2013-2014 Annual Program Assessment Report
Please submit report to your department chair or program coordinator, the Associate Dean of your College, and to
james.solomon@csun.edu, director of assessment and program review, by Tuesday, September 30, 2014. You may submit a
separate report for each program which conducted assessment activities.
College: Social and Behavioral Sciences
Department: Political Science
Program: Undergraduate Program
Assessment liaison: Kristy Michaud
1. Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s). Provide a brief overview of this year’s assessment plan and process.
In 2013-14, the Political Science department focused on two assessment projects. In the first project, we collected and analyzed
evidence of student learning in our undergraduate program using a direct assessment method. In the second project, we began the
process of closing the feedback loop by drafting a proposal to update our undergraduate program based on what we have learned
from our assessment efforts.
For the 2013-14 academic year we assessed two SLOs—communication and active citizenship. We received copies of papers from
five courses from the Fall 2013 and the Spring 2014 semesters. Instructors were asked to share the essay prompts given to the
students in order to provide context for the scoring. The assessment coordinator chose a random sample of fifteen papers per
course.
The assessment committee consisted of five full-time faculty members, including the assessment coordinator. Each committee
member was asked to read the sample of final papers for two classes and score them according to the SLO rubrics. The scores were
then averaged and synthesized into charts that show the percentages of papers meeting the ‘unsatisfactory,’ ‘elementary,’
‘developing,’ ‘proficient,’ and ‘exemplary’ designations. The evidence shows that our students are, on average, demonstrating
proficiency when it comes to both the writing SLO and the active citizenship SLO.
In addition to collecting and analyzing evidence in 2013-14, the Political Science department drew on assessment findings to begin
drafting a proposal to update our undergraduate program. The evidence collected over the years indicates that political science
students would benefit from more structured course sequencing, beginning with a course that would introduce them to the field of
political science and possible career paths for political science graduates. The data from 2013-14 provide further support for these
changes, as Table 1 illustrates.
1
In our current program, the proseminar represents the capstone experience, and therefore students should demonstrate more
advanced skills and knowledge in the capstone courses. We would expect to find higher scores on the SLOs in proseminar courses
than in non-proseminar courses, but this has not always been the case, and was not the case this year when it came to the active
citizenship SLO (although the communication scores were higher in the proseminar courses than in non-proseminar courses this
year). In sum, it appears that student writing improved by the time they enrolled in the capstone experience course, but that their
content knowledge had not. Because our assessment data have consistently revealed this finding, along with the finding that other
skill areas we have established as SLOs are below where we expect them to be, we spent the spring of 2014 drafting a proposal to
update our undergraduate program. The curriculum proposal reflects an effort to depth, breadth, and sequencing to the major
requirements, with a number of goals, including improving both content knowledge and critical thinking skills. We plan to begin
moving the proposal through the curricular review process beginning this semester.
Updating our undergraduate curriculum based on what we have learned from our assessment efforts has also allowed us the
opportunity to consider how we can improve our assessment efforts. We have a long list of assessment-related tasks that will need
to be addressed in the coming years, including developing SLOs for our graduate program, updating our undergraduate program
SLOs based on what we have learned from our assessment efforts, and so that they’re in line with our updated curriculum, updating
our SLO rubrics, revisiting our assessment methodology, and developing a plan to assess each of our programs. While we will not be
able to tackle all of these tasks in 2014-15, we intend to develop a plan this year to address each of them in the coming years. The
2014-15 academic year will be dedicated to finalizing our curriculum reform proposal and seeing it through the curricular review
process so as to close the feedback loop, to revising the undergraduate SLOs based on the updated program, to developing SLOs for
the graduate program, and to developing a plan to address the tasks outlined above.
2. Assessment Buy-In. Describe how your chair and faculty were involved in assessment related activities. Did department
meetings include discussion of student learning assessment in a manner that included the department faculty as a whole?
