next »

[Untenured]

I hope that was just a troll.

Thanks new anon for saving me from the crime of faulty analogy.

Untenured

[Anon! Anon! Zounds!]

I think what gives a JD "parity" is not the degree but some valuable experience.  At my institution, we have a JD who is a former state legislator and appeals court judge.  If he were fresh out of law school, there's probably not much that he'd have to offer.  He's hired here because he has had unique experiences that the Ph.D.'s don't have.  His "parity" is based -I suspect- on his resume and not on his degree.

So, if a JD has experience to bring to the table that is relevant to a department (criminal justice, english, poli. sci. biology/environmental studies) all the better.  That being said, accrediting agencies evaluate universities on the percentage of faculty with terminal degrees.  The JD is not terminal.  This is not a reason in and of itself not to hire a JD, but don't expect to see tons of JD's outside the law faculty.

[profxfiles]

I teach in political science, and we have never hired a straight JD, only JDs wiith PhDs for our legal studies program. This is apparently becoming more common, as several universities are now offering joint JD/PhD programs (Mich State, for example)