Candidates covet votes. They exert extraordinary effort and expend vast resources seeking to win as many votes as possible. Yet, the costly pursuit of votes occurs under great uncertainty concerning both the strategic correctness of their positions on issues and the efficiency of their campaigns. Of course, prudent candidates dedicate some resources to learning how voters are responding to their appeals, generally by commissioning polls of public opinion.

Candidates' early adoption of scientific survey technology (Converse 1987) and the important role polls play in modern campaigns invite the question of how candidates ever got on without them. Before polls, did public opinion reside on a vast terra incognita on which candidates staked out issue positions oblivious to the whereabouts of the median voter? If so, campaigns must have been riddled with mistakes and inefficiency. John G. Greer (1991) made just this argument in claiming that the absence of accurate information about shifts in the electorate's preferences allowed political parties to be blindsided by what became realigning elections.

The historical record offers few clues as to the extent to which nineteenth-century candidates labored under strategic ignorance. Yet, accounts of politicos and pundits alike tallying newspaper endorsements and carefully gauging attendance at campaign rallies do survive. However questionable these indicators' validity, even to contemporaries, they represented some of the few quantifiable barometers of voter sentiment available to that era's politicians. Some candidates kept “their ear to the ground” (a nineteenth-century dictum) by engaging in more active forms of voter research.

How the federal government's fiscal health has improved! As recently as 1992, the United States experienced its largest ever current-dollar annual unified budget deficit of $290 billion. At the close of its last fiscal year, on September 30 1999, the nation's government recorded a budget surplus of $124 billion. More significantly, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected healthy on—budget surpluses—that is, no money will have to be taken out of the Social Security trust fund and revenues will still exceed expenditures—well into the second decade of the new century.

The causes of this turnaround are well understood. The record-long economic expansion of the 1990s has boosted revenues dramatically, the end of the Cold War lowered the demand for defense spending, and the budget legislation of 1990, 1993, and 1997 generally cut spending and raised taxes (Parks 2000; Schick 2000).

What Washington does with the extra money depends greatly on electoral outcomes over the coming years. Congressional Republicans—along with their party's presidential candidate, Texas Governor George W. Bush—have promised tax cuts, while Democrats have called for higher levels of domestic discretionary spending. But there are areas of agreement. Both parties wish to protect the Social Security trust fund in a so-called “lock box” and both have expressed their commitment to pay off the publicly-held debt. It is likely, therefore, that future incarnations of divided government might protect the surplus by producing a default fiscal policy based primarily on these two proposals.

Over a decade has passed since the practice called “service learning” began its ascendance in higher education. While internships have long been used as an experiential teaching tool in the discipline, it is only recently that political scientists have grappled with using community-based service experiences as vehicles for teaching students about politics. In many ways, political scientists have led the way in advancing the theory and practice of service learning, publishing one of the first volumes in the AAHE series on service learning in the disciplines (Battistoni and Hudson 1997), and designing and reporting pioneering efforts to link service to the academic curriculum (e.g., Barber and Battistoni 1993; Beamer 1998; Koulish 1998; Ehrlich 1999). Tony Robinson's essay in this volume stands as yet another bold attempt to challenge political scientists to “do politics” through advocacy-based community service work.

This symposium is offered to advance service learning yet further. The featured authors highlight recent research on the impact of service learning on students' political knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, and draw new connections between service learning and important perspectives in political science scholarship and teaching.

The first essay, by Mary Hepburn, Richard Niemi, and Chris Chapman, thoroughly details current research on how service learning affects the civic outcomes traditionally advanced by college-level political scientists. They draw lessons from the research about what service learning does and does not do for political education, and also raise important questions for future political science research.

Community service is widely advocated as a method for advancing civic awareness and citizen responsibility in both secondary schools and colleges. Use of service learning in higher education has been promoted nationwide by academic, political, professional, and business leaders through such organizations as Campus Compact, American Association for Higher Education, Commission on Civic Renewal, and Corporation for National and Community Service (Bringle, Games, and Malloy 1999). In some cases, service has been institutionalized in colleges. Tufts University, for example, has added a College of Citizenship and Public Service through which students from various departments can complete a certificate program that integrates active service and citizenship studies into their major course of study (Zernike 2000). A recent report estimates that nearly two million students participate in service learning at four-year public and private institutions of higher education, and almost half of all community colleges offer service learning courses (Shumer and Cook 1999). Service learning has been applied in college courses as diverse as freshman composition, education, sociology, anthropology, business, and public policy.