Our entire department—including faculty leadership, full-time, and part-time faculty—are involved in assessment activities. Several
department meetings each year include a discussion of the department’s student learning assessment. The assessment coordinator
regularly reports at department meetings on the assessment committee’s efforts, followed by a group discussion that informs the
assessment committee’s activities. In 2013-14, as in previous years, every full- and part-time faculty member who was asked by the
assessment coordinator to share a copy of their students’ final papers with the assessment committee agreed. Overall, there is
broad support for assessment in our department.
3. Student Learning Outcome Assessment Project. Answer items a-f for each SLO assessed this year. If you assessed an additional
SLO, copy and paste items a-f below, BEFORE you answer them here, to provide additional reporting space.
2
For 2013-14, we measured SLOS I and III.
I. Professional Interaction and Effective Communication – Students should demonstrate persuasive and rhetorical communication
skills for strong oral and written communication in small and large groups.
III. Active Citizenship and Civic Engagement –Students should demonstrate a knowledge and awareness of contemporary issues,
political institutions, and problems in the community and their historical contexts. Students should demonstrate an understanding of
the importance of community involvement and leadership.
3a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
I. Professional Interaction and Effective Communication – Students should demonstrate persuasive and rhetorical communication
skills for strong oral and written communication in small and large groups.
3b. Does this learning outcome align with one or more of the university’s Big 5 Competencies? (Delete any which do not apply)

Oral Communication

Written Communication
3c. What direct and/or indirect instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
The communication SLO was assessed directly using the final paper assigned by the instructors in five courses from the Fall 2013 and
Spring 2014 semesters. Instructors were asked to share the essay prompts given to the students in order to provide context for the
scoring. The assessment coordinator chose a random sample of fifteen papers per course. Each member of the assessment
committee read the sample of final papers for three classes and scored them according to the SLO rubrics. The scores were then
averaged and synthesized into charts that show the percentages of papers meeting the ‘unsatisfactory,’ ‘elementary,’ ‘developing,’
‘proficient,’ and ‘exemplary’ designations.
3d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different
points) or was a cross-sectional comparison used (Comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
This year we set out to assess SLO III, which had not been assessed in several years. Because the five courses that met SLO III that
were included in our sample also met SLO I, we decided to assess that SLO as well. SLO I was assessed using a cross-sectional
snapshot of five courses that meet the communication SLO. In the past we have compared POLS 372 courses (introductory research
methods) with POLS 471A-F courses (senior seminar), but did not use that approach this year for two reasons. First, POLS 372 does
not meet SLO III. Second, we have learned that POLS 372 does not necessarily act as a gateway course for our students, and is
therefore not appropriate for use as a pre-test.
3
The research methods course (Political Science 372) was originally included in our assessment efforts years ago because it is
required for all political science majors and it was considered to be a gateway course that would serve as a pre-test. However, years
of evidence collection have revealed that not all students take Pols 372 at the beginning of their Political Science coursework. The
course is currently listed as a prerequisite for the senior seminar, but not for all other courses in the major, meaning that students
may take the course in the same year as the senior seminar. The senior seminar (Political Science 471A-F) is required for all political
science majors and is intended for seniors only (although juniors may take the course with instructor consent). Most of our students
take the senior seminar in their senior year, so this course serves as an effective post-test. The communication SLO was assessed in
five courses, totaling 75 cases. Forty-three of the papers belonged to students enrolled in a senior seminar, whereas thirty-two
belonged students enrolled in upper division courses that were not senior seminars.
3e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the results were analyzed and highlight findings from the
collected evidence.
The members of the assessment committee submitted completed rubrics to the assessment coordinator, who aggregated the data
and calculated the frequencies and averages. Overall, the evidence collected in 2013-14 suggests that our students are proficient in
the area of written communication. Of the two components of our communication SLO—conventions and coherence (SLO 1A) and
rhetorical aspects (SLO 1B)—our students are showing slightly stronger performance on the latter. When we compare the senior
seminars with the non-senior seminars, students are meeting the communication SLO better in the senior seminars. This is what we
would hope to be the case, so we are pleased with this finding.
