Table of Contents
I
Department/Unit Mission and Goals ........................................................................................... 2
II
Description of Programs ............................................................................................................. 12
III
Faculty .......................................................................................................................................... 23
IV
Students ........................................................................................................................................ 24
V
Facilities and Equipment ............................................................................................................ 28
VI
Library and Technological Resources ....................................................................................... 30
VII Analysis of the Review Period .................................................................................................... 32
VIII Future Directions ......................................................................................................................... 37
IX
Suggestions for the Program Review Process ........................................................................... 42
Appendices and Attachments .............................................................................................................. 43
Appendix A: Course/Faculty Instructional Methods and Activities ............................................... 43
Appendix B: Senior Assessment Materials........................................................................................ 45
Appendix C: Faculty Profile ............................................................................................................... 70
Appendix D: Faculty Vitae ................................................................................................................. 71
Appendix E: Comparative Quantity and Efficiency Measures with COTS Departments ........... 72
1
Program Review Self Study Contents
Year 2006 – 2007
POLITICAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
Overview:
The self-study is prepared through the leadership of the department chair by the faculty of the
department and is both descriptive and evaluative; it provides basic information on the nature of the
department’s programs and gives the faculty’s assessment of the program’s strengths and weaknesses.
A program of self-study is the faculty’s opportunity to scrutinize itself, to publicize its
accomplishments and examine its shortcomings.
The following outline for the contents of the self-study combines elements from academic norms,
accreditation standards, and performance-based budgeting issues. The contents of the outline were
compiled from a variety of sources.
Departments are asked to fill out each category concisely, with appropriate supporting data for each
item. Evidence may be included in the appendices.
I.
DEPARTMENT/UNIT MISSION AND GOALS
IA.
General description of department that provides an overview and context for
the rest of the self-study
The Department of Political Science consists of six full-time equivalent faculty members, along with
miscellaneous (approximately two) adjuncts, with varying interests and expertise. As our web site and
mission states, “The Department of Political Science believes that its primary purpose is to pursue
knowledge and understanding of the political aspects of the human endeavor; to transmit this
knowledge to others; to relate this knowledge to the real world in creative, critical, and constructive
ways; and to encourage through pedagogical means a real interest in politics.”
Political Science is one of the departments of the social sciences within the College of the Sciences, the
largest College (in total number of Departments, faculty and majors) on the CWU campus. In terms of
faculty (FTEF), Majors, and Student Coursework (FTE), we are one of, but not the, smallest
departments in the College. Indeed, during the period we ranked tenth (out of twelve) in terms of
faculty, and between tenth and eleventh in terms of students each academic year.
Political Science, within the human or social sciences, is “the study of governments, public policies,
and political behavior,” and “uses both humanistic and scientific perspectives and skills to examine all
countries and regions of the world,” (American Political Science Association, www.apsanet.org).
Therefore, “our Department is concerned not only with governmental actors but also with nongovernmental organizations such as the private economic sector and with citizen behavior and
attitudes. Political Science encompasses the study of American politics, the political systems of other
countries, political and economic organizations of a non-state nature, international relations, and
political philosophy, theory, and ethics.” (Department web site)
Since its existence as free-standing Department in the mid-1960s, political science has attempted to
promote an understanding of the political world on the CWU campus. Naturally, it also has gone
2
through some changes, and the current department is no different. In fact, in the preceding five years
we have had a fair degree of turnover in faculty and other changes to the Department make up and
curriculum, and anticipate more in the future. Two of our most senior faculty (Drs. Robert Jacobs in
2002, and Jim Brown (also Chair) in 2005, with over 50 years of service to the University and
Department between them) retired during the period, and another, Dr. Michael Launius, took
administrative leave to run the Office of International Studies and Programs. We have also hired some
adjunct and non-tenure-track faculty to fill in the gaps in our program. During the period, the
University faculty also voted to unionize and a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was
negotiated which went into effect for the 2006-07 year. Thus, one could say we are somewhat in flux,
and this review comes at a time of some uncertainty and examination about our future direction.
IB.
List programmatic goals
1.
Identify and describe major program activities that will enable goals to be
reached.
2.
Identify what data will be used to measure (assess) whether goals are
achieved.
(NOTE: Goals 1-3 came from the Departmental Mission; Goals 4-7 from Strategic Plans.)
Goal 1: To Pursue Knowledge and Understanding of the Political Aspects of the Human
Endeavor.
1) Activities: this goal basically entails the entire program and its faculty, as this is what
we do, what we are about, our raison d’etre. We primarily attempt to achieve this goal through our
research and professional development in our discipline, but as Central’s Latin motto reminds us, “By
Teaching, We Learn,” we also pursue this goal through our courses.
2) Measurement: this is a difficult goal to measure, but all of the members of the
Department participate in scholarly activities that contribute in a small way to this goal, including
scholarship of discovery, application, and teaching. While we will go into more detail in the “Faculty”
section, below, we would note here that the Department’s research activities have increased over the
period. The relatively large number of “new” special topics, “current issues” and seminar courses the
Department has offered in the last five years – 27 in all, included summer sessions - also demonstrates
that the faculty are learning about new topics and keeping abreast of new and current developments in
the field and in the “real world” of politics outside the academy.
Goal 2: To Transmit this Knowledge to Others, and Relate it to the World in Creative, Critical
and Constructive Ways.
1) Activities: the major program activities that support this goal include the courses the
Department offers, public presentations that Faculty members make to the campus and larger
communities, and the publication and other dissemination of faculty knowledge through scholarly and
popular media of communication (journals, books, newspapers, radio, television, speeches, etc.).
2) Measurement: this can be measured through faculty efforts to disseminate their ideas.
In this vein, the Department is quite active (and successful, at least in terms of quantity if not effect):
One measurement is our publications and dissemination of expertise in various outlets,
mentioned above. Notably, over the last five years, the Department has increased its output and
prominence in both scholarly and popular venues.
Probably the best example of our success in this area is in our Department’s presence as
expert commentators in the mass media. Four members have been or are involved in writing regularto-irregular columns for the Ellensburg Daily Record newspaper. Prof. Matt Manweller also has a
3
weekly radio show, and now a local cable-access discussion program; the Department also participates
in giving public addresses and presentations to the campus, local and larger communities of which we
are a part. (More on this is discussed below).
Another way to measure it is through our subject matter. In our courses during the
period, the Department as a whole had an average score of 4.67 (out of 5) on the Student Evaluation of
Instruction (SEOI), Question 18, “Instructor Applied Course Material to Real World Issues,” above
the College and University averages both overall (4.54, and 4.53, respectively). Department scores
were also higher each and every quarter during the period under review.
Goal 3: To Encourage through Pedagogical Means, a Real Interest in Politics.
1) Activities: again, this seems to be an inherent part of everything we do, if
“pedagogical means” (or teaching) is construed widely. However, primarily we do this through our
course offerings to students, though we do it indirectly for the rest of campus, the Ellensburg
community, and others through our public presentations, appearances and contributions to media
outlets, etc.
2) Measurement: here’s the sticky part: measuring success. We would note, however,
like a lot of things, just because they are difficult to measure or calibrate does not mean they are not
worthy or worth doing. Indeed, one might argue that the more important a goal is, the harder it is to
tell if you’ve achieved it. Nevertheless, we believe there are some measures of student interest:
-Our majors, and FTE, have been increasing over the last five years, at rates greater than
the overall increase at the University. Since very few students come to Central (or any school)
intending on majoring in Political Science, and we thus recruit most all of our majors “in house,” this
to us seems to indicate we are creating interest in politics on campus.
-Our courses appear to give students an appreciation for politics and political science.
For example, responses to Item 17, “Instructor Developed an Appreciation for the Field,” on the SEOI
for the period are higher than average:
Dept. Average:
COTS Avg.:
Univ. Avg.:
4.37 (out of 5)
4.31
4.36
Here, however, though we were greater overall, we were ahead of the University and College
averages on these measures only 9 out of 14 quarters. So, there is room for improvement.
Goal 4: To Increase the Department’s Offerings and Strengthen Its Program through
Additional Faculty in Traditional Areas of Weakness, Thereby Providing a Comprehensive Political
Science Program That Better Prepares Majors and non-Majors as Citizens and Workers in a
Pluralistic Society.
1) Activities: the Department activities in this realm are curriculum development, and
gathering research about, and lobbying the higher administration for, more faculty resources in those
areas of our program we believe are weaknesses in our department. In particular, our strongest need
historically has been in the area of Comparative Politics: Latin America (Central and South American
politics), along with International Relations. We also have emerging needs in the areas of Native
American politics and state and local politics, in the American politics sub-field.
2) Measurement: Here, it is quite simple: the addition of a faculty member and courses
in these subject areas. We have some evidence from students that courses in these areas would be of
interest. We were able to have an Adjunct non-tenure track faculty member who offered a few courses
4
in Latin American and Native American politics, and developed some for our curriculum, but this was
an arbitrary and almost random effect since this person was the life-partner of one of our faculty, who
since took a job elsewhere. We have put a request for another Tenure-Track faculty in this area in our
budget request for the last three biennia, and in Spring of 2006 the Department Chair put in a “Spheres
of Distinction” proposal along these lines. Overall, however, we have not been able to achieve this
goal, in large part due to lack of support by the administration. (Note: in 2006-07, the Latin American
Studies Program received a “Spheres of Distinction” grant for the creation of a Latino Studies Center
to be added to its purview, along with a tenure-track Director of Latino Studies, and after some
consultation decided to tentatively place this position (Latino Studies/Politics), assuming a successful
search, in our Department. While we welcome this initiative, we would note, however, this isn’t
exactly what we asked for, being Hispanic-American rather than Latin American politics, and was an
external decision.)
Goal 5: Increase Support for the Department’s Operations.
1) Activities: These activities include delivering an efficient and effective program, and
making higher administration aware of our limited budget and resource allocations, and lobbying
effectively for increases.
2) Measurement: This can easily be measured by the Department’s budget. In fact,
while the budget has increased over the last 5 years, it has stayed relatively flat, with most increases
simply being a transfer of funds from the Provost’s Office to cover photocopier/ing expenses. In Fall,
2005, the goods and services line was “adjusted for a total increase of $1,473. Of this total $1,137
merely represents a transfer of base funds and copier expenses from the provost’s office; while this has
already been added to your base, in the case of shared departmental copiers some adjustments of both
budget and expenses may remain to be made. The remaining $336 is an increase of 5% over the 20042005 base, and will be transferred to the departmental budget for the 2005-2006 academic year,
thereafter regularly recurring in the departmental base.” (COTS Dean Memo, September 2005). This
was the first increase in several years.
Goal 6: Develop and Refine the Department’s Ability to Assess Students’ Knowledge of the
Fundamentals of Political Science, and the Faculty’s Abilities to Teach It.
This goal is discussed more fully under “Assessment,” below. However, we have
implemented a two-credit hour Senior Assessment exit course (POSC 489) since 1999. We have toyed
with varying ways to improve our measurement and knowledge.
Goal 7: Increase Faculty Support for Travel and Professional Development.
1) We have actively tried to support our faculty in gaining access to professional
development funding, and have tried to supplement external sources of support. In particular, we have
tried to utilize summer revenues to supplement faculty travel to conferences, etc., and for other
legitimate professional development activities or materials.
2) The simplest way to measure this goal is to examine the amount allocated for
travel/professional development. We attempted to increase support for faculty travel through money
allocated by the Faculty Senate and Summer revenues, and appear to have been moderately successful.
Below is the amount the Department reimbursed faculty for travel each academic year.
2001-02: $2242
2002-03: $2562
2003-04: $2265
2004-05: $4499
2005-06: $2434
5
However, we would note that under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA),
faculty are now allocated $700 in travel from the Faculty Affairs office, which has reduced the
role of the department in this area. In addition, uncertainty in how Summer revenues will be
redistributed to Departments raises questions as to how much the Department will be able to
supplement these activities.
C.
Centrality/Essentiality – present an assessment of the centrality and/or essentiality
of your unit to the university’s mission or to the extent to which the unit is essential
to the expected operations of a comprehensive university.
Given that the stated Mission of the University is to “prepare students for responsible
citizenship, [emphasis added] as responsible stewards of the earth, and to lead enlightened and
productive lives,” our Department obviously plays a central and essential role in at least the
first and third objectives, and an indirect role in the second.
-By its very nature, political science deals directly with issues of responsible
citizenship and what it means to be part of a community. Twenty-four centuries ago,
Aristotle made the claim for political science that it is “the study which [pursues The Good]
and has most authority and control over the rest.” One could say, then, that political science is
truly essential to all the sciences and all learning. Indeed, if to be a citizen, especially in a
democracy, means to be informed, interested and involved in its civic life, then political science
plays a key role in civic education and engagement. Our courses and curricula thus directly
relate to this part of the University Mission.
-We prepare students for responsible citizenship in other ways, as well: through
internship and other professional opportunities with politically-related
organizations and institutions; through Departmental colloquia and other campus
events we sponsor or participate in; and through advising politically-oriented
student groups.
-We have a limited role in preparing them to be “responsible stewards of the earth,”
though we are involved in teaching environmental politics and policy through the
Public Policy program and public policy courses; and we did offer a current issues
460 course, on Comparative Environmental Policy, in Winter, 2004.
-We also prepare students for enlightened and productive lives through teaching
them to think critically and for themselves, especially about the political system if
not more generally.
1.
Describe how each of the relevant six strategic goals for the university are
being promoted within the department.
CWU Goal I: Provide for an outstanding academic and student life on the Ellensburg campus.
We support this goal through the following ways:
-Political science courses are a necessary and vital contribution to an undergraduate
liberal arts education.
-The department regularly contributes to campus colloquia and other events, whether
participating in, or sponsoring them. Some examples: The Political Science Department Colloquium
6
on the Midterm Elections, Nov. 2002; Campus Panel on Terror and Torture in the American Mind
(May, 2004); Margaret Mead Film Festival; Yong Soo Lee’s “Comfort Woman Testimony and
Symposium,” in October, 2005. Members of the Department also participate regularly as part of
University-related events such as CALL (Central Adult Lifelong-Learning) luncheons and on ad-hoc
panels like College Civics Week and the like.
-The department sponsors a relatively large number of student internships and
independent study projects directly related to the political world, which provide our students with
professional and practical research and work experience they don’t receive in the classroom. These are
detailed elsewhere in this document.
-The department offers a wide variety of courses covering the sub-fields of the
discipline that broaden our students’ knowledge about the political world: American politics (their
own country), International Politics (politics between nations), comparative politics (other countries
and regions outside the US, including Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East), and political thought
(major thinkers and canons of the field). Furthermore, since 2000 the department added two courses
that specifically allow faculty and students to delve into topics of current events/interest, Political
Science 460 (Current Issues in Comparative Politics), and 470 (Current Issues in International
Politics). This addition has enabled us the flexibility to offer courses of direct relevance to the
contemporary political scene, such as: Global Feminisms; Public Opinion, Mass Media, and US
Foreign Policy; War and Democracy; China-Taiwan Relations; North Korean Nuclear Crisis; World
Demography and Politics; and Politics of Globalization. These compliment ad hoc “special topics”
courses we have offered, such as Politics of Developing Nations, American Indian Politics (now a
permanent course), and Race and Ethnicity in American Politics.
-We contribute courses to and strengthen the quality of other majors (such as Law and
Justice and Flight Technology) and interdisciplinary programs (such as Asia-Pacific Studies, Public
Policy, Women Studies, Social Science, and the soon-to-be American Indian Studies, and Film and
Video Studies, programs) by bringing important political and governmental perspectives to these areas
of study.
CWU Goal II: Provide for an outstanding academic and student life at the university centers.
The Department does not offer a formal program at any of the Centers. It does offer three upper
division courses in the public law sequence at two of the west side centers that contribute to the
General Studies – Social Science program and as electives for the Law and Justice Dept. (or whomever
takes them). Given new funding for this degree program, the department could expand offerings at
Yakima or at the centers. There is some discussion of using some additional funding from the State for
expansion in the GS-SS program, which may involve the Department.
CWU Goal III: Develop a diversified funding base to support our academic and student programs.

Enhance visibility of and knowledge about the university and its programs throughout the state and the Pacific
Northwest.

Expand Central Washington University's student base through recruiting and retention.

Expand sources of revenue to support university initiatives.
Though this goal seems more logically directed towards other units of the University, the
Department has put forth initiatives in the college and university development effort;
7
department faculty have participated in other externally funded programs when opportunities
have come up.
-Prof. Launius was involved in the NSF Environmental Studies Undergraduate
Research Grant in China in 2002-04, and in 2005 went on a Fulbright Hays fellowship with members
of one of our “Center partners” (Edmonds Community College) to South Africa and Namibia.
-Prof. Wirth has been involved trying to gain outside funding for symposia on education policy
and Native American/Indigenous education efforts.
-Prof. Schaefer applied for a grant with the United States Institute of Peace.
We also have participated in University orientation and recruitment efforts during the summer
and the academic year.
