Why is authorship of a textbook generally considered less of a scholarly contribution than authorship of a “scholarly” publication, such as a journal article or a university press book?

Certainly both are needed, but is it right for a political science department to reward faculty who author “scholarly” publications more than those who author textbooks?

Whether stipulated in the criteria for departmental evaluation of faculty performance or in other less overt ways, the bias is prevalent throughout our discipline.

This essay states five reasons why the bias should not exist: 1) ignorance of impact, 2) ignorance of values, 3) ignorance of the review process, 4) ignorance of purpose, and 5) ignorance of time and Scope.

Most college instructors that teach an introductory American government course use multiple choice questions on examinations. Do these instructors give the answers away during the examination? They may be doing so unintentionally. Furthermore, the manner in which they give away the answers may be helping a select group of students and penalizing others.

Multiple choice questions may be written in such a way that students who are test-wise are given clues as to which answers are correct. Testwiseness has been defined as the ability to manifest test-taking skills which utilize the characteristics and formats of a test and/or test-taking situation in order to receive a score commensurate with the abilities being measured (Oakland & Weilert, 1971).

The serious study of the best examples of American political rhetoric can be used as the foundation for the introductory course in American government. The laws of most of our states understand the purpose of political education to be the creation of good citizens. Even at the college level, it makes sense to justify political education in terms of citizenship rather than with the benefits associated with a diffuse introduction to the technical discipline of political science.

Citizenship, after all, is a quality shared by almost all human beings in our democratic regime, while only a very few of us ever will specialize in political science. The most cogent way of justifying the general requirement of study of a subject is by showing its universal utility, especially in a democracy, where utility is often the measure of worth.

Constitutional law classes include three constituencies of students. The constituency of political science majors brings to the class the expectation of gaining specialized knowledge of the role of the judicial institutions in the political system. The second constituency is composed of nonmajors who have chosen the course as an elective and who expect to learn something of the general development of the law. The final constituency is made up of pre-law students who are seeking familiarity with the legal principles, concepts and analytical skills in preparation for their professional training.

The professor faces the problem of how to address these three groups with their differing expectations. The three sets of expectations correspond to three strategies of teaching constitutional law.

The political science undergraduate curriculum has long included courses dealing with substantive aspects of the law. At one time the traditional constitutional law course served as an introduction to the relationship of law and politics. More recently courses such as civil liberties, criminal justice, judicial process, and law and society have become frequent political science offerings. While these and other courses teach students procedural and substantive aspects of the law, many such courses contain student research components as a learning device.

Too often, however, political science/ public law training has ignored teaching about the uses of resources for legal research. Students are often directed to the law section of the library to face a batch of new and bewildering resource materials. As a result, Unfamiliar or seemingly intimidating materials such as Shephard's or law digests were often ignored or improperly used by students.

Administrative law provides the concepts and the logical framework that explain American government. The fundamental questions of modern American government and of administrative law are the same: by what right do the agencies of government operate? Are there limits on their powers? Who sets the limits? What are the limits? Where is the line drawn between Congress and the agencies in the allocation of policy–making authority? How much access to the courts should be available to the citizen who seeks protection of his or her individual rights against government — agency — power? To what extent must the government spell out rules in advance, and to what extent may a citizen find himself or herself in trouble for doing something that had not previously or usually resulted in prosecution?

What to teach the first-time student in a political science class? Perhaps more importantly, what to teach the undergraduate whose only experience with political science, and the formal study of politics, will be the introduction they receive in our classes?

Owing to the peculiarities of our discipline, the “Introduction to Political Science” class is often just that: a tour through all the major gardens in the discipline, describing to students what is done among scholars and practicioners in the various fields, giving them an overall view of what we do, how we do it, and in the process perhaps making a case for the significance of our discipline, our research, and perhaps even the subject itself — politics.

This essay addresses the problem of teachers and students who have reached the point of trying to find a common ground for perceiving (seeing) politics. This may occur almost any time during any social science course, but it cannot be assumed to happen automatically the first day of class in government, citizenship, or public affairs. Hopefully, the signal is some variant of the question: “What do we mean by politics, or the political aspect of human affairs?” A parade of definitions — taking controversial positions on public policy issues; running for elective office; who gets what, when and how; and manipulating people—is not a mutually-satisfying answer if it produces the Queen of Hearts’ attitude in students that the word politics means what they choose it to mean and nothing more.

The problem

A common lament among faculty members is that students cannot think clearly, do not put things in logical order, and that “they certainly did not learn to think so poorly in my class.” A manifestation of that inability is the work done on essay examinations.

In our Master of Urban Administration program, a professional course of study for persons in public administration, a source of stress between faculty and students concerns performance on the comprehensive examinations administered at the midpoint of the two year program. Faculty members complain that students do not address the question asked, only answer part of the question, or do not identify key points in their answers. On the other hand, students argue that they have never been given questions like those on the comprehensive examinations or been shown how to think through an answer in a logical or systematic fashion.

Probably the fundamental criticism within the discipline concerning conventional classroom interaction dynamics comes from our sister subsidiary, political socialization. This criticism takes two forms. One version focuses on the teacher's classroom role behavior. Dawson and Prewitt, for example argue that the democratic or authoritarian leadership style of an instructor is the one aspect of the teacher's role considered most important to the political socialization process. The instructor may or may not stress “disciplined learning of the material presented, rigid adherence to rules, and a deferential attitude toward himself as the authority figure.” The authors continue: The crucial notion for political socialization is that these conditions affect the political outlook of the students. Democratic leadership by the teacher fosters attitudes and skills consonant with democratic values. The authoritarian teacher induces his charges to think according to hierarchy and deference to power.

“It is extremely difficult to make a good political or social film because the issues are complex and, to some extent, abstract, and have to be embodied in human anatagonists to make them come alive… In effect, the film maker is caught between the Scylla of depersonalization and the Charybdis of oversimplification… It is much easier to make a film with political overtones or social implications, … and not confront the problems head-on.“

In the winter 1982 issue of NEWS, Professor Sidney Wise ponders the treatment of the politician by Hollywood's film makers. Wise was prompted to write in response to a previous discussion of Robert Altman's Nashville by G. Alan Tarr, who argued that such a film is “above all a commentary on political life.”

The course will represent a close study of eight carefully selected Chicago neighborhoods chosen to represent examples of gentrification, racial succession, stable integration and stagnation. The course will explore the forces which have lead to their present state by looking at survey data, neighborhood histories and observational materials; and suggest emendations to existing theories about such processes. The course will culminate with a guided tour of the eight neighborhoods, many of which have substantial historical significance. If numbers make it possible, the tour will conclude at an ethnic restaurant in one of the neighborhoods.