4 ms·
Surely the two demonstrate an equal ability to understand entry level philosophy, which (in my experience) is about constructing philosophical arguments in a so
by Pfhreak 7y ago
Surely the two demonstrate an equal ability to understand entry level philosophy, which (in my experience) is about constructing philosophical arguments in a sound way? I remember doing a lot of proofs, boolean logic, exploring fallacies, etc.
- gnicholas 7y agoActually, I would say that one could easily make it through a Religion PhD program without touching on any of those subjects. It would be harder to navigate law school without dealing with logic and fallacies, on the other hand. (Source: I went to law school, and my wife is a Religion professor.) But my point was more that it's very reasonable for a college to require that all instructors have PhDs, and JDs (3 yrs) are not PhDs (5 yrs). I have always found it odd that one can graduate from a law school and then immediately turn around and begin teaching law students. This is true also for PhDs and PhD students, but there is more temporal separation between first-year students and just-graduated professors because the degree typically takes 5+ years.
- nkurz 7y agoI didn't assume that "a degree in religion" meant a PhD in religion. I thought the more likely parallel was that the school would have considered him if he had a ThD (Doctor of Theology) or a DMin (Doctor of Ministry), or possibly even a DD (Doctor of Divinity, usually honorary in the US but academic in the UK). I wonder though --- why do you think it's reasonable that a college would require a PhD from all instructors? Why not simply consider the degree to be a plus, but not a requirement? Do you restrict this to "all" instructors in fields where a PhD is common? Would you eliminate artists or authors from teaching creative courses with (or without) an MFA?