As far as “enhancing the visibility and knowledge about the university and its programs
throughout the state and the Pacific Northwest,” and beyond, our faculty have definitely contributed to
this goal. We would reiterate the points made earlier about our profile in the media and other public
venues made above. Some examples: Prof. Manweller’s “Election Will Decide Fate of Nation”
column in October 2004 was disseminated widely across the nation via the Internet. Prof. Launius gave
a speech on US Foreign Policy to students in China and Korea, and Prof. Yoon’s expertise on the
plight of the Korean “Comfort Women” has also received international attention.
CWU Goal IV: Build mutually beneficial partnerships with industry, professional groups, institutions,
and the communities surrounding our campus locations.
Our Department has been very active in seeking out and cooperating with various individuals,
organizations and institutions related to the field, particularly with internships for our students. These
include various local, state, and national political/governmental offices, non-profits, interest groups
and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), etc. These include: the Washington State Legislature,
the Washington State Secretary of State’s Office, the Kittitas County Prosecutors’ Office, Kittitas
Valley Volunteer Legal Services, Office of the County Auditor, the Ellensburg City Manager, Office
of State Rep. Janea Holmquist, Office of US Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, among
others.
Furthermore, Department members have been involved with community and civic life in other ways.
Prof. Rex Wirth has been active with Native American community in the region through Tribal
Leaders Congress on Education and organizing a Symposium on Indigenous Education at the 2006
Congress of the Americas. Prof. Manweller has been involved with the Washington Policy Center and
Association of Washington Business, and is Chair of the Kittitas County Republican Party.
CWU Goal V: Strengthen the university's position as a leader in the field of education.
The state discontinued offering a Certification in Political Science/Civics/Government in 1998,
and so we therefore discontinued our Political Science: Teaching version of the major. We still, do,
however, contribute indirectly to this goal through the Social Science Major and Social Studies
endorsement through one course: Political Science 210, American Politics. We believe it is a valuable
part of teacher education in social science.
8
CWU Goal VI: Create and sustain productive, civil, and pleasant campuses and workplaces.

Develop an effective sense of community throughout the university. .

Reward the individual accomplishments of faculty and staff.

Establish university-wide standards of professionalism. Value diversity of background, experience, belief, and
perspective as a means to improve the quality of the educational experience and to achieve civility.
The Department itself has traditionally had an informal, friendly, and collegial
atmosphere, though there have been admittedly been a few exceptions over the last 5
years. Thankfully, these were limited and isolated events. The unique character of the
Department nevertheless builds bonds of unity, pride and loyalty among our members.
It is safe to say that for the most part, working in Political Science is a relatively
pleasant experience.
Individual accomplishments of faculty have been rewarded through promotion and
salary advancement as part of the Salary Administration Board process, which included
review of merit achievement and CWU career contributions, from higher administration
during 2001-04. As welcome as these efforts were, they also were mainly based on
comparisons with peer institutions, were not always fully funded, and some department
faculty feel they did little if nothing to correct underlying issues of salary inequity and
compression. All of these are matters now under the purview of Collective Bargaining,
and so the Department role is uncertain.
The Department also attempts to support faculty in their endeavors which can lead to
professional success and accomplishment, including financially, in whatever ways we
can, budget and other resources permitting.
We have upheld our own standards of professionalism, which emphasizes service to
students and the larger community, even if we try not to take ourselves too seriously.
Of equal importance, the Department values diversity, broadly conceived, as a
community of scholars in a field which highly values academic freedom along with
diverse viewpoints, agendas of inquiry, and populations, naturally should.
D.
Describe departmental governance system (provide organizational chart for
department, if appropriate).
Perhaps ironically, given our field of study, the Department of Political Science has a rather
informal and simple governance structure. There are essentially two formal institutions, the
Department Chair and the Personnel Committee. The Department Chair is chiefly involved in
conducting the day-to-day administrative and decision-making functions of the Department and
other roles such as signatory authority, supervision of support staff, and liaison with the Dean
of the College of the Sciences and higher administration, etc. The Chair also has an
independent evaluation and oversight role on personnel matters.
During four of the five years under review, Dr. Jim Brown was Chair of the Department. A full
professor who had previously served in the position in the 1980s, he brought experience and
stability to the position. Upon his rather sudden retirement at the end of 2004-05, Associate
9
Professor Todd Schaefer was elected by the Department and formally appointed by the Dean,
and in 2005-06 was in his first year in that or any such capacity. He continues his term in 200607.
The Personnel Committee works in conjunction with the Chair to deliberate and formally
recommend upon matters of reappointment, tenure, promotion, merit and the like. The Chair of
the Personnel Committee, a tenured faculty member, organizes and directs its operations,
meetings, and business. For 2001-04, Todd Schaefer was the Chair; and for 05-06 (and
continuing) Prof. Bang-Soon Yoon has held that post.
Voting is limited by the CBA contract (previously, from 2001-05, the Faculty Code) to tenured
members for tenure, and appropriately "ranked" members for each rank (absent the candidate,
of course), though tenure-track assistant professors participate in the deliberations except for
their own reappointment.
On other matters, the Department generally operates on a Committee of the Whole approach,
owing to its small size. All full-time faculty are allowed to attend, participate in, and vote at
faculty meetings, except where personnel and other related matters are concerned; adjunct
faculty are allowed to attend and participate only. Department meetings, held periodically (at
least once per term) when important matters are at hand or enough issues arise to warrant them,
are the informal consulting and decision-making mechanism for greater-than-mundane issues
that affect the department collectively or multiple members of its faculty.
The Department also creates ad-hoc committees such as faculty searches, as well, which may or
may not equal the whole, though we attempt to maximize participation where feasible.
Department policies and procedures follow that in the Department Personnel manual and those
of the College and University policies.
The Department is supported by a Secretary Senior (on a part-year contact) and a work-study
student assistant who are vital to its operations. In Summer of 2006, we undertook a search to
replace Ms. Linda Rubio, our Secretary and guiding star for the past five years; happily, Ms.
Cyndie Strawder took the job and began in September 2006. We note this only because, like
with our faculty, our staff is in transition or relatively new as well.
10
As of 2006, the Department consisted of:
Faculty
Full Professors
Dr. Michael Jennings (Administrative Appointment as Associate Vice-President for Faculty
Affairs)
Dr. Michael Launius (On Administrative Leave; Director of Office of International Studies)
Dr. Todd Schaefer (also Department Chair)
Dr. Rex Wirth (also Director, Public Policy)
Dr. Bang-Soon Yoon (also Director, Women Studies)
Assistant Professors
Dr. Barbara Flanagan
Dr. Mathew Manweller
Visiting Lecturer
Dr. Cameron Otopalik
Emeriti
Dr. Jim Brown
Dr. Robert Jacobs (also Adjunct Lecturer)
Dr. Thomas Kerr
Dr. Robert Yee
(Adjunct) Lecturers
Mr. Scott Turnbull
Staff:
Ms. Cyndie Strawder (Secretary Senior)
Ms. Marie Anchilo (Student Assistant)
11
II.
Description of programs – (briefly describe to provide context for reviewers)
1) Undergraduate Programs
The Department offers two versions of the same major: a “large plan” and a “small
plan.” The large plan is for students without another major or a minor, and is 62 credits,
and small plan is for those with a second major or minor, and is 47 credits. Both plans
share these characteristics:
-A core curriculum of the lower-division courses in the major sub-fields of
political science:
 POSC 101, Introduction to Politics (5 credits);
 POSC 210, American Politics (5 cr.);
 POSC 260, Comparative Politics (5 cr.);
 POSC 270, International Politics (5 cr.);
And an Upper-Division Theory Core, which consists of ONE course of the
theory sequence:
 POSC 481, Early Political Thought (5 cr.)
 POSC 482, Early Modern Political Thought (5 cr.)
 POSC 483, Recent Political Thought (5 cr.)
 POSC 485, American Political Thought (5 cr.)
A requirement that students complete an exit course, POSC 489, Senior
Assessment (2 credits), that assesses their knowledge of the field and ability to convey
it to others, and their faculty’s delivery of it.
The two plans differ only in how many upper-division electives students must
take (35 in the large plan, 20 in the small).
We also have a Political Science Minor, which consists of the core (minus
political theory and Senior Assessment) and 10 elective credits.
2) Graduate Programs
The Political Science Department does not offer any graduate programs. Some
of our faculty do, however, participate on an ad-hoc basis as committee members on
graduate student theses and the like in other departments such as Psychology and
Resource Management, when requested.
3) General Education contributions
The Department contributes one course to each of the three sub-parts of the
Social and Behavioral Sciences Breadth Requirement under General Education (please
see the official University Catalog for more details):
a) Within “Perspectives on the Cultures and Experiences of the United States,” we
offer multiple sections of Political Science 210, American Politics, each year.
b) Within “Perspectives on World Cultures,” we offer multiple sections of Political
Science 270, International Politics, each year.
c) Within “Foundations of Human Adaptation and Behavior,” we offer multiple
sections of Political Science 101, Introduction to Politics, each year.
Two of these courses (101 and 270) are “W” or “writing-intensive” parts of General
Education. More information on the number of sections and students served is provided
below.
12
We believe, however, that Political Science 260, Comparative Politics, does fall within
the purview of the “World Cultures” and may ask for consideration of that course
within that category. Secondly, we believe that now that 300-level courses are allowed
and even encouraged under general education, that Political Science 270 International
Politics could easily be a 300-level course, as it was prior to the incarnation of the
current General Education structure.
4) Teacher Preparation contributions
As noted above, the state has discontinued offering a Certification in Political
Science/Civics/Government. We do, however, contribute to the Social Science Major
and Social Studies endorsement through one course: Political Science 210, American
Politics.
5) Certificate Programs
The Department does not offer any certificate programs.
IIA.
Curriculum: Describe currency of curricula in discipline. How does the
curriculum compare to recognized standards promulgated by professionals in the
discipline?
There are no official curricular standards per se as put forth by the American Political
Science Association or the like. Given the wide diversity and size of political science programs
throughout the country, this is probably understandable.
However, the American Political Science Association lists various organized sections and other
sub-fields of the discipline within its organizations. In particular, the APSA “Fields of Interest”
designation for Members includes the following major sub-classifications:
American Politics
Comparative Politics
International Politics
Political Philosophy (Theory)
Public Administration
Public Policy
Public Law and Courts
Notably, our curriculum covers all of these areas, with at least one course or more.
Furthermore, our core curriculum of Introduction to Politics, American Politics, Comparative Politics,
International Politics, and one of four Theory courses follows this motif quite closely. (Note: public
administration, public policy, and public law are all part of American Politics, though have somewhat
of an autonomous tradition within the field. At CWU, Public Policy is also an inter-disciplinary major
with Economics, Geography, and Political Science). At some schools, there is no Introduction to
Politics course, as the Introduction to American Politics (survey) course serves that function.
This compares quite closely and favorably to undergraduate programs at University of
Washington, Eastern Washington University, and Western Washington University, and indeed others
around the nation. We would note, however, that our “sister schools” in the state all have more faculty
in their Departments than do we. Western Washington has 13 full-time faculty, and Eastern, eight. As a
result, they offer more, and a wider variety of, courses, especially upper division.
13
IIB.
programs.
Describe the process for reviewing curriculum and making alterations to
The Department uses an informal, ad hoc process for reviewing curriculum and making
alterations. In essence, faculty who wish to add courses to the curriculum initiate discussions with the
Chair and complete the necessary paperwork to go through the process of getting the course approved
by the curriculum committee. Department members can review the proposal and provide input.
Periodically, the Department reviews its course offerings and removes those (if the registrar hasn’t
already) which have not been offered recently.
IIC.
Effectiveness of Instruction - Describe how the department addresses the
scholarship of teaching with specific supporting documentation
including each of the following:
1.
Effectiveness of instructional methods to produce student learning based
upon programmatic goals including innovative and traditional methods –
examples include:
a.
Collaborative research between student and faculty
b.
Inquiry-based, open ended learning
c.
Use of field experiences
d.
Classic lectures
e.
Lecture and inquiry based guided discussions
f.
Service learning or civic engagement
-See attached chart of faculty instructional activities (Appendix A).
2.
Innovative instructional methods
-Various members of the Department utilize other innovative, or at least, nontraditional, methods of instruction in their courses. Some use simulation
exercises or games that have students role play (such as members of Congress in
a committee or countries in the international system or “model” United Nations),
class debates, poster presentations, etc.
3.
What evidence other than Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) is
gathered and used in the department to evaluate the effectiveness of
instruction?
-As of 2004-05, the Department has begun implementing a peer evaluation of
instruction procedure of tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty. One course
per year is sampled (all course syllabi and SEOIs are examined already as part
of performance review), consisting of the chair or a tenured member has
discussion with the instructor about the course and how they approach it; a
review of the syllabus; classroom visit with an evaluation form; and a formal
letter of evaluation.
Also, portions of the Senior Assessment questionnaire, which is a required part
of our Senior Assessment course given to all graduating majors in their last or
second-to-last quarter, have a number of items assessing the quality of teaching
the department. We discuss those results under assessment, below.
14
4.
Departmental teaching effectiveness – report a five-year history of the
“teaching effectiveness” department means as reported on SEOIs, indexed
to the university mean on a quarter-by-quarter basis.
-The Department does relatively well on the Student Evaluation of Instruction
survey measure. Overall, for all courses/quarters under the period, the
Department had a score of 4.33; the College, 4.29; and the University, 4.32, out
of 5. On a quarter-by-quarter basis, the Department received ratings above the
College and University means 9 out of the 15 terms. (See below)
Average Response (Dept. Score) on SEOI for Instructor Effectiveness
2001-2002
Fall
Winter
Spring
Department
4.28
4.36
4.42
COTS
4.24
4.26
4.32
CWU
4.26
4.3
4.33
2002-2003
Department
COTS
CWU
Fall
2003-2004
Department
COTS
CWU
Fall
2004-2005
Department
COTS
CWU
Fall
2005-2006
Department
COTS
CWU
Fall
Winter
4.34
4.29
4.33
Spring
4.36
4.25
4.31
Winter
4.28
4.34
4.36
Spring
4.39
4.31
4.33
Winter
4.28
4.28
4.3
4.23
4.37
4.38
Spring
4.44
4.27
4.33
Winter
4.15
4.28
4.31
4.36
4.35
4.35
4.25
4.28
4.35
Spring
4.51
4.29
4.31
4.33
4.35
4.35
Also, our senior assessment exit survey asks students to rate teaching quality, the results of which are
discussed elsewhere.
IID.
Required measures of quantity for academic programs for the last five years.
1. Number of students served in general education, education and supporting
courses.
-From 2001-05, the Department ran 61 sections of General Education courses
(POSC 101, 210, 270), with a total enrollment of 2407, or 12,035 credit hours (or 267.4 FTE).
This averages out to 12.2 sections of 481.4 students (2407 credit hours or 53.5 FTE) per year.
2. Graduation Efficiency Index
-According to Institutional Research, there are not enough data on Political
Science to calculate this measure.
15
3. Number of students with 125% or more of excess credits over the amount
required in majors.
-According to Institutional Research, excluding double majors, 94.7
percent of political science majors graduate within 125 percent of the credits
they need, which is above the University average of 87.3 percent.
IIE.
Required measures of efficiency for each department for the last five years
1. SFR (FTES/FTEF) disaggregate data
Student FTE
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006
Lower Division
55.7
50.7
65.0
61.6
65.0
Upper Division
42.9
49.0
45.4
58.0
62.8
Total
98.6
99.7
110.4
119.6
127.8
Faculty FTE
FTEF:
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006
6.08
5.55
5.46
5.5
N/A
Est. Student-Faculty Ratio:
FTE/FTEF
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006
Lower Division
9.16
9.13
11.9
11.2
N/A
Upper Division
7.06
8.83
8.31
10.5
N/A
Total
16.2
17.96
20.21
21.7
N/A
Average:
8.11
8.98
10.1
10.85
N/A
16
2.
Average Class size
Institutional Research Data:
Lower Division
Upper Division
Overall Average
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
36.3
36.6
38.8
40.1
37.5
35.1
12
17.4
18.9
18.9
16
18.6
18.9
24.4
25.2
27
22.3
24.1
From SAFARI data, excluding 290, 490 and 496’s (internships and independent
studies):
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
Lower Division:
34.5
38.1
34.2
Upper Division:
17.3
18.1
19.0
2004-05
2005-06
Lower Division:
36.3
33.3
Upper Division:
17.1
18.8
IIF.
Assessment of programs and students
1. Describe and provide results of how students are assessed as they enter the
program.
-Currently, students are not formally assessed as they enter the program. Given students
declare their majors at different points in their career, thus having different levels of
knowledge and experience, and possibly even courses at other institutions, this doesn’t
seem practical, though presumably is necessary for real assessment of effects.
2. Describe and provide results of how students are assessed as they exit the
major/program. What data exists within the department to demonstrate that
students achieve the program and student learner goals?
-Students are formally assessed as they exit the major through our Senior Assessment
course, POSC 489, which is required of all majors in their last or second-to-last quarter at
CWU. An overview of our assessment mechanism follows.
STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES (Program Level) - POLITICAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
Graduating political science majors will be expected to:

Be thoroughly familiar with the structure and organization of the discipline of Political Science.
