E. E. Schattschneider was a self-proclaimed “realist.” It seems an honest label for one whose theory of politics begins with a newspaper report of a fist fight that escalated into a riot and whose ultimate criticism of democratic theory is that those who defined the term never saw a modern democracy in operation. Schattschneider made no pretense of being a political philosopher, yet his hard-boiled practicality seems well-informed by classical political thought. Indeed, his idea of politics is Aristotelian to the core, though recast rather like a Shakespearean play updated in the vernacular, setting, and dress of West Side Story. As such, Schattschneider's politics defy easy categorization in the political science of his time. Widely respected and honored within the discipline, he seems nonetheless a kind of anti-hero—a bit out of step with his peers and skeptical about much of the prevailing “wisdom” in the discipline.

Schattschneider was out of step as well with the reformist politics of his time. A child of Progressivism, he was schooled at the University of Wisconsin and shared the general optimism of Progressives—their passion for social and political engineering, their faith in a democratic politics and an informed citizenry. But unlike most Progressives, Schattschneider was concerned more with politics than with democracy. For him, politics was fundamental; it was the foundation upon which democratic government had to be built.

Computers inspire mixed emotions among political scientists. Love, hate, fascination, ennui, and frustration sometimes occur during the course of a single computer work session. Individuals come to terms with the beast in varying ways; obviously personal work style and level of computer dependency are each scholar's own business. However, expanded use of information technology in the disciplinary curriculum is a common concern deserving discussion. Like earlier debates between behavioralists and traditionalists, the current discussion raises questions about the discipline's central purpose. This essay reviews proposals to “computerize” political science curricula in light of contemporary theories about information and managerial work.

Historically, political scientists' computer involvement has been limited, but it is now intensifying in response to educational, technological, and environmental influences. Political scientists have used computers as teaching tools since at least the early 1970s, when the APSA “SETUPs” began appearing, but as novelty items, diversions reflecting the devotion of idiosyncratic individuals. This publication has disseminated many such “experiments,” as have Social Science Computer Review and the National Collegiate Software Clearinghouse. Even as desktop machines began proliferating in the early 1980s, their use in the classroom was considered to be optional, something peripheral to the discipline which one could attempt if one had the inclination.

This laissez-faire ambience may be ending in the face of societal transformations. In the classroom political scientists foster intellectual skills broadly useful to former students. A student may be an activist or an avid pre-lawyer, but his or her future professional development will be built on analytical, and communications skills honed in political science courses. This linkage between political science classrooms and the professional world could weaken if we do not adopt to societal change.