But does service learning—and community service more generally—help students learn about politics and government? And, what research is needed to determine whether service, in fact, contributes to students' civic education? Having recently completed an analysis of national survey data on secondary school students' participation in community service and its relationship to civic education (see Niemi, Hepburn, and Chapman 2000), we now turn to examining the implications of service learning for college political science teaching and research.

Throughout the twentieth century, American scholars and political pundits have argued that the survival of democratic political institutions and an ethic of concern for the welfare of others in the political community depended on ensuring all citizens received a high-quality civic education. Despite repeated efforts to act on this concern, empirical evidence suggests that a substantial number of Americans continue to be ignorant of how best to express their political demands, lack essential factual knowledge about political institutions and policies, and fail to acquire more information about politics and policy (Barber and Battistoni 1993, 235; Battistoni 1985).

Recently, service learning has been put forward as a means for increasing students' limited knowledge about democratic politics and general sense of civic responsibility. Service learning is a form of experiential education that combines structured opportunities for learning academic skills, reflection on the normative dimensions of civic life, and experiential activity that addresses community needs or assists individuals, families, and communities in need (Eyler and Giles 1999, 3-5; Gray et al. 1999, 4-5, 7-8; Jacoby 1996, 5-10). Many proponents of service learning argue that it provides experiences that can change students' frame of reference for or perspective on people and their problems; leads students to see links between theory and practice; teaches students social problem-solving techniques, interpersonal skills, and critical thinking; provides students with education in citizenship; engages the school as well as the student in democratic governance; and involves schools “sympathetically and productively” with the communities they serve (Eyler and Giles 1999, 7-19, 23-163; Gray et al. 1999, 1-2).

Researcher (R): How has doing Public Achievement (PA) changed the way you think about yourself?

Casey (pseudonym for an elementary school student): I am less lonely now that I have done Public Achievement.

R: Really, that's interesting, what is it in PA makes you less lonely?

Casey: Well, people used to think that I am kinda weird here, and I am different. I like playing in the woods and stuff by myself and doing my own kind of stuff.

R: And people think of you as less weird when you do PA?

Casey: Yeah, they even give awards to kids like me in PA.

R: Wow! It sounds like you are a leader in PA.

Casey: Yeah, I really like doing PA.

R: Let me see if I am hearing you right, before PA people thought that you were weird, and now that you have done PA, people look at you differently?

Casey: Yeah.

R: How do you think they look at you differently now?

Casey: They look at me as a citizen.

R: As a citizen, what does it mean for them to look at you as a citizen?

Casey: Like I am more of an equal, they listen to what I have to say.

This dialogue, filled with civic promise, is typical of the many conversations I have had with young participants in reflecting upon their experiences in Public Achievement.

Service learning is typically distinguished from both community service and traditional civic education by the integration of study with hands-on activity outside the classroom, typically through a collaborative effort to address a community problem (Ehrlich 1999, 246). As such, service learning provides opportunities and challenges for increasing the efficacy of both the teaching and practice of democratic politics. To better understand these opportunities and challenges, it is necessary to make explicit the goals of service learning and to consider how these goals intersect those of more traditional approaches to teaching about government and politics. We believe that one place these sometimes competing models could find common ground is in the learning of factual knowledge about politics.

Underlying the pedagogy of service learning are the beliefs that a central mission of civic education is to produce active, engaged citizens and that this mission is more likely to be accomplished by allowing young Americans to directly experience “politics” as part of their education. As noted by Frantzich and Mann, this view is very compatible with the stated mission of the American Political Science Association:

The founding of the [APSA] in 1903 marked the evolution of political science as a distinct academic discipline in colleges and universities. At the time, two educational objectives were claimed for the emerging discipline: citizenship and training for careers in public service…. For the student, direct experience was recommended to supplement formal instruction in government and politics. (1997, 193)