Specifically, the student will understand the differences in subject matter between the four
traditional subfields of American Politics, Comparative Politics (the study of other political
systems), International Politics, and Political Thought and Philosophy.

Demonstrate an understanding of basic concepts and facts in each of the above four subfields.
Besides the evaluative procedures and tasks in the courses themselves, students will
demonstrate this knowledge in the end-of-major capstone course.

Acquire the analytical skills and tools useful to and associated with the discipline of Political
Science.
17

Demonstrate a familiarity with scholarly resources available to CWU students (such as the
library and internet resources) and demonstrate how to utilize these resources in carrying out a
research project - a project which is also part of the capstone course.
All of the courses in the major contribute to the achievement and measurement of these objectives. The
most relevant course-level assessment of the objectives is the Senior Assessment course itself (POSC
489), required of all graduating seniors. Students are required to take this course no earlier than their
last or second-to-last quarter before graduation and after they have taken the core (though there is no
technical prerequisite, it is highly recommended that they not do so; the Department is in the process of
making the core pre- or at least co-requisites, along with Senior standing, for enrollment in the course.
As part of the course, they must write a research paper and take a comprehensive exam, both relatively
equally weighted, and thus “pass” the course with a C- or higher in order to graduate. A departmental
survey is also administered to all students in the course, which is also a course requirement. The first
two are “our assessment of them,” so to speak, and the last is “their assessment of us.” A copy of the
most recent course syllabus is attached in Appendix B.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
The results of our assessment instrument (namely, the 489 course) are difficult to briefly summarize.
The vast majority of our students do pass the course with a C- or higher; every quarter, however,
approximately one or two students fail to make the grade. The test appears to be more of a problem
than the paper, though there is some correlation. Almost all of these particular students do, however,
redeem themselves and “pass” upon re-taking the course, making it difficult to tell how much of it is
failure to learn, and how much is “senioritis” or failure to take the exit course seriously. We have
denied degrees to a handful of students in the last five years, though the “C- requirement” only took
full effect for those entering or using the 2003-04 catalog.
Assessment of the Assessment:
The Paper
We have tinkered with the research paper project over the years. However, the common denominator is
that it consists of a 10-12 page “traditional” research paper on some topic within the field, which the
student must go out, research using authoritative sources in the relevant areas, and then write a paper
containing an argument and thesis, backed up by evidence through citations to said authoritative
sources.
One difficulty is getting the students to work on a major writing assignment which is not directly
related to course content; in other words, as an assessment course, we aren’t supposed to be teaching
students content, but rather assessing their skills. Thus, the paper is somewhat akin to an independent
study – and as any professor can tell you, some students do quite well at working independently and
carrying out their own research, and others do not. We also have the “senioritis” issue here, too,
meaning that our response has been to become more draconian about deadlines and meeting the
various stages of the assignment. The bulk of students seem to do reasonably well on the paper,
however.
This experience has led to the conclusion that - with understandable variation, given student ability most of our majors achieve the objectives embodied in this work. Still, this exercise does raise the
question of whether we should teach more about research and writing as a process and less about
content (per se) in our upper-division “content” courses.
18
The Test
When the ETS dropped the Political Science GRE in the late 1990s (part of the impetus for creating the
course, though not the only one), we developed our own test bank of short-answer questions. The
exam consists of 50 short-answer questions, and covers the core courses in the major. Given trial and
error, and variation in the number and type of faculty who have taught core courses, as well as
variation in student success, we have likewise tinkered with the exam format somewhat over the last
five years.
While students generally do not do quite as well on the test as the paper (with some variation), most
students do pass the exam. The average grade for the exam over the last five years is 69.8 – certainly
not as high as one would hope, but on the other hand retaining 70% of their knowledge from core
courses they may not have had for years isn’t terrible.
We don’t have any way to compare them, except across time (and the scores do seem, with some
variation, to be improving) but we have been able to match some of the factual knowledge questions
with similar questions from polls of the general public; by this standard, our students do quite well.
For example, almost 80% of our students could name the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court,
whereas only 10% of the general public can; only 35% of the public can name both of their US
Senators, while 70% of our students can; 74% of Americans know the Prime Minister of Great Britain,
while 98% of our majors do; and 39% of the public (given a multiple choice) know the President’s
veto can be overridden by a 2/3 vote of the Congress, whereas 77% of our students (who were merely
asked to explain what can happen after the President vetoes a bill) knew this fact.
One problem is the test evaluates their core knowledge at the end, even though they may not have
taken courses in that area (or that course) for several years. This is a basic issue with the structure of
the major; however, due such issues as our small faculty, scheduling difficulties, and not to mention
general student interest, we have not altered the basic structure of the major. We will likely discuss
altering the structure, content and/or nature of the exam in the future.
The Survey
The Survey is collected by the Department secretary, who types the results into a (parallel) form. We
then circulate the results (the actual individual surveys by each student per course/quarter) to the
faculty members, similar to the SEOI, though SEOIs are of course aggregated. Thus, each faculty
member sees and reads the anonymous results. The Department keeps a record of all the surveys.
Much of this data is qualitative and open-ended, and difficult to summarize. However, there are several
measures that indicate the department is doing a good to excellent job. Over the past 5 years, we do
rate quite highly on student measures of teaching(3.75/5), accessibility (4.35/5), and recommending the
department/major to others (80% would do so, only 2% would not; 18% might). [Please note question
wording, which is a more difficult standard than the usual scale!] More importantly, on some of the
open-ended questions, there is evidence students think highly of the department and their education,
how well prepared they are for the future, and in particular how they have grown/evolved in their
perceptions about politics. Coding the comments for positive, mixed, and neutral, out of 173 student
responses on “did your education prepare you well for future? (grad school, job, etc.), 76% (131) of the
students gave positive responses, and only 9% (16) gave negative ones. The effect on student thinking
on politics is more difficult to summarize, but leaves the strong impression that students do come away
changed and even enlightened from their major experience. (For a better sense of these opinions, we
19
strongly recommend the reader see attachments on Qs 9 and 16 in the Appendix B).
The largest criticisms to arise from the survey and student comments have to do with lack of
preparation for jobs, lack of departmental guidance in job search or career opportunities, and
requirements for applications to real world, such as internships. (We would note in response that many
of these functions are supposedly performed by Career Services, though the critique nevertheless
stands.) On the other hand, other students feel we do not provide enough training in being political
scientists and for graduate school. In addition, certain courses are singled out as being less than useful
(most notably, Political Science 101). In asking students about department weaknesses and holes in the
program and courses we should offer, students note Middle East politics, European politics, and Latin
America most frequently, in that order. (Unfortunately, this question also emits off-the-wall, or at least
difficult to summarize, responses; see attachment on Q14).
General Conclusions
We recognize our assessment regime and mechanism of the course in particular is not perfect; various
faculty have offered criticisms and potential improvements, though this is limited by program demands
themselves (especially teaching loads and distributions in the department). At the same time, we
recognize there is no “magic bullet” here, and it has served us better than our previous experience. We
would note that it does appear that students, with natural degrees of variation, do appear to learn the
basics of political science, and more importantly to think for themselves and develop their own views
of the political world.
3. What data are gathered about program graduates and their successes? e.g.
survey data about employer and student satisfaction, alumni? (Include data from
Institutional Research surveys.)
-Currently, no data are gathered about graduates, other than anecdotally. Again,
this seems a job for the Alumni Office, and in any event in the past was not
emphasized at the Department level. We do, however, note some that have gone
on to graduate and law school, and who are working in the field, elsewhere in
this report.
4. Describe faculty involvement in assessment.
-Faculty individually assess students’ knowledge and skills through
the requirements in their courses, such as research projects, exams, debates and
oral reports, etc. The faculty are involved in varying degrees with the Senior
Assessment course, as several different members have taught it over the years
(currently, however, only the chair has the “workload units” to do it). All
faculty are given results of the course survey, and performance of students on
exams and papers which they are welcome to review if they wish.
-As for instructional assessment, all faculty administer the SEOI in their courses;
we are developing a peer evaluation of instruction mechanism; and the senior
assessment survey includes items on teaching in the department.
-Program assessment is done primarily through a combination of the Senior
Assessment course and informal faculty review. All faculty are given copies of
20
the senior assessment survey.
5. Describe and provide evidence of how programs are assessed in the department
and how these assessment results are used to change or adapt program/major
curriculum, faculty, or resources.
-We have only one program, the Political Science major. The results of our assessment
haven’t been used directly to alter the major program. We have identified certain
weaknesses and strengths in instruction and curriculum, but haven’t yet made a formal
implementation of changes, though we plan on discussing both the results of the
assessment course and linkages of it to Department in the near future. See also 7.,
below.
6. How does your department implement and assess students’ critical thinking,
quantitative symbolic reasoning, information literacy, and writing skills?
We implement and assess these skills through our major courses. All of our courses
deal with critical thinking in some form or fashion, and writing is a required part of
almost all of our upper-division courses (see Appendix A). Assessment is done
primarily through the paper project in the 489 course (though we don’t really assess
quantitative symbolic reasoning, except for logical arguments within the paper’s
structure).
7. If there are weaknesses or omissions in student and programmatic assessment,
how does the department plan on addressing these issues?
Weaknesses:
-Our learning objectives aren’t concretely linked to specific courses, and faculty have not
agreed upon basic knowledge in the core.
-In terms of the Senior Assessment course specifically, there are weaknesses in both the
paper and exam portions of the course. A few students are don't understand how to
effectively structure a paper, and some fail to utilize enough - in terms of quality and
quantity - scholarly sources, and more (about 50 percent), don't follow proper citation
format. As noted, there is also not complete consensus on the material which should be
included in the exam (variations in instructor preferences) but also the fact that there is
not complete consensus within the field itself.
-We would also note several difficulties:
1) It is hard to get students to take the course seriously and avoid “senioritis;” therefore,
poor performance may not equal lack of knowledge.
2) Not all students take the core at CWU (transfers especially)
3) There is no pre-test of knowledge, since declare their majors at different times, etc.
4) Diversity among faculty perspectives and academic freedom in teaching these
courses – this seems to be more of a problem in the international and comparative areas
where naturally there is more diversity in content and approaches than American
politics, but nevertheless the issue remains.
Actions:
-In terms of addressing these shortcomings, the Department plans to review the Senior
21
Assessment course, and reevaluate its structure, goals, content, etc., during the next academic year or
so (2007-08?). Given we have new faculty members who have come on board since the original
incarnation of the current regime, plus our own experiences with it, we may very well alter our
approach in the future.
IIG.
University Centers
1. What programs and courses does the department currently offer at the
university centers?
–As mentioned above, the Department currently only offers the Public Law
Sequence (350, 451, 452) as upper-level elective offerings for Law and Justice and
general elective requirements. This may change, however.
2.
What facilities, financial, and administrative resources support these
offerings?
-Classrooms at Des Moines and Lynnwood; Enrichment funds through the
Associate Vice-President for Undergraduate Studies provide financing for an
adjunct faculty to teach these courses.
3. How has the program been evaluated to ensure that quality is independent of
the location of delivery?
-Not exactly, as we don’t really have a “program” there. The Chair does receive
SEOIs and occasionally feedback from the instructor and/or students of the courses
offered.
4. What are the problems and issues that the department faces in delivering
curriculum at the university centers?
–The Department hasn’t encountered many problems, except for the funding
source, though obviously physical distance from the Centers precludes direct
oversight of the courses and activities at the Centers.
5.
Are there unmet student or faculty needs that the department has
encountered?
-We have no way of knowing the answer to this question; there may be more
demand for upper-division courses, as part of some kind of minor program (though
that also raises the question about lower-division courses that we cannot offer
because they compete with Community Colleges). It is possible that there could be
a demand for International Politics (currently POSC 270) as a General Education
and upper-division course, if it were to be reclassified back to 370. We are not
suggesting this change, and have no data to support our assertion, but it is a logical
possibility. Given the creation of the new “General Studies – Social Sciences”
major, there likely will be needs in upper-level US and international politics that
relate to other departments or programs there.
22
III.
Faculty
A.
Faculty profile – What levels of commitment do faculty demonstrate for mentoring
student research, professional service activities, scholarly activities including grant
writing and teaching? (Designate graduate or undergraduate publications or
creative activities.) Sample table on following sheet.
-See Faculty Teaching Methods (Appendix A), and especially Faculty Profile in
Appendix C.
B.
Copies of faculty vitae
-See attached Appendix D (note: not in electronic form).
Faculty awards for distinction
-Prof. Rex Wirth was awarded the SOURCE Undergraduate Research
Mentorship Award for 2004 (2003-04).
C.
23
IV.
Students – For five years
IV A. Numbers of degrees awarded in:
1.
major program(s)
20002001
20012002
20022003
20032004
20042005
20052006
Total
Political Science (Large Plan)
6
5
10
10
5
8
44
15
20
19
26
19
30
129
21
25
29
36
24
38
173
Political Science (Small Plan)
All
24
2.
minor program(s)
Minor and Degree Major
Political Science Asia/Pacific Studies &
Minor
Foreign Language
Communication Studies
2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 20052001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total
1
1
Flight Technology
1
Foreign Language
2
3
1
2
1
History
History Teaching Broad
Area
Individual Studies
1
2
1
1
1
1
5
1
3
1
3
Law and Justice
1
Public Relations
1
1
Journalism
1
5
1
1
Social Science
2
1
6
4
2
13
2
2
6
1
Social Services
Sociology
1
1
1
1
1
Special Education K-12
Subtotal
Political Science History Teaching
Teaching Minor
All
3.
1
1
1
45
1
6
12
6
10
1
1
7
12
6
10
10
1
46
certificate program(s)
[none]
IV B. Number of graduate assistants per year per department not programs (by
headcount).
[Dept. does not have a graduate program]
IV C. Student accomplishments (include SOURCE, career placement information, etc.).
List those graduate students working in field; those placed in doctoral programs.
-Students from Prof. Wirth’s policy seminar regularly present at SOURCE (CWU
Symposium on University Research & Creative Expression), and occasionally students of other
25
professors do as well. During the period under review, 20 students did so – 7 in 2002; 1 in
2003; 5 in 2004; 3 in 2005; and 5 in 2006.
-about half of the students of Prof. Wirth who present at SOURCE also present in the
student portion of the National Social Science Association meeting in Las Vegas, NV each
Spring.
-As for Career Placement information, we have only anecdotal evidence (though as
Noam Chomsky notes, the plural of anecdote is data), since there is no systematic way to track
our majors. However, several of our graduates from the time period under review are in some
way working in the “field,” broadly construed. Examples: Shawn Bills (2003), is regional
office director for US Senator Patty Murray, in Yakima, WA; Althea Cawley-Murphree (2001)
is Communications Director for Gov. Christine Gregoire, Olympia, WA, and previously was
lead policy analyst for the Housing Authority of Snohomish County; Colin McLaurin (2001) is
Legislative Analyst for the National Association of Realtors in Washington, DC; Jessica Lautz
(2001) is Research Analyst at Westat, a federal government contractor dealing with special
education policy in Washington, DC; Josh Dazey (2002) worked as a staffer for state Sen.
Harold Hochstatter (Olympia) and for the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, WA
and was Communications Director for nointernettax.org (before going on to law school); Emily
Washines(2006) is Native American Liaison for CWU Admissions; Robert “Bo” McHaney
(2005) is Legislative Assistant to State Rep. Mary Skinner (R-Yakima).
-During the period, we had a number of students go on to graduate school: Jessica
Lautz, MPP, American University; Althea Cawley-Murphree, MA, Evans School of Public
Policy, University of Washington; Scott Leadingham, PhD Program in Public Policy, Indiana
University; Kevin Bourgault, MA/ABD in Environmental Studies and Policy, Duke University;
Andrew Nicholas, MPP, American University; Casey Rettenmeier, Masters in Education,
Pacific Lutheran University; Jake Santestevan, MA in Political Science, Univ. of Montana;
Jameson Kelleher, now getting an MA in International Affairs; Michael Skiff, who is pursuing
an MPA at University of Nebraska-Omaha.
-During the period, we had many students go on to law school, though these are the
only confirmed ones: Jamie Danielson (Univ. of Oregon); Josh Dazey (Georgetown
University); Trevor Zandell (Gonzaga University); Christina Morovics (Australian National
University); Roslyn Sterling (Gonzaga).
IV. D. Provide one masters project; two will be randomly selected during site visit.
-Again, we do not have a graduate program.
IV. E. Numbers served in general education, education, and supporting courses
-see II.D. above for this information.
IV. F. Describe departmental policies and advising services for students.
-Students receive ad hoc advising by coming into the Department, and usually visiting
with the Department Chair, or by individual discussions with faculty members. Throughout the
year, we also participate in new student orientations, transfer orientation, and the Career
Center’s Major Fair.
-As far as major advising is concerned, prior to students being accepted into the major,
they complete a Major Declaration (and Advising) Form wherein they list the core and elective
courses they’ve already taken, along with a rough plan as to when (and what) they will take for
their remaining courses. (Form is attached or pasted below.) They then ask for an advisor, or
one is assigned to them. One copy is given to the student, one to the advisor, and the
Department keeps one on file. This form then forms (no pun intended) the basis, along with the
26
CAPS report, of strategy for the student’s academic career. Students are expected to meet with
their advisor periodically.