Overall, students earned an average score of 2.7 (on a scale from 0 to 4) when it came to conventions and coherence and 2.81 when
it came to rhetorical aspects (see table 1). Students in the senior seminar earned an average score of 2.83 when it came to
conventions and coherence and 2.91 when it came to rhetorical aspects. Students in the non-proseminar, upper division courses
scored slightly lower, earning an average of 2.52 in the area of conventions and coherence and an average of 2.67 in the area of
rhetorical aspects. Compared with the critical thinking SLO that was assessed in 2012-13, students in the capstone courses scored
slightly lower. In other words, students in the proseminars averaged slightly higher on critical thinking than they did on writing.
Figure 1 reveals that, overall, approximately half of students are proficient when it comes to conventions and coherence, and nearly
one in four is exemplary.1 The percentages of those performing in the proficient and exemplary categories are slightly higher among
1
The percentages presented in the figures in this report represent scores that have been rounded up to the nearest whole number,
whereas the averages presented in Table 1 are based on the unrounded scores assigned by the readers. This results in averages that
seem lower than they should be based on the results that appear in the figures.
4
those students in the proseminars, and slightly lower for those in the non-proseminars (see figures 2 and 3). Overall, a higher
percentage of students perform in the exemplary category for the rhetorical aspects component of the communication SLO.
Students in both proseminars and non-proseminars show greater strength when it comes to rhetorical aspects than conventions and
coherence. Those in proseminars performed slightly better than did those in non-proseminars in this area. Compared with our
2012-13 assessment of this SLO, students in proseminars have shown slight improvement on both components of the
communication SLO.
In summary, our students are proficient when it comes to the communication SLO, with students in proseminars showing higher
levels of proficiency than those in non-proseminars. Although we would like to see even more of our students move from the
developing and elementary categories into the proficient and exemplary categories, we are pleased to find that students seem to be
progressing in their written communication skills by the time they get to their proseminars. We are also pleased that writing among
students in proseminars has shown slight improvement since 2012-13.
3f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Describe how assessment results were used to improve student learning. Were
assessment results from previous years or from this year used to make program changes in this reporting year? (Possible changes
include: changes to course content/topics covered, changes to course sequence, additions/deletions of courses in program, changes
in pedagogy, changes to student advisement, changes to student support services, revisions to program SLOs, new or revised
assessment instruments, other academic programmatic changes, and changes to the assessment plan.)
In 2013-14 our department continued collecting evidence and began the process of closing the feedback loop by drafting a program
modification proposal. Among the changes we are discussing is adding an Introduction to Political Science course, which would
serve as a gateway and introduce students to the five subfields of political science. This course would also introduce students to
writing standards in the social sciences so as to help them improve coherence, convention, and rhetorical aspects of their writing.
3a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
III. Active Citizenship and Civic Engagement –Students should demonstrate a knowledge and awareness of contemporary issues,
political institutions, and problems in the community and their historical contexts. Students should demonstrate an understanding of
the importance of community involvement and leadership.
3b. Does this learning outcome align with one or more of the university’s Big 5 Competencies? (Delete any which do not apply)
This SLO does not directly align with the Big 5 Competencies.
3c. What direct and/or indirect instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
5
The active citizenship and civic engagement SLO was assessed directly using the final paper assigned by the instructors in five
courses from the Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 semesters. Instructors were asked to share the essay prompts given to the students in
order to provide context for the scoring. The assessment coordinator chose a random sample of fifteen papers per course. Each
member of the assessment committee read the sample of final papers for three classes and scored them according to the SLO
rubrics. The scores were then averaged and synthesized into charts that show the percentages of papers meeting the
‘unsatisfactory,’ ‘elementary,’ ‘developing,’ ‘proficient,’ and ‘exemplary’ designations.
