduate students.

Law school is 1000 times more difficult than grad school.

Anonymous wrote:A reference from a diploma mill "professor" doesn't carry weight among faculty members who do the hiring at real colleges and universities. I supposed diploma mill PhD's are qualified to...teach diploma mill PhD's?

There is zero risk of someone with a diploma mill phd (these really exist?) getting hired or even interviewed for a tenure track position. I worked in a job that had a dossier service, storing and sending out LORs for people applying to academic jobs, so I have some insight. Even the folks with "real" Phds are finding it almost impossible to get jobs in academia, aside from adjuncting (which is hellish). There are many reasons for this.

But bottom line: OP doesn't know what they are talking about.

A reference from a diploma mill "professor" doesn't carry weight among faculty members who do the hiring at real colleges and universities. I supposed diploma mill PhD's are qualified to...teach diploma mill PhD's?

Anonymous wrote:I agree that a real JD trumps a PhD from a diploma mill.

Diploma mill PhDs aren't getting hired to track college classes either.

I'm not putting down my JD, it was a very effective education for the very specific thing I do. It's just that the thing I do isn't academia.

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

I have an MFA and a JD. So I can answer that.

I'm qualified to teach English Comp, lit, and creative writing. I could teach any and all of those classes easily, and learned how to do so in my MFA program. I wouldn't know the first thing about teaching undergrads political science (in fact I never took any in undergrad). I do have a lawyer friend who taught a "law and society" class to undergrads as an adjunct, and I'd consider myself qualified to teach that. But nothing beyond that. Yeah, we study Con Law in law school, but in the context of case law only -- not in the context of theory of government, or even the practice of government (at least not outside of very specific circumstances occurring within the judicial branch).

It does seem to me that OP (and perhaps some other folks here? although I'm guessing not -- it's probably the OP sock puppeting?) is, as a PP pointed out, confusing high school Government or Civics or something with college-level Political Science. I'd add that OP is likely ignorant of what tenured professors do as well (research being a focus, with teaching secondary); they don't seem to understand what academic scholarship even is let alone what the expectations for professors would be in a poli sci department.

I agree that a real JD trumps a PhD from a diploma mill.

Anonymous wrote: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.

JDs and MDs are regulated. Meanwhile, can get an online PhD with little to no actual work

I don't know why people are denigrating the JD as glorified trade school. It's an academic graduate degree. In fact many feel it's too theoretical, too academic, too divorced from practice.

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

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

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

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.

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.