The Chair also currently sends out an email in Fall Quarter to all majors with senior
standing reminding them to review their CAPS report and meet with an advisor over the last
two quarters. A reminder is also made during the Senior Assessment course, taken in the last or
second-to-last quarter before graduation, though admittedly that may be too late for some.
IV. G. Describe other student services offered through the department including any
professional societies or faculty-led clubs or organizations and their activities.
-During the period under review, there was a political science student club, the Political
Enlightenment Society (2000-03(?)), which undertook several campus events of a non-partisan
but political education nature. These included: having certain faculty members speak on
important political events (such as Prof. Launius on North Korea in Spring 2002); and having
Lt. Gov. Brad Owen, State Sen. Joyce Mulliken, and Kittitas County Commissioner Perry
Huston come to CWU to talk on what it means to be a Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian,
respectively, etc. However, as student clubs are prone to do, the club went kaput when
enthusiastic students graduated.
-The Department is also a member (Mu Lambda Chapter) of Pi Sigma Alpha, the
Political Science Honorary Society. Juniors and Seniors who have attained a 3.0+ grade point
average in Political Science courses, and meet other requirements, may join the national
honorary society. The Mu Lambda Chapter, established in 1981, served as a vehicle for the
organization of campus events and addresses by people interested in or involved in politics. It,
too, however, has fallen on hard times, as few students applied, and even fewer participated in
its activities, becoming mostly a honor bestowed upon graduation.
-It is the goal of the department to put more emphasis on renewing both Pi Sigma Alpha
and the Student Club (whatever its name may be) in coming years.
27
V.
Facilities & Equipment (The facilities section is for departments who rely heavily upon
laboratory or studio space for instruction.)
V. A. Describe facilities available to department and their adequacy.
-The classroom facilities with technology appear to be adequate, for the most part.
Indeed, at the beginning of the review period, we had no (or very few) “smart” classrooms at
all, and now there are a number of them in many medium-sized and large rooms. However, in
the Psychology Building, our “home” building, there are still limitations given that there are
only limited rooms of certain size (especially large ones) with such capabilities; and therefore,
being the very kind of rooms which people might want to use said technology, competition for
use of these rooms is often fierce. Faculty who put in specific requests for such technology thus
end up being sent all across campus, which is sometimes difficult due to scheduling (getting
from one class to another in time).
-However, on another note, we would argue our physical facilities in terms of office and
storage space within the Psychology Building are limited. Our previous chair was successful in
“territorial aggrandizement” as he put it, by gaining an extra office which we made into a
faculty/student lounge and meeting room. But we were forced to convert one of our offices
that was a student mini-computer lab to a faculty office when we added Cameron Otopalik, as a
FTNTT. We also have no storage closets, and our outer office shares copier and other space
with Law and Justice to some extent. If we add any faculty, or want to alter our administrative
procedures, we need more office space.
V. B. Describe equipment available to department and its adequacy.
-Our office equipment is fine, though we would argue that as we don’t use laboratory or
other equipment, computers are instead the primary equipment for teaching and research in
political science, and these need to be updated regularly. During the period under review, we
were able to obtain some new upgraded computers for some faculty through a University “trade
in” program. Essentially, the Department exchanged outdated computers/CPUs - or CPUs with
outdated operating systems (which were a potential information security risk) - for new ones at
half the cost (i.e., the ITS department covered half of it), not counting monitors. While this
program has been extended, and put into the base, it is unclear how often (or old) computers
will be eligible. We would like to go on the record saying that regular computer upgrades are
essential for faculty in political science.
-Second, we would again note that we share our photocopier with the Law and Justice
Department, and are unable to fully fund it ourselves. If they leave the building (which is part
of the University Master Plan), our ability to have such a machine is in doubt. Again, this is a
vital piece of equipment, and sharing with Psychology (given their large size) is not practical.
Other than this, the Department has the equipment with which to do its job.
V. C. Describe technology available to department and its adequacy.
-The technology – namely “smart” classrooms with computers, Internet and intranet
access, video projectors, and the like – are generally fine. However, they often vary as to their
newness or uniformity in operation. As one faculty member put it, “The process to use the
technology varies across rooms on campus and in the building. In some rooms, one jumps
through hoop A, B, and C and then in another room, the process is different. It deters people
from using the technology we’ve paid for.” Another noted that all computers should have zip,
CD, and disk drives. Again, there is limited availability for these classrooms, depending upon
class size.
28
-One of the biggest limits to the use of technology is in fact training and skill in using it;
several of newer faculty are already familiar, and some of the longer-serving have used it as
well, but finding time and ability to take courses or seminars to learn how to use new
technologies (and thus assessing whether they are applicable) is difficult. This is one area
where the University needs to invest more time, effort and resources into faculty development,
and likewise give faculty reassigned time to pursue these activities.
29
VI.
Library and Technological Resources
VI. A. Describe program’s general and specific requirements for library resources in
order to meet its educational and research objectives. Indicate ways in which the
present library resources satisfy and do not satisfy these needs.
-Since we are a social science, and short of interviewing political actors or
engaging in politics ourselves, by necessity we rely upon gathering and analyzing data
and information, so library resources are crucial to our “educational and research
objectives.” All of our upper-division courses require some kind of research project
component, and library materials are generally the primary means by which all students
interact with the field. Given the increased emphasis on research and scholarship by the
University, in similar fashion faculty also need strong library resources.
-The library resources for the department have, over the past five years,
generally been “less than adequate,” in the estimation of most faculty, but the situation
has been improving the last few years.
-For example, according to data provided by library collections, at the beginning
of the review period, the library budget for purchases of books and monographs for the
department was restored (following a cut) to where it had been two years earlier (199899), at $3234, but this was over $500 less than its level in 1996-97. When inflation is
taken into account, this amounts to be a net cut over time. It has increased, however, to
$4629 for 2005-06, which is notable – but this remains LESS than the level of inflation
during the period under review. (Assuming 3% inflation, probably somewhat low, the
actual budget should be $5016 to equal what we had in 1996-97.) The journal holdings
for the department have also stagnated; after years of cutting, the library held only 26
titles in the field in 2001; this has leveled off after a decline to 21 (the budget, however,
has increased from $4500 to $8000, perhaps part of the problem?).
-On the other hand, there have been some positive developments. The library has
expanded its electronic database resources to include such services as Lexis-Nexis,
JSTOR, and the like. We now have access to SUMMIT, an electronic interlibrary loan
system pooling the holdings of libraries in the Northwest region, which helps
considerably in gaining access to research materials. However, this does not replace or
reduce the ability to find research materials in our home library, and may even lead to
important delays in the case of source competition between people at various
institutions; but at the same time, we welcome the expanded research base.
-Given the increased emphasis by the administration on faculty (and even student)
research, then, we believe that our library resources are less than ideal. They remain
adequate in some respects and deficient in others (especially in terms of foreign and
international politics), though overall there has been some improvement over five years
ago.
VI. B. Describe information literacy proficiencies expected of students at the end of
major coursework.
1.
What instruction in information literacy is provided?
-We have no “information literacy proficiencies” required of our majors beyond
the ability to locate, evaluate, gather and use relevant information in researching and
studying politics. Instruction in library and electronic information skills is done ad hoc
in the department by individual instructors through the curriculum in their assignments
30
and class activities. (We would point out that it is not the sole role of the major
department to instruct students in information literacy – other departments, the library
staff, the University 101 course, and general education courses do as well.)
2.
How are these proficiencies assessed?
-Information literacy skills are assessed via individual instructors and through
the grades given on relevant course assignments, and more directly is assessed via the
research paper assignment in POSC 489, Senior Assessment. Indeed, in Senior
Assessment students are required to identify high-quality and relevant sources for their
paper assignment through a tentative bibliography which is handed in with their paper
outline prior to the paper itself being written/due. Part of the final paper grade, then, is
based on whether they have found high-quality research to back up their arguments, etc.
in their paper.
VI.C. Describe the information technologies faculty regularly and actively utilize in the
classroom.
-Use of technology varies by instructor and is also affected by classroom
facilities. Over the five-year period, the Psychology Building (our “home” building)
went from having no “smart classrooms” to where now a number of them (roughly half)
do. However, this is also limited by size, as there are few large classrooms in the
building and most yet not all have technology capabilities, thus limiting their use. We
are often forced to go outside our building to Black Hall and the like, or instead be
placed in Farrell, Michaelsen, or L&L (with or without technology).
-At the beginning of the review period, very few of our instructors used any
form of technology beyond a VCR, nor was it available. With the adaptation of
classrooms, and the addition of some new faculty, that is changing. The most common
form of technology continues to be Video players, but others include:
-Blackboard course management software (2 use)
-Internet/WWW (most faculty use in and out of classroom for teaching)
-Information databases (Lexis-Nexis; JSTOR; etc.[4 faculty])
-text supplementary programs(?)
-Power point and other presentation software
-SPSS statistics software (limited usage)
Nevertheless, as Socrates and Plato demonstrated so well, political science also
remains a thought-and-talk discipline, so technology is less crucial to our field than
some others. Still, we would welcome more opportunities, resources and training in the
pedagogical uses of technology.
Once the department has completed the above sections, there will be a planned departmental retreat
where the last three sections will be discussed. The results of that discussion will be added to the
self-study document. These sections are among the most important and will be the basis for
academic planning by the department.
31
VII.
Analysis of the Review Period
(NOTE: The Following was the Consensus of the Department at the Retreat):
VII A. What has gone well in the department? Include major accomplishments of the
past five years?
1. Despite turnover in faculty personnel, and increased student demand, we were able to retain
two tenure-track faculty lines, one in 2002-03 and the other for 2006-07. These two
replacements were in needed, vital areas (American Politics/Public Law, and Political
Theory/Comparative: Middle East). The Department successfully completed competitive,
national searches to fill these positions. Though obviously it is still early, appearances suggest
we were able to hire highly qualified individuals to replace two excellent faculty. We were also
able to procure non-tenure-track lecturers to help fill in some of the remaining gaps.
2. The Department saw a significant increase in the number of majors and student FTE. While
the University did as well, we increased at a rate greater than overall enrollment growth. For
example, according to data from the College of the Sciences (presumably, originally from
Institutional Research), Political Science showed a 15% increase over the last three years –
greater relatively speaking than the University or College of the Sciences.
CWU:
COTS:
POSC:
FTE
2003-04
FTE
2005-06
Percent
Change
8649.4
2814.0
110.4
9034.5
2999.3
127.4
+ 4.4
+ 6.6
+15.4
3. The Department has broadened its course offerings to meet new interests, demands, and the
changing environments of the contemporary political scene. As noted, we developed a number
of new courses under the “contemporary issues” rubric to adapt to new issues and
developments, and we also created new courses for emerging inter-disciplinary studies areas
such as Native American Studies and Film and Video Studies. These added to the University’s
mission and goals in the areas of civic engagement, diversity, and global
understanding/international education.
4. The research and scholarly productivity/output of the faculty increased significantly during
the period. More faculty were involved in scholarly activities, and in publishing or
disseminating research. While noted elsewhere, it is important to put this in context. Two
members coauthored undergraduate textbooks; one had their dissertation published as a
scholarly book; and several had chapters in scholarly edited volumes. More articles were
published, and papers given at conferences. Previously, faculty only had occasional articles
published and presented at conferences.
5. Members of the Department sponsored or participated in a number of events and activities
that contribute to the community, showcase our academic expertise, and increase our public
visibility. These include (as mentioned), the Colloquium on the 2002 (midterm) Elections; the
panel on Terror and Torture in American Life following Abu Ghraib in 2004; the Comfort
Woman Testimony and Exhibition; and the punditry of various faculty in local media outlets,
such as professors who write regular columns in the Ellensburg Daily Record and occasional
32
interviews for Yakima-area television stations or Prof. Manweller’s discussion show on the
KCWU cable access channel.
6. We attempted to obtain, and were moderately successful at procuring, outside funding for
research activities. Prof. Launius was involved in part of a multi-faculty, inter-disciplinary
effort which landed a National Science Foundation Grant for Undergraduate Research on the
Environment in China. He also was awarded a Fulbright-Hays Exchange to South Africa and
Namibia. Prof. Yoon received a Fulbright Fellowship (or Fulbright Scholar) to South Korea.
Prof. Schaefer and Yoon were awarded sabbatical leaves during the period as well. Profs.
Wirth and Schaefer both applied for outside funding for research to Spain, and Kenya,
respectively, though were unsuccessful.
7. Student involvement in research and professional activities continued, and a number of them
went on to secure jobs in the related areas of the field. We have clearly re-built the
Department’s presence in the Washington State Legislative Intern Program in Olympia, and
around ten students per year (an increase) undertook internships in Washington DC, Olympia,
and other positions in the region. We went from 5 student interns with 27 credit hours in 200102, to 8 with 61 in 2002-03, 12 with 71 in 2003-04, 11 with 78 in 2004-05, and 10 with 60 in
2005-06. A number of them are now working as Legislative Assistants at the State or Federal
levels, and we have one student in the Governor’s office. Again, this is detailed elsewhere
8. During the period, Profs. Bang-Soon Yoon and Todd Schaefer were successfully promoted
to Full Professor.
VII. B. What challenges exist? What has the department done to meet these
challenges?
Challenge 1. Faculty and support personnel staffing suffers from lack of
continuity/stability and inadequacy to cover needs when changes occur:
-During the timeframe, two faculty and the Secretary Senior retired, twp parttime (temporarily) adjuncts and two FTNTT instructors at different times and for
different purposes, were hired, but most followed significant gaps in staffing. Indeed,
the adjuncts (NFTNTT) were mostly due to fortuitous circumstances.
-The reality is that the department is barely able to do what it does now, and in
fact is probably under-serving its potential student and institutional capacity were it to
have adequate personnel. This is compounded by the following factors:
a)several of our faculty get reassigned time for inter-disciplinary programs or
chair functions;
b)the differential specialization of faculty given the small size of the department
(i.e., while there is overlap in lower division offerings for coverage, in terms of upperdivision courses and research, etc., faculty are unable to pinch hit for others);
c) One tenured/tenure-track faculty line is currently being taken by a member on
leave with an administrative post, and another administrator brought in from the outside
was tenured within the department, thus taking up potential resources;
d) when faculty are gone due to retirement, sabbatical, research leave, or illness,
or staff members resign or retire, the Department is unable to quickly replace them
because there is no adjunct pool in the Ellensburg area, and resources may or may not
be forthcoming to do so. (We nevertheless appreciate the support the administration has
33
shown in supporting the hiring of tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty over the past
five years).
-The Department “met” these challenges either by partially replacing faculty or taking
the loss in staffing - for example, neither Profs. Yoon or Schaefer were fully replaced
while on sabbatical. Faculty did, however, cover some of Prof. Swarthout’s classes
during his illness at the end of Winter, 2006, and an overload for one faculty was used
to replace one of his courses for Spring quarter, but the rest of his classes had to be
cancelled both because other faculty were booked, and in any event those courses
couldn’t be taught by others due to differential areas of expertise.
-Faculty aren’t given much for professional development, and find it difficult to attend
conferences and do research. For example, many of our faculty study international or
foreign politics, and have had to struggle to get support for their research activities, or
simply had to spend their own time and money to do these things or not do them at all.
Challenge 2. Difficulties in delivering program and meeting diverse demands:
-The Department is so stretched covering lower division and general education
courses, that we are unable to offer regular upper division courses as part of the major
(and general) electives as regularly as we should. Most upper-level courses are offered
in alternate years, but some are not offered for years at a time, depending upon
availability and competing demands. We have added some current events courses to
keep things fresh, and also to offer courses in other interdisciplinary programs - the
tradeoff is that this likewise takes away from standard offerings already in the
curriculum. Some of these are in areas where students would like to see more courses.
-The Department has continued to offer all of its lower-division core and general
education courses once every quarter, and tries to offer popular upper-division
courses as much as possible; enrollment for lower-division courses is usually set
at 35 or higher if feasible. The new Chair has tried to match historical
enrollment “demand” figures for these courses to judge how many sections to
offer, while pushing some of them off to summer session. Otherwise, it remains
problematic.
-In particular, the Department suffers in the ability to offer upper-division
courses in the International Relations sub-field, and some comparative politics
areas. This is due to a combination of lack of faculty expertise (e.g., Latin
America) or a “utility infielder” faculty that is overstretched (to some extent, the
problem with I.R.).
Challenge 3. Faculty are overtaxed, and find it difficult to balance competing
professional demands on their time and energy:
-Demands on the faculty and department to increase efficiency, enrollment, and
advising as well as ramp up scholarly productivity and contribute meaningful service to
the community have contributed to increased faculty stress, workload and difficulty in
doing all things well.
-Faculty have had generally limited flexibility in scheduling, etc, though as
mentioned above, department has been supportive of research leaves and some
flexibility in scheduling loads during the year; this will be the subject of ongoing
planning. There has been little ability up to this point to fully address this challenge.
34
Challenge 4. Senior Assessment:
-while we have a clear assessment regime, the 489 course, which is the only
feasible mechanism, we continue to struggle with the best way to accurately measure
our students’ skills, knowledge, and learning.