3d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different
points) or was a cross-sectional comparison used (Comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
SLO III was assessed using a cross-sectional snapshot of five courses that meet the active citizenship and civic engagement SLO. In
the past we have compared POLS 372 courses (introductory research methods) with POLS 471A-F courses (senior seminar), but did
not use that approach this year for two reasons. First, POLS 372 does not meet SLO III. Second, we have learned that POLS 372 does
not necessarily act as a gateway course for our students, and is therefore not appropriate for use as a pre-test. The active
citizenship and civic engagement SLO was assessed in five courses, totaling 75 cases. Forty-three of the papers belonged to students
enrolled in a senior seminar, whereas thirty-two belonged students enrolled in upper division courses that were not senior seminars.
3e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the results were analyzed and highlight findings from the
collected evidence.
The members of the assessment committee submitted completed rubrics to the assessment coordinator, who aggregated the data
and calculated the frequencies and averages. Overall, the evidence collected in 2013-14 suggests that our students are proficient in
the area of active citizenship and civic engagement. Of the two components of this SLO—the ability to conceptualize and identify an
important political and policy issue (SLO 3A) and the ability to identify leadership styles and/or strategies and apply them to solve
problems (SLO 3B)—our students are showing slightly stronger performance on the former. One finding that stands out is as worthy
of addressing with our program modification program is that students in non-proseminars are meeting this SLO better than students
in the proseminars. While writing is improving as students move through the major, content knowledge is not. We plan to address
this issue by adding course sequencing and depth to the major, and by adding a introductory course that will give students an
overview of political science.
Overall, students earned an average score of 2.81 (on a scale from 0 to 4) when it came to conceptualizing and identifying an
important political issue and 2.73 when it came to identifying leadership styles and strategies (see table 1). Students in the senior
seminar earned an average score of 2.76 when it came to the first component and 2.61 when it came to the second component.
6
Students in the non-proseminar, upper division courses scored higher, earning an average of 2.88 in the area of political issue
identification and 2.9 in the area of leadership styles.
Figure 1 reveals that, overall, nearly half of students are proficient when it comes to identifying a political issue, and one in four is
exemplary.2 The percentages of those performing in the proficient and exemplary categories are higher among those students in
the non-proseminars, and lower for those in the proseminars (see figures 4 and 5). Overall, higher percentages of students perform
in the proficient and exemplary categories for the political issue identification component of the SLO than for the leadership styles
category. Students in the non-proseminar courses were considerably more likely than those in the proseminars to be scored
exemplary for both SLO 3A and for SLO 3B.
In summary, our students are proficient when it comes to the active citizenship and civic engagement SLO. However, students do
not seem to be progressing in their content knowledge in this area, as students in the senior capstone courses scored lower on both
components of this SLO than did students in non-senior seminars. We would like to see more of our students move from the
developing and elementary categories into the proficient and exemplary categories, and we would like to see students in the senior
seminars improve on both components of this SLO, especially compared to those students earlier in their political science
coursework. We hope that the program modification we have drafted and will move through the curricular review process this year
will address this issue.
3f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Describe how assessment results were used to improve student learning. Were
assessment results from previous years or from this year used to make program changes in this reporting year? (Possible changes
include: changes to course content/topics covered, changes to course sequence, additions/deletions of courses in program, changes
in pedagogy, changes to student advisement, changes to student support services, revisions to program SLOs, new or revised
assessment instruments, other academic programmatic changes, and changes to the assessment plan.)
In 2013-14 our department continued collecting evidence and began the process of closing the feedback loop by drafting a program
modification proposal. We plan to address this issue of lower content knowledge by adding course sequencing and depth to the
major, and by adding a introductory course that will give students an overview of political science.
2
The percentages presented in the figures in this report represent scores that have been rounded up to the nearest whole number,
whereas the averages presented in Table 1 are based on the unrounded scores assigned by the readers. This results in averages that
seem lower than they should be based on the results that appear in the figures.
