« form and style | Main | Prison Conditions and Punishment Theory »

Monday, September 19, 2005

One exception to the Ph.D. rule

Let's set aside for the moment our broader differences on whether a Ph.D. is really required for writing interdisciplinary work -- opinions differ -- and focus on some areas of agreement. For instance, even staunch Ph.D. advocate Brian Leiter seems to concede that some J.D.'s are as qualified to write as some Ph.D.'s.

And which are these explicitly Leiter-approved exceptions to the general rule? Venture below the fold, constant reader, for the surprising answer.

It turns out that, even accepting as true all of Leiter's assertions, we find an exception to the general rule of Ph.D. supremacy, hidden deep within the holy writ:

"A BA in philosophy apparently puts you well ahead of a PhD in political science."

That's the exception, folks. A J.D. can write just as well as a Ph.D., provided that that Ph.D.'s Ph.D. is in political science, while the J.D. earned her B.A. in philosophy.

Now that we've found common ground between warring factions, we may rejoice.

In the mean while, if you've got a moment to spare, don't forget to read my own draft pieces, Taking Political Science Seriously and All I Really Needed to Know about Political Science I Learned in a 30-minute Perusal of the Blackwell Companion.

Posted by Kaimi Wenger on September 19, 2005 at 05:39 PM in Deliberation and voices, Life of Law Schools | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference One exception to the Ph.D. rule:


This was a joke, seems rather odd to call attention to it so long after the fact.

Posted by: BL | Sep 19, 2005 5:52:31 PM

My original posting, by the way, had nothing to do with the qualifications of JDs to produce important legal scholarship; it concerned interdisciplinary scholarship. Out of curiosity, did you actually read the original posting?

I dunno, I'm going to have to scratch you guys from my list of blogs to read if this silliness keeps up!

Posted by: BL | Sep 19, 2005 5:54:42 PM

Brian, I have it on good authority that Kaimi's post was also a joke, and arose now, "so long after the fact," because it was apropos the long exchange from last week.

Posted by: Dan Markel | Sep 19, 2005 6:59:37 PM

Bad joke, indeed.

Posted by: BL | Sep 19, 2005 7:29:46 PM

Perhaps I need to just stick to law -- or at least attend some graduate school in comedy before attempting such interdisciplinary blogging! (Rimshot).

Damn, I made another joke before going to grad school. On the blog, no less. Sheesh, I've got to learn not to do that.

In any case, I'm sorry that you didn't like the joke, BL. (Unless your comments are themselves a tongue-in-cheek harsh response to my own tongue-in-cheek post. And if so, you got me. Though I wonder just how meta a tongue-in-cheek discussion can get before one's head explodes.)

Posted by: Kaimi | Sep 19, 2005 7:45:50 PM

Much irony and humor is lost in cyberspace, I fear.

Posted by: BL | Sep 19, 2005 8:50:10 PM

Rather than let this post turn into a free-for-all against Leiter -- not its intent -- I'm closing comments.

Posted by: ADMIN | Sep 20, 2005 9:23:25 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.