-On the other hand, as a response, the Department went ahead with the creation
of its own assessment instruments, and the survey has provided us with extremely
useful feedback; while the assessment instruments within the course itself, and indeed,
the process as a whole, could use some reevaluation and adaptation, making it a course
and graduation requirement increased the status and seriousness of assessment within
the department for faculty and students.
Challenge 5. Lack of Institutional Appreciation for Department and its role, discipline,
and challenges, coupled with lack of political power on campus:
-First, it is obvious the Department has not been (nor able to be) a major
“player” in the University. Second, as a small, traditionally undergraduate-centered
department, in a discipline where grants, major research projects and the like are less
common, coupled with being in a large College (Sciences) dominated by programs
which share the opposite characteristics, it is difficult to attract attention. For example,
the campus-wide emphasis on “civic engagement” and responsible citizenship has been
undertaken outside of the Department; in addition, much of the department’s
involvement in recent initiatives has been in a supporting role in interdisciplinary
programs. Admittedly, the Department perhaps has not taken advantage of these
“opportunities” as it might have, but these were not initiated by the Department and
were driven by other institutional agendas and agencies. Communication and external
relations with higher administration are sporadic and turbid. It seems as if the
Department’s existing contributions, such as in the area of community service and civic
engagement (through media publicity, student internships and the like) are little noticed.
Granted, the Department could likewise be more aggressive in its advocacy, and better
promote itself. Still, the impression and probably the reality of institutional neglect
persists. Positive responses to Department initiatives would signal more appreciation
and support from the administration.
Challenge 6. University Expectations challenge Department’s traditional and primary
mission of undergraduate education.
-We are asked to do more research and publication, without commensurate
increases in institutional support; we don’t have a graduate program, and indeed are too
small to legitimately offer one, yet are expected to publish on par with larger
departments that have graduate research and teaching assistants; university emphasis on
undergraduate research, while admirable, is usually unrealistic given our student
abilities, and in any event in political science is unlikely to produce peer-review quality
material, since there is a large gap in the field between graduate and undergraduate
education. It also goes against departmental goal of teaching students to think about
politics, rather than be political scientists, since very few of our students go on to
graduate school in the field.
-The Department has tried to provide more resources for travel, etc. (see below
and elsewhere), and has tried to accommodate faculty as best it can.
Challenge 7. Faculty Development and Reward:
35
-Faculty feel there is a lack of institutional support for faculty development and
appropriate reward structures; while new hires have been treated relatively well in
comparison to full professors (in their day) in terms of salary and startup, etc., and some
senior members of the Department benefited somewhat from the Salary Adjustment
Plan in the early 2000s - which was never fully funded or implemented - adequate pay
and incentives for performance, and the issue of salary compression for tenured faculty
members remains.
-These issues are outside the purview of the Department to address; the
administration, union, and other institutions must do so, though the Department will
make the case for them.
Challenge 8. Curricular Limitations:
-we have no prerequisites for upper-division courses, which might help teaching
and learning at the upper division/elective level. Similarly, we could probably improve
both assessment and student research and writing skills by having a junior-level entryinto-the-major course, but do not have the ability to staff it without sacrificing existing
course offerings, especially given what was noted above about tradeoffs in meeting
major and general education demands. Furthermore, the Department relies in part on
students from other majors in its upper-division courses. We already have difficulty
offering the Senior Assessment course as it is.
-The Department does not have a solution to this issue.
VII C. What resources have been provided in the last 5 years?
1. The administration did give us tenure-track replacement faculty for 2 retirements, and
temporary replacements to fill in during searches and an administrative leave – thus,
two FTNTT at different points. They have also allowed us to hire adjunct lecturers on
an ad-hoc basis, including an emeritus faculty who offers one course per term.
However, as mentioned above, we remain with no way to fill short term gaps, and nontenure-track faculty are not exactly complete substitutes for tenure-track.
2. The Department budget has stayed essentially flat, and for the most part we have
enough merely maintain current operations; we could do more in terms of support for
faculty and student activities. We did see a small increase at the end of the period (5
percent for 2005-06).
3. The University has invested in technology in classrooms, including a number in the
Psychology Building, our home; the department has been able to purchase upgrades to
some of its computers for faculty through special programs, but would not have been
able to do otherwise.
4. Through return of summer revenues to the department, it has been able to provide
additional support for faculty development and travel, such as matching funds, for trips
to conferences and the like; we also have been able to purchase items such as a
VCR/DVD/TV for classroom use so we do not have to rely on other departments.
However, given summer enrollment variations, this source is highly unreliable and
erratic. Additionally, since summer is now under a different set of revenue-sharing
rules, and there is a separate faculty development fund outside the Department that is
funded by summer, this source of resources is even more uncertain.
5. As mentioned, the library budget for political science materials has been increased so
it is closer to restoring where it had been ten years ago; there now is a dedicated
36
political science (social science) librarian - Marcus Kieltyka - who assists students,
faculty, and indeed whole classes. We would also praise the library staff for their
assistance and attempts to address our problems. However, we - and more importantly,
our students - continue to think our library holdings are lacking in some important
respects, especially in certain subject areas such as those outside American and Asian
politics.
37
VIII. Future directions – Based upon the information and analysis in the self study:
VIII A.
Describe the department’s aspirations for the next three and five years.
1. Staff the Program with Sufficient Faculty to meet current/existing needs; fill regional,
topical and disciplinary holes, and expand our course offerings and better provide
service to the community.
-As mentioned, with additional faculty members - especially in the areas of
Comparative Politics: Latin America and Comparative Politics: Russia and
Eastern Europe; International Relations; Native American Politics, Ethnic
Minority Politics, and State and Local Government, and possibly Public Policy we could meet existing enrollment demands in general education and upperdivision courses, various interdisciplinary needs, as well as expand the program.
This would enable us to better meet university goals of educating for responsible
citizenship in a global world, and in the areas of multi-cultural and multinational
education, and diversity. We would note, too, that these are areas of relevance to
the Central Washington region.
2. (Continue to) Increase our Research, Scholarly, and Grant-Writing Activity.
-Although we do not have a graduate program, and see undergraduate education
as our primary mission, current faculty value scholarly work and believe it holds
the key to keeping faculty vibrant, active, and engaged. This is one area of clear
expansion and increased quality over the last five years, and we would like it to
continue. This would support our goals of disseminating our knowledge to a
broader audience.
3. Achieve regular, periodic scheduling of course offerings, and teach everything in our
catalog (regular courses) every 2 or so years.
-This is obvious, but one of the difficulties for student and faculty planning and
course offerings has been lack of effective planning and faculty resources
(FTEF) to actually to do this. While we will use workload planning under CBA
to help, additional staff is necessary to achieve this objective.
4. Develop Flexibility in Program Activities and Workloads to accommodate variations
in faculty career goals (not only in terms of mixes in teaching, research, and service, but
other areas).
-While fairly self-explanatory, we believe that the department should be given
the ability to flexibly alter faculty work assignments to meet their career goals as
well as balance them with program needs. The Department has a commitment
(as it has shown in the past) to the adjust to the needs of its members, and
through planning, consensus, and compromise should be allowed to do so.
5. Continue to Refine our Assessment of Student Learning; reassess the Senior
Assessment Course and its measures and content.
-While there has clearly been useful information from our 489 course, it needs
improvement, and what (apparently valid) lessons we can draw from it have not
been fully applied in practice.
38
6. Improve Career Advisement, Discussions and “Applications” to Life After
Graduation for Student Majors.
-This was one criticism/suggestion for improvement arising from our survey of
graduating seniors in the Senior Assessment course.
-We would also like to reestablish Department student organizations such as the
Pi Sigma Alpha Honor Society, and a department campus club.
7. Increase Department involvement in training students for civic engagement and
making an impact on society and the political world.
-The Department could take a more active role in these areas.
8. Create and Sustain a Better Environment for Faculty and Student Work.
-Achieve adequate (improved and larger) facilities and space;
-technical and technology support for faculty research and teaching;
-addition of student study and computer lounge, part of which was lost due to
addition of FTNTT faculty office
9. Improve, or at least provide adequate mentoring of, Junior Faculty; assist the
continuing Professional Development of Tenured Faculty.
-We believe faculty need to be supported in their professional growth.
-While we see the formal mentoring “role model” process as inappropriate, at
the same time we recognize we have new faculty who should be assisted in their
early learning stages of their career. At the same time, older/existing faculty
need opportunities for retraining, recharging and the like.
10. Strike a Balance between General Education, Interdisciplinary, and Major Course
Offerings.
-To the degree that these conflict, especially in terms of upper-division elective
offerings, we need to find a better mix in terms of - to use a Congressional
metaphor - “servicing and courting our various constituencies.” To some extent,
this applies to FTEF and faculty staffing needs.
11. Attempt to Change Structure or Alignment of Courses in Curriculum to Enhance
Relevance and Visibility of Program.
-We have done this to some extent; we hope to re-examine how we add and
remove courses, what is most important to the program, etc.
VIII. B. In this context, describe ways the department or unit might increase quality, quantity,
and/or efficiency. Provide evidence that supports the promise for outstanding
performance.
–Ways to Improve (Increase “Efficiency,” etc.):
1. We would exceed target goals for, - and increase FTE, student degrees, numbers of
majors, etc. - even more than we are given more faculty resources and faculty (staffing).
Given pedagogical concerns and room availability, we are at our limit in terms of
general lower-division courses with caps of 35, and upper-division with 25.
39
2. Faculty development in pedagogy and scholarship would likely increase quality, but
there is a cycle of diminishing returns in terms of quantity - in other words, increasing
quantity of output (be it students, research, or workload “widgets”) might negatively
impact the quality of the program: to some extent there is a tradeoff between quality and
quantity.
3. Better flexibility in departmental workloads, administrative expectations, and how
the department is able (or allowed to) deliver its program and meet institutional demand
could help quantity, quality and efficiency.
4. We intend to reassess our assessment regime, especially what we do and how we do
it, to hopefully improve, or at least better measure, student outcomes.
5. We could create a junior-level orientation course into the major that would socialize
students into the field, teach them writing and study skills, etc. (like History does).
However, we don’t have the faculty resources, barring major curricular changes or
institutional demands, to effectively staff it.
6. A major and career advising “fair” or forum for department majors might help some
students in their academic and employment careers (goal 6 above).
7. Better planning for the future would help, but the political and economic
uncertainties the Department faces leave us at a loss to suggest radical changes, given
an overtaxed faculty in a “do more with less” environment. In other words: most of the
above would be quite difficult if not impossible under present circumstances.
-Evidence of Quality, Quantity, and Efficiency:
It is difficult to prove the future (the question seems like a “if you build it, they will
come” proposition), but we would point to the following that we are already doing:
1. In the area of teaching, we show a generally high degree of quality in terms of our
student evaluations in both course SEOIs and the Senior Survey; we are rated even
more highly for rapport and access, etc.; and our student majors, graduates, and overall
FTE have been increasing.
2. As mentioned earlier, according to our Senior Assessment Exit Survey, the
Department receives high marks for the quality of education it provides, and clearly has
a profound or at least significant impact on its majors in terms of their own
understanding, comprehension, and thinking about politics and public affairs.
3. Again, as mentioned, our research productivity has increased, and faculty have made
notable achievements outside the classroom in a variety of venues that credit the
university.
4. The Department has increased its efficiency in terms of student output (degrees
granted) and especially, per capita FTE (FTE/FTEF) at rates greater than comparable
departments or the University as a whole. We previously noted FTE growth, but
40
actually, in terms of faculty output, we compare favorably: the Department consistently
ranked 10th in size in faculty, and between 10th and 11th in size in students in COTS over
the last five years, yet when one compares FTE per faculty member the department in
each year in the five-year period (1999-04, the only years for which we have
comparative data), we moved from 10th to 7th. In other words, while we are one of the
smallest departments in the College in absolute terms, in terms of students served per
faculty member, we are near the middle. Thus, we rank more highly than our size would
indicate, and are thus more efficient relatively speaking. (See Appendix E.)
5. More attention to career advising, or at least badgering, of our students, coupled with
internship encouragement and advertising, might lead to more students going on to
work and/or study in the field or other areas. But this is pure speculation.
VIII. C.
What resources would the department need to pursue these future
directions?
1. Funding for, and the hiring of, two new tenure-track lines. While the exact makeup of
the positions would be determined, we clearly have needs in the areas of Comparative politics
(especially Latin America and Russia); International politics; and some aspects of American Politics
(State/Local, Native American, etc.) We also anticipate requiring a replacement tenure-track position
in the short-term future for a retirement.
2. Reassigned time, and flexibility in workloads, etc., from the administration, for
faculty to pursue varied, innovative, and evolving goals. Currently, despite new provisions for
individual workload planning under the CBA, we are constrained by traditional expectations of
workload and departmental goals in terms of program delivery.
3. Real (or at least, additional) support (both temporal and financial) for Faculty
Development. The CBA has created a guaranteed $700 fund, which is welcome, but this is clearly
inadequate and merely replaces the old funds which were re-distributed to departments from summer
revenues. Also, flexibility in scheduling for workshops and the like would be helpful, as currently
faculty have little time to take advantage of what opportunities there are, even as more such programs
are needed.
4. More Office Space, facilities, and accessories, along with regular computer and
technology upgrades. In terms of storage and faculty office space, we are at our limits with our current
facilities; in fact, we had to “borrow” one office from Law and Justice. More room – especially given
burdens of record storage, etc. – would be greatly appreciated.
5. Full-time Support Staff/Secretarial position. The Department has functioned with a
part-time, cyclical support person supplemented (during the regular year) with a student assistant, but
in fact workload and informational demands on the support staff has increased dramatically, and help
during part of the summer months would also improve departmental operations. At a minimum, hiring
a work-study student for the summer would be helpful.
6. Increased Library Monograph, Periodicals, and Electronic Resources Budget to
increase holdings and better support faculty and student research without going to archives elsewhere
(except for obscure or rare items). Faculty and students could better carry out their research work with
better facilities and holdings.
7. Alteration and Creativity in Course Scheduling, Calendar, and Academic Scheduling
by the University. Allow faculty to get away from every day, 50-min. modules, or at least don’t
penalize the Department for experimenting with scheduling and the like when enrollment doesn’t
follow. Consider moving to a Semester System, or go to a “real” quarter system of four terms, where
faculty could choose which term not to teach. Examine other universities and colleges for innovations
41
in how schedules are arranged and courses offered. Admittedly, this is a large structural change
beyond our Department, and there may be ramifications in doing so we aren’t aware of.
VIII.D.
How does the faculty envision their professional career and responsibilities
within the balance of teaching, service, research and creative activities?
-By way of introduction, the Department continues to stress, and pride
itself on, its role in undergraduate teaching, and believes this is the primary
mission at an institution such as CWU. However, faculty also are committed to
scholarly and service activities, and while believing these are not mutually
exclusive, does recognize that there is an inherent tradeoff between all three.
One cannot expect faculty to do more in all of these areas and expect that all of
it will be done better.
-Absent any flexibility (or changes to the status quo) in Department
program delivery or workload, we expect that our jobs will remain essentially
the same. Teaching will continue to take the bulk of our time, and juggling it
with research and service responsibilities will continue to be a tough balancing
act.
-If the Administration wants improvement, or at least increased faculty
activity, in the areas of research and service, they need to make resources
(again, financial and/or temporal) available to adequately do so. When push
comes to shove, we believe service activities will be the ones sacrificed, which
is particularly ironic given our field of study - but that is the logical conclusion
of the current professional environment at this University (i.e., because it is the
one that is least-valued).
42
IX.
Suggestions for the program review process or contents of the self-study?
1. While the Outline is well-organized, and undoubtedly better than earlier incarnations,
clear guidelines as to what sort of information or answer is desired in response to the individual
questions is needed. In some cases, the wording of the questions could be made clearer. For
example, how should the Department assess whether facilities, library holdings, etc., are
“adequate?” We can offer opinions, but presumably we are supposed to have data and
information to back these up. Some of what we provided was based on the model of other
departments’ responses to these questions, which isn’t a bad technique, but nevertheless there is
no way of knowing if other departments’ reports were done properly.
2. The University should give better support to the department in completing it: data,
support staff, reassigned time for the Chair, etc. We reiterate with other departments our
frustrations with Institutional Research, though apparently they delivered our information to us
more quickly than some; but also, other data took a lot of time for the department to re-create
from Safari and other sources, with no guarantee of its accuracy.
3. The mandatory retreat should be funded by the University, not the Department.
4. The Alumni Office should give the Department information about its graduates, and
track them more generally. The Department does not have the resources to do so, other than in
an anecdotal fashion. Alternatively, ways the Department could contact or survey their alumni
would be helpful, provided again support is given.
5. Data, and the report as a whole, should be put into context. The review would be
strengthened by comparisons with other Departments on campus, and other same-discipline
departments at comparable institutions, or at least comparable departments at other schools. Of
course, these comparisons must be chosen carefully to examine departments of similar sizes
with similar missions, programs, etc. As others, especially Sociology, have noted in their study
documents, it is hard to make evaluations in a vacuum.