7
4. Assessment of Previous Changes: Present documentation that demonstrates how the previous changes in the program resulted
in improved student learning.
In 2013-14 we observed improvement in the area of written communication. Compared with 2011-12, students in both the
proseminars and the non-proseminars have generally improved with regard to both components of the SLO.
This may be the result of improved essay prompts, which has been a topic of discussion among our faculty based on past assessment
results. The prompts are also reviewed by the assessment committee members before they review the papers so as to have some
context when evaluating student work. It may also be the results of recent new hires and scheduling that ensures that those fulland part-time faculty members are assigned to teach classes in their area of expertise.
5. Changes to SLOs? Please attach an updated course alignment matrix if any changes were made. (Refer to the Curriculum
Alignment Matrix Template, http://www.csun.edu/assessment/forms_guides.html.)
Our department did not change our SLOs in 2012-13, but we did use improved scoring rubrics, which are included in this Appendix B
of this report. The rubrics allowed us to disaggregate the SLOs so that we are able to observe more data points.
The current course alignment matrix can be found in Appendix C.
6. Assessment Plan: Evaluate the effectiveness of your 5 year assessment plan. How well did it inform and guide your assessment
work this academic year? What process is used to develop/update the 5 year assessment plan? Please attach an updated 5 year
assessment plan for 2013-2018. (Refer to Five Year Planning Template, plan B or C,
http://www.csun.edu/assessment/forms_guides.html.)
2014-15 marks a significant year in our department’s assessment effort because we will be moving a proposal to modify our
undergraduate program based on the evidence we have collected over the past several years through the curricular review process.
If all goes according to plan, we may have an updated program in place beginning in fall 2015.
Updating our undergraduate curriculum based on what we have learned from our assessment efforts has also allowed us the
opportunity to consider how we can improve our assessment efforts. We have a long list of assessment-related tasks that will need
to be addressed in the coming years, including developing SLOs for our graduate program, updating our undergraduate program
SLOs based on what we have learned from our assessment efforts, and so that they’re in line with our updated curriculum, updating
our SLO rubrics, revisiting our assessment methodology, and developing a plan to assess each of our programs. While we will not be
able to tackle all of these tasks in 2014-15, we intend to develop a plan this year to address each of them in the coming years. The
2014-15 academic year will be dedicated to finalizing our curriculum reform proposal and seeing it through the curricular review
8
process so as to close the feedback loop, to revising the undergraduate SLOs based on the updated program, to developing SLOs for
the graduate program, and to developing a plan to address the tasks outlined above.
7. Has someone in your program completed, submitted or published a manuscript which uses or describes assessment activities in
your program? Please provide citation or discuss.
While faculty have published based on our department’s assessment activities in the past, none published in 2013-14.
8. Other information, assessment or reflective activities or processes not captured above.
9
Appendix A: Academic Year 2013-2014 Assessment Data
Table 1: Average Scores—Written Communication (SLO I) and Active Citizenship and Civic Engagement (SLO III)
SLO 1A: Conventions
and Coherence
1B: Rhetorical
Aspects
3A: Identifies and
Conceptualizes a Major Political
and/or Policy Problem
3B: Identifies and
Applies Leadership
Styles
All Courses (n=75)
2.7
2.81
2.81
2.73
Proseminars (n=43)
2.83
2.91
2.76
2.61
Non-Proseminars (n=32)
2.52
2.67
2.88
2.9
Figure 1: Percentages of All Students in Each Category—Written Communication (SLO I) and Active Citizenship and Civic Engagement
(SLO III)
10
Figure 2: Percentages of Students in Each Category by Course Type—Conventions and Coherence (SLO 1A)
Figure 3: Percentages of Students in Each Category by Course Type—Rhetorical Aspects (SLO 1B)
11
Figure 4: Percentages of Students in Each Category by Course Type—Identifies and Analyzes a Political Problem (SLO 3A)
Figure 5: Percentages of Students in Each Category by Course Type—Identifies and Conceptualizes Leadership Styles (SLO 3B)
12
Appendix B: Rubrics
Program Objective I: Professional Interaction and Effective Communication – Students should demonstrate persuasive and rhetorical
communication skills for strong oral and written communication in small and large groups.