6. The administration – not only the Dean, but the Provost and possibly the President as
well - should be brought in to meet with the department about the Program Review. We find it
ironic, or at least odd, that administration meets with the external reviewer, but not the
department itself.
43
Empirical Research
Class Project oral presentation
Class Project written assignment
Collaborative learning(group projects)
x
x
x
x
Course
Political Science Courses
Otopalik, Cameron
POSC 101
Introduction to Politics
x
Wirth, Rex
POSC 101
Introduction to Politics
Launius, Michael
POSC 101
Introduction to Politics
x
x
Brown, Jim
POSC 210
American Politics
x
x
Manweller, Mathew
POSC 210
American Politics
x
x
x
Schaefer, Todd
POSC 210
American Politics
x
x
x
Wirth, Rex
POSC 230
State & Local Politics
Otopalik, Cameron
POSC 260
Comparative Politics
x
x
Launius, Michael
POSC 260
Comparative Politics
x
x
Otopalik, Cameron
POSC 270
International Politics
x
x
Wirth, Rex
POSC 270
International Politics
x
x
Yoon, Bang-Soon
POSC 311
Women & Politics
x
x
x
Schaefer, Todd
POSC 312
Public Opinion & Political Communication
x
x
x
x
X
Schaefer, Todd
POSC 313
Legislative Process
x
x
x
x
X
Schaefer, Todd
POSC 314
American Presidency
x
x
x
Schaefer, Todd
POSC 315
Campaigns & Elections
x
x
x
x
X
x
Schaefer, Todd
POSC 318
Parties and Int. Groups
x
x
x
x
X
x
Wirth, Rex
POSC 320
Public Administration
x
x
x
X
Wirth, Rex
POSC 325
Public Policy
x
x
x
X
Manweller, Mathew
POSC 340
Capitalism & American Democracy
x
Michael, Launius
POSC 342
U.S. Foreign Policy
x
x
Manweller, Mathew
POSC 350
Public Law
x
x
Wirth, Rex
POSC 362
Western European Politics
x
Brown, Jim
POSC 363
Russian Politics
x
x
x
X
Schaefer, Todd
POSC 365
African Politics
x
x
x
X
Yoon, Bang-Soon
POSC 366
Government & Politics Of East Asia
x
x
x
Launius, Michael
POSC 367
Politics of Japan
x
x
x
Otopalik, Cameron
POSC 367
Politics of Japan
x
x
Launius, Michael
POSC 368
Chinese Politics
x
x
x
Yoon, Bang-Soon
POSC 369
Korean Politics
x
x
x
Otopalik, Cameron
POSC 373
Politics of Pacific Rim
x
x
Brown, Jim
POSC 375
Middle East Politics
x
x
Otopalik, Cameron
POSC 376
International Organizations
x
x
Yoon, Bang-Soon
POSC 378
International Political Economy
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
44
x
Simulation & Games
Inquiry-based Learning
Seminar-Student directed discussion
Faculty directed discussion
x
Professor
Lecture
Black Board
APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A: Course/Faculty Instructional Methods and Activities
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
X
X
x
x
x
X
x
X
X
x
X
X
x
x
X
x
X
x
X
x
x
X
x
X
x
Otopalik, Cameron
POSC 398
Special Topics (Developing Nations)
Wirth, Rex
POSC 429
Research Sem in Public Policy
Manweller, Mathew
POSC 441
Politics & Film
x
x
Manweller, Mathew
POSC 451
Constitutional Law
x
x
Manweller, Mathew
POSC 452
x
x
x
Launius, Michael
POSC 470
Constitution & Human Rights
Contemporary Issues in International
Relations
x
x
x
Yoon, Bang-Soon
POSC 470
Politics of Globalism
x
x
x
Brown, Jim
POSC 481
Early Political Thought
x
x
Brown, Jim
POSC 482
Early Modern Political Thought
x
x
Brown, Jim
POSC 483
Recent Political Thought
x
x
Brown, Jim
POSC 485
American Political Thought & Culture
x
x
Manweller, Mathew
POSC 485
American Political Thought & Culture
x
x
Manweller, Mathew
POSC 498
Introduction to Political Methods
x
Otopalik, Cameron
POSC 498
Special Topics: Developing Nations
x
x
Yoon, Bang-Soon
Professor
POSC 499
Course
Global Feminism
Political Science Courses
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
X
X
x
x
X
x
x
X
x
X
x
X
X
x
x
x
x
X
x
X
X
x
x
X
Simulation & Games
Collaborative learning(group projects)
Class Project written assignment
Class Project oral presentation
Empirical Research
Inquiry-based Learning
Seminar-Student directed discussion
Faculty directed discussion
Black Board
Lecture
45
x
APPENDIX B: Senior Assessment Materials
POLITICAL SCIENCE 489
SENIOR ASSESSMENT
FALL QUARTER 2006
PROFESSOR SCHAEFER
Office: 413 Psych.; Hrs. 8:30 10:30am M-F
Ph.: 963-3675; email: schaefet@cwu.edu
This is the “capstone” course for political science majors. Its purpose is to assess or evaluate the student’s
accumulated knowledge of the essentials of political science and ability to carry out and present political science
research, as well as to assess the department’s effectiveness in communicating this knowledge and
encouraging its acquisition, and the strength of the program in general.
COURSE COMPONENTS AND METHODS OF EVALUATION:
The course is comprised of three distinct parts:
1. A research paper (Fifty-Five percent of the final grade)
2. A comprehensive written examination on the “core” knowledge of political science,
as found in the five required courses for the bachelor’s degree (Forty-five percent of
the final grade)
3. A questionnaire, to be completed by the student, in which the department program
and its faculty are evaluated. This is a course requirement.
We will also meet to discuss and work on these elements throughout the term, according to the schedule below.
COURSE MATERIALS:
To guide you in the successful execution of the above tasks, I have gathered a collection of useful readings and
course information. These are compiled in a Course Reading Packet that can, and must, be purchased at the
University store. References to readings in the course schedule listed below come from that packet. Other
materials may be handed out in class.
COURSE OUTLINE AND ASSIGNMENTS:
Note: Readings should be done BEFORE class meeting they are listed under, as we will be discussing topics
covered within them in that meeting. Note due dates may be on or before class.
Meeting 1 (Wk. 1; 9/20): Course Introduction
Meeting 2 (Wk. 2; 9/27): Political Science & Poli Sci Papers
–Readings 1-2 in Coursepack (Scott & Garrison; Cronin).
Meeting 3 (Wk. 3; 10/4): Papers - Research and Outlines
*PAPER TOPICS DUE WED. 10/4 IN CLASS.
–Readings 3-4 in Coursepack (Schmidt; Scott & Garrison II).
Meeting 4 (Wk. 6; 10/25) Papers - Writing and Execution
*OUTLINES DUE TUES. 10/24 (DAY BEFORE CLASS).
–Readings 5-7 in Coursepack (Schmidt II & III; Schaefer).
Meeting 5 (Wk. 8; 11/8): Comprehensive Exam Overview and Explanation
*PAPERS DUE WED. 11/8 IN CLASS BY 3:15PM!!*
-Reading 8/Study Guide Terms in Coursepack; discussion.
Meeting 6 (Wk. 10; 11/29):
<PAPERS DUE>
Exam Review Session
COMPREHENSIVE EXAM IN CLASS FRIDAY, DEC. 8th, 8-10am (Exam Week)
46
ASSIGNMENT SPECIFICS
Research Paper: As a crucial part of the capstone or exit course for the political science major, the goal
of the paper is to demonstrate your ability to ask important questions (relevant to the field), research answers,
and to present both in a paper with a well-constructed and supported argument. In other words, you need to
prove to "us" (we profs in the Department) and yourself that you can develop and execute an acceptable political
science research paper.
The Topic
We have utilized several different types of topics for this course in the past. For this particular term, the theme of
papers for this course must center around the concept of DEMOCRACY.
Now seems a particularly relevant moment to ponder and discuss its ramifications. Since our fearless leader,
echoing some in the past, has recently proclaimed the spreading of democracy to be our nation's primary task in
the world, and given that thousands of your fellow Americans are now putting life and limb at risk in faraway
lands supposedly to bring it to them, this topic is of some renewed significance.
The general subject of democracy is, needless to say, quite broad, and one could write several volumes of
thousands of page each on it. Instead, you must narrow your topic along the lines - and preferably in one of the
four main sub-fields of the discipline (and core courses in your major) - described below:
American: Despite its claims, how democratic is the US? Here, of course, you’d necessarily need to
limit this to one aspect of the American political system (and even sub-aspects): e.g., the electoral
system (campaign finance, voting methods, etc.); institutions (Congress, presidency, Courts, etc. - again
some aspect), or results (e.g., does our government do what the people want? Connections between
public opinion and public policy; whether policies are substantively as opposed to procedurally
democratic, etc.) Note: no papers on the Electoral College; it’s been done to death, and frankly there are
bigger kettles of democratic fish to fry.
Comparative: Compare and contrast two countries on some “democratic dimension.” For example, are
parliamentary systems better at achieving democratic outcomes or more democratic in certain areas
(representation, etc.) than presidential ones? Is one form of democratic political organization “better”
than another? Or, you might examine democratization in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and/or
Latin America, and make some judgments as to the degree of success or actualization of democratic
governance. Is there a set of common ingredients for a democratic “recipe,” or not? Etc. Of course, here
case selection is as crucial as topic selection.
International: Here, you would explore democracy in the context of international relations and/or foreign
policy. Are democratic states different from autocratic (and other) ones in how they conduct foreign
affairs? What about democracy in international organizations like UN, EU, etc.? Can democracy be
spread internationally, or imposed from without? Is it a good idea to do so? How best can it be done?
Etc.
Political Theory/Philosophy: What is democracy? Does democracy presume certain moral or political
values? What have different notable political philosophers had to say on the subject? Is one
philosopher's understanding of democracy more accurate than another? Or, more practical or applicable
to today? Etc.
Though presumably the bulk of topics would be solely in the realm of political democracy, one need not be
limited to this: you could explore the connection between social or economic democracy and political
democracy, etc. It is likewise acceptable to have a paper that overlaps or doesn't fit perfectly within one of the
four sub-fields. For example, one might explore the topic of internationally-imposed “democracy from without” in
two comparative cases, such as the US occupations of Japan and Iraq (NOT that this would be practical or
advisable, given the recentness and lack of good scholarly information on the Iraqi case, and perhaps
differences between the two).
This latter observation raises another issue about topics. The goal of the general topic area is to get you thinking
and to narrow possibilities, while at the same time being broad enough to encompass a number of different
topics across all of the areas of the field. You should, therefore, exercise caution in your actual selection that it
not be too broad nor too specific, yet also be “common” enough that there is existing research on it. Also,
47
whatever topic you select should enable you to develop a clear research question that allows you to posit a
clear answer or thesis in the paper. You should study and consult the readings in the course packet about
research papers, not only in terms of topic selection but also in the areas of argumentation, organization, and
the like. Some of these more technical problems in writing the paper actually stem from problems in topic focus,
and thus can be avoided by carefully crafting the research question at the outset.
You should of course consult some preliminary research works, as well as me or other members of the
department with expertise in these areas, before crafting your topic. I will gladly direct you to others in the event
you are interested in a topic about which I know little.
Paper Specifications and Rules
A. The topic will be mutually agreed upon by student and instructor no later than Wednesday Oct. 4.
You are free to – and should – meet with me outside of class or email me, etc., to discuss and develop
your topics before that date. I also reserve the right to alter topics along more “doable” lines, etc. Topics
can be picked up the next day.
B. The length will be a minimum of ten typewritten, double-spaced pages with normal margins and no
larger than an 11-point font.
C. You should have a minimum of one good – e.g., scholarly or academically legitimate – source per
page, or in any event at least 10 of them. No more than half of your sources can come from the Web. (Though
you should know already, we’ll discuss what constitutes a legitimate and/or scholarly source, but needless to
say Sports Illustrated, Playboy, the Yakima Herald-Republic, Newsweek, www.theoreillyfactor.com,
www.theonion.com, etc., aren’t legitimate sources).
D. An accepted format (MLA, APA, Turabian, etc) for citation of sources must be followed for the paper.
Failure to use proper citation can result in reduction of grade or failure (extreme).
E. Misspellings, syntactical and grammatical errors will result in a reduction of grade.
F. Papers written for previous courses cannot be recycled, even when substantially reworked.
G. An outline for the paper must be submitted to the instructor no later than Tuesday, Oct. 24 at 3pm.
This is to be a detailed outline with a bibliography. Scribbling a few sentences on a piece of
paper is unacceptable. The outline must contain a “thesis”; a statement of purpose, what you
hope to show or demonstrate or argue in the paper. Outlines will be left with the Dept. Secretary
for pick up the following week, or you can contact Dr. Schaefer directly. I will also meet with you
to discuss outlines if you wish.
H. The final paper must be submitted no later than Wednesday, November 8, at 3pm. Early
submissions are encouraged.
I. NOTE: Failure to meet any of the above deadlines or requirements will result in a nonnegotiable failure for the course! Read the previous sentence again!
The examination: This will be administered at the time of the regularly scheduled final exam period in the
Psychology-Political Science Building (room to be determined later) on Friday Dec. 8. Inasmuch as this will
constitute almost half the grade for the course - and outright failures are certainly possible - students are
encouraged to review their notes and texts from the five required courses. A study guide, consisting of a list of
important terms and concepts, is included in your packet, although it must be stressed that this is not intended
to be an all-inclusive guide. In addition, copies of some basic texts will be available in the Student Lounge in
room 417. While a concerted effort to review everything in these courses might admittedly be difficult, if not
impossible, some review can’t help but refresh one’s memory and have a salutary effect. To assist in this
review, the instructor will meet with the class on Wednesday, November 29.
The department questionnaire-evaluation:
This is a confidential questionnaire whereby the Political Science faculty solicits students’ opinions on their
experiences in and judgments about this department, its programs, and its faculty. Students have two choices
as to when to complete the questionnaire: Either come into the main Political Science office sometime during
the last week of classes, get the form from the department secretary, and complete it then; or, do it immediately
upon the completion of the examination. But here’s the important point: While such a questionnaire can
obviously not be given a grade, completing and submitting the questionnaire- to the department secretary, not to
a faculty member - is a course requirement. Failure to submit it will result in a reduction in the final grade of one
full grade (e.g., B to a C). Students should be confident that their responses will be completely confidential.
Student responses will be typed by the department secretary, so no one should be concerned about handwriting
recognition.
48
Department of Political Science
Central Washington University
Student Department Evaluation
(Fall 2006)
All Political Science majors in the final quarter of their senior year are required, as part of the
department's assessment efforts and Political Science 489, to complete the following questionnaire.
This is a confidential questionnaire which represents an attempt by this department to elicit an honest
assessment of your experiences related to earning a degree in political science. Results will not be
shown to faculty until the completion of the quarter. Do not put your name on any part of the form.
We take this exercise very seriously, and we urge you to be as forthcoming and complete in your
responses as possible. Please e-mail your response to strawdec@cwu.edu. .
1.
How many courses have you taken in the Political Science Department here at CWU? Estimate
if you can't recall the exact number.
__________________
2.
How many courses, if any, have you taken at other institutions?
__________________
3.
Make a check beside the names of faculty you have had here:
Brown
Jacobs
Launius
Manweller
Otopalik
Schaefer
Swarthout
Wickstrom
Wirth
Yoon
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
4.
What is your estimated GPA in political science courses you've taken here at CWU?
_________________
5.
What is your estimated overall GPA?
_________________
6.
On the following scale, where 1 is distinctly poor, 2 is mediocre, 3 is pretty good, 4 is
excellent, and 5 is outstanding, indicate how you feel about the overall quality of teaching in
this department. (You'll have an opportunity to comment on each instructor later.)
_________________
Page Two, Dept of POSC Student Questionnaire
49
7.
On the same scale, indicate how you feel about the overall accessibility and openness of the
faculty of this department.
_________________
8.
Would you recommend this department to a graduating high school senior who has some
interest in the study of politics and might be considering coming to CWU?
Yes
_________________
Perhaps, with some qualifications
_________________
No
_________________
9.
Do you feel the political science education you've received has prepared you reasonably well
for your future, whether in a job or graduate study in political science or in another area?
Explain.
10.
If there is one instructor about whom you feel particularly positively, identify that person and
explain what it is that you like about him or her.
Page Three, Dept of POSC Student Questionnaire
50
11.
If there is one instructor about whom you have substantial criticisms, identify that person and
explain your criticisms.
12.
What do you regard as assets or strengths of this department?
13.
What do you regard as weaknesses or shortcomings of this department?
14.
What courses or subjects do you think the department should offer, but doesn't?
Page Four, Dept of POSC Student Questionnaire
51
15.
Of the four traditional subfields of the discipline of political science, rank the level of your
interest in each, with 1 being least interested and 4 being most interested.
American Politics
____________
Comparative Politics
____________
International Politics
____________
Political Thought/Philosophy
____________
16.
Is there anything about your perception of politics that has changed substantially from the time
you first took a political science course here in this department to the present time of your
impending graduation? Explain and interpret this question as broadly as you like.
17.
If there is anything else you would like to say which goes beyond your responses above, take
the opportunity here to do so.
Page Five, Dept of POSC Student Questionnaire (S 06)
52
(Use this page for extra space for your responses, if needed. Be sure to indicate the number of the
question which you are answering.)
53
SURVEY COMBINED STUDENT RESPONSES FALL 2001- SPRING 06
Q9: Do you feel education prepared you well?
o Yes, whatever I end up doing, I am confident that my experiences within this department will
contribute to success.
o Yes, not so much for a job as for graduate school.
o Yes, I think that having the opportunity to take classes in the field you like most within P.S. is
important and helps you to have a greater understanding of that particular field.
o I think I learned a good fountain of knowledge here at CWU to continue my education in
political science in graduate education.
o The education here has adequately prepared me for the future. Most importantly, it has
increased my interest in the field of politics
o I think it has prepared me for grad school but I don’t think it has prepared me for the job
market. The department offers a lot of knowledge but not a lot of skills. The department does
not do a very good job of showing how the knowledge can transferred over to the really world.
The department also does a poor job of giving examples of employment opportunities that poli
sci grads could take advantage of. Of course there is the possibility that I may have the skills
and not know it yet. I asked the other seniors what their plans were after graduation and no one
knew. It would be nice if the faculty ‘guided’ student a little better.
o Little bit. I believe that w/ most topics there is an excessive amount of info. & the teachers are
concerned w/ covering the whole book & don’t take precautions in dividing up the chapters w/
discretion. Comparative, International, & U.S. Foreign Policy books also seem to overlap the
same info. over & over, it feels like one is repeating the same course.
o Yes, to a large extent I believe that the preparation to a persons future is largely dependent on
the individual. I believe that an individual can take several classes, but if he does not do
something to retain the knowledge he/she will not be properly prepared. With regards to the
curriculum here at CWU I feel that within the Political Science department there are very
knowledgeable professors that are very able to pass the knowledge to the students.
o Yes-I ended up choosing this major because I felt like I was learning something everyday and
being pushed. I could have picked a major that I could have easily gotten all A’s and learned
nothing but I chose to struggle for B’s and be enriched & educated.
o The actual material really isn’t and will not be of much benefit. However, the manner of
thought and analysis required for studying political science will help in the ‘real world’.
o In some ways yes and in some ways no. As for preparing students for grad school the dept.
does a poor job. They don’t offer a statistics class or a research methods class. That is what is
needed to complete in grad school environment. As far a basic education I feel that the dept,
and if the student actually reads/does the work, the dept would prepare a student reasonably
well.
o Yes, I have gain knowledge that I didn’t even think was possible to comprehend as a student.
The knowledge that was shared by the professors increased the learning process here at Central.
o Yes. Although my senior assessment may not show it; I feel confident in my knowledge. I feel
very prepared to continue on to a graduate study program, if that is what I choose to do.
o Yes, I plan on going to graduate school eventually. I feel that my political science education
has greatly prepared me for life in general as an informed citizen.
o No, I do not feel that the inside of a class teaching equaled the education I gave myself through
out-of-class readings and experiences in local and state politics.
o Yes, for the most part. I think it would have been helpful to assignments or projects similar to
what we may have to do in graduate school. However, I feel confident in the knowledge that I
have learned to continue on through graduate school.
54
o Yes-It has definitely made me a much more constructive and informed thinker. I have learned
more in this department than I will have the opportunity to use. I feel very intelligent form the
knowledge I have gained over the last 3 years and feel that it will help me in all decisions I will
make in the future.
o Yes, I really enjoyed all of the views represented at this faculty.
o Yes because I have retained a surprising amount of info from the last 5 quarters.
o No. it’s not your fault, but I lost interest in the major and am completing because I was far
along in it when I decided to pay attention to other areas.
o No. I feel that it has been useful and informative, there really is no substitute for experience.
o Yes I have received a broad education and had to utilize a multitude of skills to succeed.
o Yes, it has given me a great respect & knowledge of current politics and the government &
laws.
o Faculty has done an excellent job, I felt very confident in everyones knowledge. However the
student must take if from there, basically the Poly Sci CWU staff did everything I could have
expected.
o Yes, I chose this subject because I wanted to go to law school. I found through my studies here
that while preparing myself for law school with this degree that I actually learned a lot of other
things that I had not anticipated.
o Yes, I feel I have a working knowledge of political science. While I don’t feel I am an expert in
any specific field, I fell I have been prepared well to further research & critically anylise broad
areas of political information.
o Yes, it has given me a broad spectrum to draw from in the future when deciding which area to
get my masters in. However I wish the department offered more classes in the upper division. I
have had to do independent studies several times and this take away from valuable classroom
time.
o Yes, it has given be a broad knowledge of the studies of Political Science. It has also given me
the necessary tools to understand politics.
o Very well. I will be more than prepared to teach Civics, and if I am not I will just come back.
o Yes, I feel the courses and faculty have adequately prepared me for law school. However, I
don’t feel ready to get a job in political science. More graduate work would be necessary—that
is not anyone’s fault but my own!
o Yes, I feel that I am better prepared to understand the regions that I will deployed to as well as
the reasons I was sent in the first place. Some profs contributed more to this than others at
times.
o Yes
o Yes, I do feel prepared for a job in the area of political science should I choose that path.
o Yes, I feel that I have gotten the skills and knowledge I will need in my future. The faculty is
very available to students and is willing to spend one on one time with them whenever they
needed it.
o Yes, I believe that the requisite material was presented, and that I capitalized on the enormous
amount of opportunities present to be by the dept.
o Yes, because I have learned a lot about politics. A lot more than the average person. The
professors cared if you learned or not. It gave me a good foundation.
o Definitely. I have had to work hard (much harder than many students I know in other majors),
and had to learn the importance of a deadline. Not to mention the political knowledge I’ve
gained. Whether it be conversational or for an actual political career, it will always be useful.
o Depends on the aspect one looks at it. In terms of preparation for a job, no one is ever prepared
for entrance into a new job. In terms of graduate school it has allowed me to narrow a specific
area I would like to persue.
55
o Absolutely, the instructors’ knowledge and experience really added to just learning from texts.
I really feel that I have a descent grasp of this subject to use in the future.
o Yes, I understand the political arenas of not only or own country, but many others, and also our
relationship with them. I love to hear political discourse and enjoy talking politics with friends,
etc.
o Although I love political science, I do not plan to persue a career in it. I think motivated
students can use the resources if they chose to benefit their future.
o Yes, I believe that he core of political sciences has been passed on to me.
o Somewhat, hard to find a job in poli sci field right now, and not a lot experience in other fields.
o It has certainly enhanced my interest in the area, as well as aided my historical knowledge.
o Fairly well, unfortunately I don’t necessarily know exactly what direction I will go in after
graduation, but it could be a blessing because I don’t have to be pigeonholed in only one field.
o Yes, the POSC program at Central provides its students with ample time to learn and grow.
Whether or not it helps in the job market is not as important as opening ones eyes to the system
in which they are living and being able to understand and relate to the worlds events and
happenings.
o Yes, I learned a broad range of skills that I could use in a career in political sciences as well as
other areas. I have learned how to think critically and develop answers to certain problems
pertaining to political science.
o As well as can be expected, Political Science isn’t a B.S. However, I have learned a ton from
most of my profs so I will have a good understanding of politics in the future.
o Yes, it has allowed me to discover some of the areas I’m most interested in (Civil Liberties &
Human Rights) and has given me direction in how to get involved in a career of that nature. It
has also opened my eyes to world wide issues and allowed me to see other standpoints on
certain issues. Through my poli. Sci. education I have been able to understand people and
where they are coming from a little easier because I’m more willing to listen to their views.
o Not for job but for general knowledge in my life.
o Yes, I have been able to choose the classes that I felt would benefit myself and my interests.
o I am not entirely sure what my career will turn out to be. I do know that I will eventually go on
to graduate school. I feel that CWU has done a good job in preparing me for graduate school,
by simultaneously exposing me to a broad array of facets concerning politics, while
simultaneously allowing me to customize my studies to specific areas of interest.
o If I were to pursue a job within the legislature or a masters in political science, then most
definitely I am better prepared.
o Somewhat. It seemed as though there was ‘distorted truth’ at time to reach a better grasp of
some areas (namely domestic politics).
o Yes, I think I was taught the basic knowledge to pursue a Juris Doctrine. I believe that I have
adequately been instructed, and feel that I have the skills to succeed in a job/graduate school
and even in life in general. Thanks to the whole Political Staff @ CWU I feel prepared for the
working world.
o I’m joining the military so I’m not really sure it applies except as to know I know who can
deploy me and why.
o Yes, however, I don’t know how relevant this major is to my career. I wish there were more
jobs offered using a Political Science degree. But I did enjoy the classes and learned a lot.
o Yes, I believe that I have gained thorough knowledge about political history. Enough so that I
can hold intelligent conversations and base decisions on facts that I have learned from the
department.
o Yes, I am headed to law school. I also think it has prepared me well for the real world as far as
the importance of being involved in the political system of this country.
56
o Yes, I feel like I have received a wealth of political science education in many different areas.
o Yes, I like how classes in this department are small, teachers are easy to communicate w/ &
contact after class, & you get to know both teachers & students in the department. I think I am
well-prepared & that I’ve had a very good experience.
o Everything from my studying, and research skills to my test taking skills have improved.
(Organization & time management skills improved too). My critical thinking skills became
sharper and have been exercised in debates and papers. I will be using all of these skills to help
me progress throughout my future, no matter what happens. I believe that the classes I took
here have benefited me in the knowledge of politics. I know I would never to be a politician.
o I feel that the education that I have received has prepared me reasonably well for my future. I
wish that I would have been able to take more courses. However, I feel that I have a very good
solid foundation in political science to build a career and future education upon. I do wish I had
offered an opportunity to speak with an advisor in the department who might have helped me
design my degree and plan to take the classes that would be most beneficial to meeting my
goals. However, overall I am definitely pleased with my degree.
o I have transferred to several different schools. I have taken courses in political science at each
one. They have been very easy courses & I am opinated & participated in class which always
have boosted my grade to a A. in all the courses in political science I have taken at CWU I’ve
had to work hard to my A-‘s and B+’s. I think the Senior Assessment is great because it really
tests what you’ve learned. Every student graduating should be familiar with all those terms.
o Yes, it has provided me with necessary knowledge in politics and analytical skills that can cross
over to many fields.
o Yes, I think the papers I had to write improved both my writing capabilities and research
capabilities. It opened my eyes to things and will help me w/ my law career, thank you.
o Yes, I’m planning on going to law school and I believe the courses I took have helped prepare
me.
o I suppose it was. But that really all depends on my job-however, the skills I learned i.e.,
research and writing skills I’m sure to transcribe to other professions.
o Well, considering that I didn’t take this major to get a job I’d say that directly, no. However,
these poli sci classes helped give me a better perspective on the world. Having a better world
view helps you adapt to different situation and be able to objectively analyze and understand
events.
o No, at this point graduating with just a degree in political science I really wouldn’t know what
to do with it.
o Yes, but I don’t plan to go into politics. It has helped me develop decent writing & analytical
skills.
o I do…the professors here are very, very smart. I love learning new things and I think the
knowledge I have attained will help me in my future endeavors. I would use any of my
professors as a life line on “who wants to be a millionaire.”
o I do feel that the political science department has prepared me for my future. Classes and
teachers were effective in developing my understanding of political science.
o I think it prepared me theoretically & practically. It gave me some basic knowledge, so I can
put new layers of information. I learned how to apply what I read and se; how to see through
information and pick out important stuff. And of course I learned that politics is everywhere.
o I believe it has, if one were going into the political science field, or graduate study, but it isn’t
very applicable in other areas.
o Yes & no. While I feel that I have learned an incredible amount of information from some of
my professors in the Political Science department, I still feel that there is a lot I can learn about
politics & government. I think that the Political Science dept. has given me a good base to start
57
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
off from, in terms of pursuing law school, as well as an appreciation for the field.---they didn’t
teach me how to spell though.
Almost any job today is going to be highly bureaucratic, so some understanding of bureaucracy
is helpful. The information itself though seems more useful as an ability to hold an intelligent
conversation than anything else to someone who probably will never enter the political arena.
Politics have always interested me though, but I knew the degree might not be of real value to
my chosen career field.
Yes, in that it provided me with much of basic background on Political Science. However, it
would have been very useful to have more practical application classes. Examples: campaign
work, in-depth study of political research techniques, emerging political issues or political
economy classes.
No, some of the professors were outstanding, others poor. I feel that there are holes in my
degree, strong in some areas weak in others.
No, I learned a lot from the department, but it was real world skills that I created/possess that
will help me find a job. Not enough attention/if any is given in accordance to job training or
internships. I feel that the department taught and mentered, but never prepared us for jobs.
Not really. Classes don’t seem to be preparing anyone for work.
Yes. Very knowledgeable and informative stuff. I changed major mid-way through my junior
year because of the high recommendations received by the current Pol. Sci. students. After
several job interviews, I have gotten many positive reactions from potential employers about
my CWU political science degree. Am very grateful to the Pol. Science dept. for making it
possible for me to receive a second minor in another discipline w/out a significant time
commitment.
Yes. I feel that I am well prepared to go on to graduate school to study political science and
eventually become a professor at a University. I also feel that my political science education
has prepared me for career in the military.
Yes, I believe it has, but I wish there was more emphasis on Economic Policies of politics. Less
information on the history of politics. There is a need for more relevant courses w/ what is
going on in today’s modern world.
Yes it has prepared me somewhat. It opened up areas of political science that I didn’t know
about, yet became very interested in such as early political thought.
Yes, it has helped me become aware about the world and how it is run. It has helped me to
understand war and why American and other Countries have gone to war. It as helped me to
understand Economics and how it affects Politics.
I guess so.
Yes and no. Yes the courses were well taught, but also no because it’s a small department and
therefore not enough variety is offered or enough specialization options offered especially in
feminist discourse.
I believe this education allows adequate preparation with proper initiative. The field is too vast
to expect mastery but the upper level courses were well instructed. I feel confident in my
knowledge in an introductory sense.
Yes, the political science courses were on par with or above other liberal arts classes I’ve taken
in Central. Whether I can get a job with a liberal arts degree remains to be seen however.
I feel that overall it has prepared me for a number of careers that I can choose to pursue.
I think that some of what I learned was applicable. However, the department didn’t do a grand
job of exactly telling me what kind of jobs I would be qualified for, other than in politics.
The education provided has been more than reasonable for the expectations of graduating
seniors. Political Science covers a broad range of topics (including law, economics, and some
58
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
grass roots of management) and the faculty have done a great job, however off of subject from
time to time, in relaying this information.
Yes, combined with personal experience and research courses I took at other institutions. I feel
I’m capable of processing, analyzing, and orally writing about a range of complex subjects and
the multiple dimensions they encompass.
Yes! I enjoy how the department integrates economic theory and critical thinking into its
curriculum. The department challenges you to have a logical and rational thought process.
Definitely. There’s no doubt that the material I’ve learned will benefit me in my future. I
understand politics and other countries a whole lot more than I used to, and I actually can apply
the material even afterwards.
Yes, I believe the core classes give a good overview of posc in general.
I think it’s prepared me well if I go on to graduate study. I’ve learned the facts well. But I don’t
feel prepared for a job. I just don’t seem to have learned how to apply what I’ve learned into a
career.
Yes, the faculty is knowledgeable in several areas and all have conveyed this knowledge with
passion and precision. Also differing teaching methods have given wide array skills which will
certainly be useful in the future.
Not really, because of the few topics and subjects that is provided by the department, may be
because of the few faculty or the lack of department financial. But yes the department needs
more courses that is different in topics and innovative in subjects.
I feel like I have learn a lot of useful skills that could be applied to a job or graduate school.
When I came here, only having 2 political science classes at community college, I knew very
little about politics and government. Now, after completing this degree I feel as though I am the
political educator in the family and can talk with my older brother who is a poly sci student at
the UW.
The political science program is so diverse in political ideology it makes it difficult to grasp a
solid base. Overall the program will help me in graduate studies.
I couldn’t be happier with my education here. The political science department has given me
the ability to express myself. I know that my opinion does matter and I should voice it. I
believe I am prepared for my future in grad school and law school because of the constructive
criticisms given throughout all my course work here. The political science department gives
realism a whole new meaning.
Yes, reasonably well. However, the department could be expanded to offer more courses.
Yes, I feel very well prepared. I feel as though there is a depth to the offered courses allowing
students to indulge academically speaking, in the areas they feel are most important to them.
Yes I do feel that I know now what I don’t want to do in the field. I also have a good idea about
what I do want to get into. I feel good about my command of the information I’ll need to go on.
I feel it has been a great program. I have taken with me much knowledge. I feel it has given me
a good base education. I feel that I may not have been as comprehensive overall.
Yes, the teachings were mostly objective & gave way for stimulating debates & information
that can be useful in the future.
Yes, I’ve learned a lot, in most of my classes. I’m sure this education will allow me to get into
& succeed in many graduate programs.
Yes, I have gained much knowledge about the political economy, that will enhance my
communicable and understanding skills in future events.
Yes I do. I do think we need more time devoted to helping seniors find jobs since the career
services center is a joke.