4 = Exemplary; 3 = Proficient; 2 = Developing; 1 = Elementary; 0 = Unsatisfactory
1A. CONVENTIONS AND COHERENCE:
Refers to the mechanics of writing such spelling, grammar and sentence structure. Includes stylistic considerations such as formatting and source
documentation.
An exemplary paper:
4 3 2 1 0
Writing essentially error free in terms of
mechanics. Models the style and format
appropriate to the assignment. Transparent
documentation.
An unsatisfactory paper:
Frequent errors in spelling, grammar
and sentence structure distract the
reader. Does not display proper
formatting or consistent citation of
sources.
1B. RHETORICAL ASPECTS:
Refers to the purpose of the assignment, organization of thoughts, development of an argument.
An exemplary paper:
Clear purpose, organization from start to
finish. Effective details.
13
4 3 2 1 0
An unsatisfactory paper:
Purpose not clear, Rudimentary
development of ideas Poor transitions.
Few details to support the main
argument.
Program Objective III: Active Citizenship and Civic Engagement –Students should demonstrate a knowledge and awareness of contemporary
issues, political institutions, and problems in the community and their historical contexts. Students should demonstrate an understanding of the
importance of community involvement and leadership.
4 = Exemplary; 3 = Proficient; 2 = Developing; 1 = Elementary; 0 = Unsatisfactory
3A. ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Demonstrate the ability to conceptualize and specifically identify an important political and policy issue.
An exemplary paper:
4 3 2 1 0
Evidence suggests that student is able to
identify a major political and/or policy
problem and is able to conceptualize and
analyze the causes of the policy issue
An unsatisfactory paper:
Evidence suggests that student is unable
to identify a major political and/or policy
issue
3B. LEADERSHIP STYLES AND/OR STRATEGIES
Show various leadership styles and/or strategies.
An exemplary paper:
Evidence suggests the student is able to
identify leadership styles and/or strategies
and able to apply them effectively to solve
problems
14
4 3 2 1 0
An unsatisfactory paper:
Evidence suggests that the student is
unable to identify leadership styles
and/or strategies
Appendix C: Course Alignment Matrix
Program Courses
Program SLOs
Course No.
POLS 155
POLS 156
POLS 197
POLS 225
POLS 310
POLS 321
POLS 332
POLS 347
POLS 350
Course Title OPTION ONE
AMERICAN POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
INTRODUCTION TO COMPARATIVE
ETHNIC POLITICS
ELEMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
PROBLEMS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
COMPARATIVE POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES
POLITICS OF LATIN AMERICA
THE JUDICIAL PROCESS
GREAT QUESTIONS IN POLITICS
POLS 355
AMERICAN NATIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
D
D
POLS 360
POLS 361
POLS 372
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC POLICY
PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
D
D
D
D
POLS 372L
LABORATORY IN PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
POLS 380
POLS 403
POLS 404
POLS 405
POLS 406
LOS ANGELES: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
URBAN POLITICS
THE PROCESS OF PUBLIC POLICY FORMATION
FUNDAMENTALS OF POLICY ANALYSIS
D
POLS 407
POLICY IMPLEMENTATIONS & PROGRAM EVALUATIONS
POLS 411
POLS 412
POLS 413
POLS 414
POLS 420 A
POLS 420 B
POLS 420 C
POLS 420 D
GREEK, ROMAN,& MEDIEVAL POLITICAL THEORY
MODERN WESTERN POLITICAL THEORY
AMERICAN POLITICAL THOUGHT
WESTERN POLITICAL THEORY IN THE 20TH CENTURY
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF LATIN AMERICA
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF WESTERN EUROPE
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF EASTERN EUROPE
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF MIDDLE EAST
15
1
2
3
D
4
D
5
D
D
6
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
M
D
D
D
D
M
D
M
D
D
D
D
D
D
M
M
M
D
D
M
D
D
D
D
M
M
M
M
D
D
D
D
M
POLS 420 E
POLS 420 F
POLS 420 G
POLS 420 H
POLS 421
POLS 422
POLS 426
POLS 427A/L
POLS 427B/L
POLS 428
POLS 429
POLS 430A-Z
POLS 432A
POLS 432B
POLS 433A
POLS 433C
POLS 434A
POLS 434B
POLS 435A
POLS 435B
POLS 436A
POLS 438
POLS 439A
POLS 439B
POLS 440
POLS 441
POLS 442
POLS 443
POLS 444
POLS 445
POLS 446
POLS 448
16
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF AFRICA
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF SOUTH ASIA
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF SOUTHEAST ASIA
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF NORTHEAST ASIA
THE POLITICS OF DEVELOPMENT
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
INTERNATIONAL LAW
MODEL UNITED NATIONS I AND LAB (1/2)
MODEL UNITED NATIONS II AND LAB (1/2)
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION
UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS OF SELECTED NATIONS
POLITICS OF MEXICO
GOVERNMENTS AND POLITICS OF SOUTH AMERICA
THE POLITICS OF CENTRAL AMERICA
THE CHURCH AND POLITICS OF SOUTH ASIA
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS OF SOUTH ASIA
GOVERNMENT & POLITICS OF SOUTHEAST ASIA
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS OF CHINA
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS OF JAPAN
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS OF EUROPE
GOVERNMENTS & POLITICS OF THE MIDDLE EAST
GOVERNMENT& POLITICS OF SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
GOVERNMENT & POLITICS OF SOUTHERN AFRICA
AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES & POLITICS
INTEREST GROUPS
GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
ELECTIONS AND VOTING BEHAVIOR
POLITICAL BEHAVIOR
THE PRESIDENCY
WOMEN AND POLITICS IN THE UNTIED STATES AND THE WORLD
M
M
M
M
D
D
M
M
M
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
M
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
M
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
POLS 449
POLS 450
POLS 455
POLS 457A
POLS 457 B
POLS 458
POLS 460
POLS 461
POLS 462
POLS 463
POLS 464
POLS 465
POLS 466
POLS 467
POLS 469/L
POLS 471 A
POLS 471 B
POLS 471C
POLS 471 D
POLS 471 E
POLS 471 F
POLS 480
POLS 481
POLS 486SOC
POLS 490
POLS 490CA
POLS 494SOC
POLS 496A-Z
17
THE POLITICS OF COMMUNITY ACTION
JURISPRUDENCE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURES
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
WELFARE POLICY
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
ETHICS IN POLITICS AND ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY
ADMINISTRATIVE BEHAVIOR
THE POLITICS OF PUBLIC SPENDING
URBAN ADMINISTRATION
CITY PLANNING AND LAB (2/1)
PROSEMINAR / AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
PROSEMINAR / COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENT
PROSEMINAR / INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
PROSEMINAR / POLITICAL THEORY
PROSEMINAR / PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC POLICY
PROSEMINAR / PUBLIC LAW
THE POLITICS OF GLOBALIZATIONS
GLOBALIZATION, GENDER, AND DEMOCRATIZATION
SOCIAL SCIENCE CAREER INTERNSHIP
SUPERVISED INDIVIDUAL PROJECT
SUPERVISED INDIVIDUAL PROJECT-CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT
SOCIAL SCIENCE CAREER INTERNSHIP
EXPERIMENTAL TOPICS COURSE IN POLITICAL SCIENCE
D
D
D
D
D
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
D
D
D
D
M
M
M
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
M
D
D
D
D
D
D
M
M
D
M
M
M
M
M
D
D
D
M
D
D
D
D
D
D
D