Yes, I think I’ve gained knowledge that can be applied to real world issues relating to political
science. I feel I have a good base for future schooling and a career.
59
o Yes, I feel that I have become more knowledgeable since coming here I am ready for the next
step.
o Yes, the POSC department’s faculty does a tremendous job in preparing students to meet career
or further education objectives.
o Yes, I believe that I have acquired a good overall history of politics and how states work
together.
o I feel I am prepared to study new areas of politics. I am a double major, and I feel POSC was a
much more rewarding major. I feel that I am leaving Central with a very good understanding of
politics and the world. Now when I watch TV or read the newspaper I can see what is bullsh*t
and what is sensible information; what to question and what to accept. What I do know is that I
don’t know everything about politics and the world and no one else does.
o No. A lot of the classes deal w/ just book concepts. You memorize & that’s enough to pass.
Where are the applied applications of the department. should require an internship of some
sorts to all in department.
o Yes, most certainly. Because the dept is down-to-earth, they’re not elitist assholes. They make
time to help their students, the dept is small enough where you can get individual help.
o Not much opportunity outside grad school or law school; could bring in more people to talk
about jobs; could push internships more to prepare students.
o Pretty much, I intend on teaching so there was a good amount of political and historical
relevance.
o Yes, it has show me that I have a real interest in politics. I hope it will help me in the real
world, but at least it has open my eyes to a new a passion I now have.
o Yes, even though I’m not going to go into a POSC grad school, I feel that the material I have
learned has given me the material that can be carried over into numerous aspects of life, & jobs.
o Yes, as I plan to go into a business career I have learned a lot about society. Learning about
foreign governments and ours has made trends in economics easier to understand.
o Yes, this department helped me land an excellent internship at the Capitol & I hope to return to
work there next session before law school.
o W/O past job experience I would be uncertain of whether or not I was reasonably prepared. I
feel a lot of the classes were about memorization.
o Yes. I feel the department prepared me for the future. I am also confident that I have acquired
the tools necessary to compete with others in the job market.
o Perhaps, I’m not sure which career path I’m going to choose yet.
o Yes, courses were available to prepare me for my areas of interest. Instructors were also helpful
in channeling specialization while providing access to the broader aspects of the discipline.
o For the most part-although a more generous load of work would probably have been in order.
Not that I minded-but honestly it probably should have been more challenging.
o I feel that I have a strong understanding of the legislative process and a good historical
background of American politics. Both good for law school.
o Yes. There was a good deal of material & variety in subjects, giving us a very good base for the
future & present understanding. One concern though is some professors/classes are either much
more challenging, or less so, than others. They need to be balanced in terms of work load.
o The knowledge I received from Central assembled the foundation from which I can apply in a
job related circumstances as well as everyday life. I am confident with who I have become and
the instruction I have obtained. Thus, when challenged I know I can rely on my experiences
and connection to guide me correctly.
o Yes. Education in this department has opened me up to other views of the world, especially
views of the Republican party. In high school, and my first years of college, I could not
understand Republicans or Libertarians. Its still difficult for me to do so , but the department
60
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
has helped me to understand differences between people. The department has prepared me for
future work in many fields.
I believe that while this department focuses mainly on American Politics there is enough area
to specialize within a chosen field. I don’t plan on necessarily using my degree to get a job, but
I believe that having the degree and the knowledge learned from this department has opened up
many avenues of employment and further study.
Yes, I know enough about Political Science to get by.
Yes, I was always asked to design, create, critique, or defend a view point of my own. I feel
that is important for work, life, and study.
I do feel that I am prepared for a future in a political related job. After attending these courses I
have a better understanding of how our country works as well as international politics as a
whole. I definantly feel that a good understanding of politics helps me understand why it is that
the government does the things that it does.
In some ways but the classes just went by so fast.
For the most part; I would have liked to have taken more classes about law and U.S. govt.
No. We are taught about political science, NOT TO BE political scientists. While I love this
department I do not feel it adequately prepared me for my upcoming graduate studies.
Yes, with hard work I should be fine. I believe the research skills will be quite helpful in grad
school. The writing skills will be useful in many ways too.
Yes, but only because I’m a double major. I suspect a POSC degree without another major is
next to worthless unless you plan on attending law school.
Yes, I learned the fundamental aspects of political science.
As it turns out, I am not going into a field that relates to political science, so this doesn’t quite
apply to me, but I feel that my political science classes here, more than the classes in other
departments have been rigorous and challenged me academically.
Yes and No. With exception to a few classes, most indepth learning came from other
department. some classes however, gave appreciation of the field and real world issues.
Yes. Some of the Profs I had were not worth my time & energy. Especially, Otopalic. He is
rude and arrogant. He crushes his students. However, his attitude made me realize how to deal
with difficult profs.
Sure, I feel that I’m coming out of CWU with a well rounded political science education.
Don’t know my future, but I feel that I’ve increased my overall knowledge and gottin better
study habits.
I feel reasonably satisfied with my education on basic governmental procedures and theories,
particularly American. I feel less educated on international government policy and theory.
Yes & no, I feel that some professor’s have really prepared me for the future, however, finding
and taking particularly needed classes has been difficult. You can say it has been a lot of trial
and error. Some classes have taught me a lot where as others I have just walked out of the class
wondering what I had just learned. I wish Central had better professor’s.
I feel that the broad based knowledge I have acquired will be most suitable in conjunction with
graduate study and other disciplines. I do not feel as thought I have learned enough to make a
career out of my poli sci education, but it is a nice foundation for further education in poli sci or
in conjunction with other majors.
Yes, I feel I could run for office.
It’s been helpful and will come in handy at graduate school. If I did not plan on going to
graduate school I would not be prepared for a job.
Yes, while I may not be light years ahead of where I was when I got here I feel that all the
holes have been filled in. I think that the things I have learned here have been more than ample
61
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
to provide a foundation for me to specialize in grad school. As far as a job goes I may be
qualified for McDonalds.
Overall, yes. However, it may be useful to offer more career-specific courses (like Into to
Public Policy or
Yep, I took the classes I needed. I got to work assignments and it helped me learn to prioritize
assignments.
Yes, I now understand fundamental principle of law and how gov’ts operate. The differences
and problems they face.
I think American politics could have been more basic and informative. The process of
American politics was not explained very thoroughly. The study/explanation of the judicial
branch and the Electoral College wasn’t covered enough. Also, information on work in this
field isn’t really provided or encouraged by the department. It leaves students with the feeling
that we don’t know where to begin in the job search.
I feel that my political science courses were accurate for the information needed, but the
professors did not inspire me to pursue political science any further. Being a transfer student
from another university, I feel that I learned more other universities and on my own. The
information seems to be geared toward the Senior Assessment test rather than current political
issues and application of what we have learned.
Probably not if I were going into the workforce immediately, however, as a double major
(Psychology), I feel I have learned more valuable things in the Political Science department. I
plan to educate myself further and I feel the program here has prepared me for that.
Overall, I do feel the education I’ve received in this department has been very good, and has
prepped me for my future. The dept is a bit biased in representation of ideas, but most classes
are taught with limited bias and relatively well-rounded.
I think the political science department here at Central has done a magnificent job of explaining
the concepts of the study and how they apply to political events going on in the world. They
created an interest in politics for me that wasn’t previously there and as such has led to me
thinking about continuing my political science education either in graduate school or law
school.
Yes, I do, although I feel that there is a lack in real world application in some areas. Some
classes are designed to be specific (ex. State and Local Government), but ones like
International Politics only touch on broad themes rather than what one would actually use them
for. Constitutional Law classes prepare one for law school, but classes like Presidential
Character are good as tools for analysis, not as tools for a career, in my opinion.
My education in the political science department has given me an understanding of how the
government works and will enable me to teach government in high school or college. I would
say my education has prepared me for my future career.
For the most part, yes. With the dichotomy of teaching styles I believe a good foundation has
been set for how we are to approach future study. Being that I am pursuing graduate study, I
feel there has been a pleasant blend of both analytical and informational gathering skills given
by the department… with some qualifications.
I feel that the education has prepared me for a job after graduation and for graduate school.
Most the courses allow you to do some sort of independent research project such as either
writing a paper with a topic that you choose, or doing a project about a topic that you choose,
this allows you to little by little focus your education in a field that one might prefer.
Yes, I enjoyed most of the courses I have taken. I actually wish I could have had time to take
more PolySci courses
I believe the education I have received at CWU has prepared me rather well for a continuing
career in international relations.
62
o NO EXPLANATION
o I think so, I am able to understand the nature of the beast so to speak. I also understand how,
but most importantly, why politics are the way they are in America.
o Yes, I have learned the ideas & concepts of politics.
o Yes I feel the department has prepared me for a potential career in Law which is a field I have
wish to enter. The law classes offered by the department have served as excellent pre-law
classes. The classes offered on American politics have drastically furthered my knowledge of
the American government which is essential if I wish to become a lawyer.
63
COMBINED STUDENT RESPONSES: FALL 2001- SPRING 2006
Q16: What view of politics has changed since you majored? (Effect of Dept. on view of politics)
 I didn’t realize before all the hidden things that go on behind the scenes. Now when I see
something on the news I can say I know why they did that or said that. I have a deeper
understanding and question more if things have to be that way or not.
 Yes, I came into this field merely because I was curious and seeing the extent to which it could
be studied was great. Previously I thought politics was strictly politics, but know I have a
greater understanding and interest.
 I didn’t realize how closely POSC & Philosophy are related.
 In America we see such a small slice of the political spectrum, a more thorough examination of
the full spectrum has been enlightening. Also, I find the relationship between history and the
present context quite interesting.
 I notice I am a lot more critical of our government and very, very pessimistic when it comes to
politics. The U.S.A. does not seem as great as it was before I got into political science.
 It’s even more corrupt than I thought. The classes did establish a more concrete explanation of
the diff. countries political agenda w/ one other & diff. events to trigger wars.
 Yes, it is more informed and wide spread—I truly feel more intelligent from being here.
 The world is much more complicated, with many more factors to be considered within any
given situation.
 Well I definitely have learned a great deal, which has made me think more critically. Also my
ability to analyze issue has significantly improved. Overall I’m more partisan, liberal, and
cinical than when I arrived.
 I am definitely more informed than I ever could have been otherwise.
 I would say a lot has changed. I had set out to major in biology. I never would have thought of
political science as something I would have ever pursued a degree or even found interesting. I
think much of it is due to the fact that you are not taught very much about politics, government,
etc. The four years at Central, I have learned a tremendous amount of information and I hope to
put it to good use.
 Four year ago, I had a passion for learning all I could about politics. This was why I began the
major. All of that drained away as I progressed through the curriculum. I expected to be
engaged, challenged, and instructed but instead I was left to my own devices. I did well by
myself, learning what I could, appreciating the rich tapestry of politics and social interaction,
but I finished the major only because it provided a degree.
 Prior to my POSC classes here, I really had no concept of how politics worked in any other part
of the world. I was not even quite sure of how politics operated in this country. Now, I feel
well-informed on many issues and am prepared to take on a career in politics in the future. My
education has raised my interest to the point of wanting to get involved and stay constantly
informed on the changing politics of the times. I look forward to doing extensive travelling in
the future to witness first hand what I have been studying in my comparative & international
politics courses. I never knew before how interesting (and humorous) politics in other corners
of the globe could be.
 When I first started here, I thought American politics was the most dull. However, now I find
our system & the evolution of it, the most fascinating. At first, it seemed that our political
traditions were weak in comparison to most European traditions. Now it is clear to me that our
political tradition was revolutionary in thought.
 I have found a new understanding and interest in politics. I had some prior to attending college
but as the quarters went by my professors encouraged me through their classes to learn more. I
found that I wanted to learn more in depth about each area I had been studying.
 I feel like I am a better “consumer” of Political Information.
64




















I didn’t know anything, I thought it was just about elections & American politics.
Well there was a time for about 5 months or so when I thought I was a Republican. I have since
reformed my evil ways. I’ve had my eyes opened to the way politics really works not just the
glossed over three branches and how a bill becomes a law that you get in high school.
I don’t think my perceptions changed a whole lot. However I have increased my knowledge of
the subjects drastically. I have been given the tools to analyze political events in the world for
myself, and this will allow me to decipher the truth from an often times bias, misinformed, and
ignorant news media. I have been shown which news sources are the better of the bunch which
I think will allow me to make more accurate judgments about politics and world events.
I have changed very few of my perceptions, basically learned how to defend those perceptions
more thoroughly. I did tend to want an opposing view from time to time from instructors--Generally I felt the staff was liberal throughout and gave a very slanted view of the U.S./World.
A strict conservative could be an asset to the department for reasons of diversity!
I have become more knowledgeable on the subject and can analytically interpret much more of
the underlying meanings.
Easy…I don’t know shit, sports I think I am an actual bonafied expert in, Poly Sci however will
take many more years of study to ever fully understand. Faculty skills showed me I still need to
learn much much more.
My respect for elected officials has grown in some ways.
As stated before, I think I have learned the conceptual tool to allow me to understand how
politics work.
I’m not so sure I like it. Not because of the department, I just don’t want to understand
everything, and I can’t help but want to.
I would never have guessed this would be, but in retrospect Wirth's lecture stuck w/ me the
most. He provides a comprehensive scope that is unparalleled. Frankly I do not feel
substantially affected by any deliberate act of the curriculum.
Simply that I know more. I have always been interested, but it is nice to have in depth
knowledge especially about other countries. I have gained a greater perspective of the vast
breath of political concepts.
World issues and how U.S. deals with diplomacy. Also the structure and working order of
foreign governments.
Yes, I can see that our political system is very flawed because of the varying problems, from a
society that doesn’t vote, to a president that stole the presidency. That eventually we are all
fucked!
I have become more liberal as I’ve come to understand other political systems and it has
expanded my interest in world politics.
I am able to understand and see other viewpoint—other than my own.
Yeah, don’t always believe what you hear on CNN. I think that all of the teachers I have had in
this Dept. really brought the reality of politics into the classroom. Its not something you really
learn from a textbook.
I am able to better understand and see other viewpoints-other than my own.
More politically conscience of which is better for the benefit of the whole, and the effects that
my choices make on future outlooks.
I definitely came here w/ the exact same political orientation as my father. Since learning the
realities of politics, my views have changed.
My perception has changed so drastically that it would be impossible to answer the question in
the allotted space. My perception, I am sure, will continue to change as I am exposed to even
more information.
65

















I have come to see things much less black and white and have come to be much more critical
and ask questions of policies and politicians.
My first response I that I am discouraged from a possible career in political science. After so
many courses, and especially the Senior Assessment course, I feel overwhelmed in the field of
political science.
Sure, corporations really screw everyone & we let them. I feel we can change things now where
as before I was apathetic and didn’t vote, watch news, etc. Vote populist!
I definitely know a great deal more. When I first arrived here I was a staunch conservative &
now my views have definitely shifted leftward to the point where I am more of an Eisenhower
Republican.
I was always interested in politics, however now I have a much better understanding regarding
the many aspects that surround politics and the political process in American and international
politics. My perception has changed in that my knowledge of politics has increased
tremendously. I believe the required core classes are an important part of the degree and that
they were instrumental in building a strong knowledge of politics.
I’ve come to know some of my friends and family a little better. My perception of them has
changed in some ways. Not negatively but I can’t help but be interested in the way that they
think and feel about certain situations, and what I like to do is talk to my Grandma about what I
think of this and she enlightens me with other events in my families lifes that make think & act
the way they do.
I’ve realized just how broad the study of politics is. I didn’t notice all of the areas of life in
which politics are involved, not did I understand how much everyday activities affected the
political system. I also learned a lot more about internat. Systems, & much more about the
Amer. System. Public High Schools ten to sugar-coat everything—I loved getting new points
of views.
Yes! I really knew absolutely nothing about politics. The first class I took with professor Jacobs
(American Politics) grasped my interest and I just wanted to learn more.
I understand more indepthly why things happen that seem well ignorant in government. I never
really knew that the founding fathers kinda wanted a slow system until taking courses here.
I have become more Conservative. I am also more cynical about the world. I think that too
much emphasis is placed upon students only receiving half the story, in the cases of a few
profs.
Of course, my insight has become more substantial. I am able to question, critique and support
political leaders & specific legislation. Before the courses at Central, I was politically ignorant.
I definitely have developed an appreciation for the field.
I used to think that politics was dirty and just about the politicians. Now I know that there is a
lot of history, tradition, and structure behind the bullet points you see on TV. I have a lot more
respect for those creating, shaping, interpreting, and implement policy. I am now able to see
through the B.S. and interpret what’s going on intelligently.
I am more likely to research an issue before actually coming to a conclusion based on party
lines.
I now question the government more than ever. The things governments have gotten away with
in the past creeps me out. I have become a more active and informed citizen.
Yes, a lot about my perception has changed. I’ve learned I came in somewhat ignorant and left
somewhat educated.
I have opened up by recognizing the many influences on politics. Economics, the media,
geography, political parties, etc.
Some of the teachers seem a little jaded & disenchanted with politics. We are still new,
idealistic & believing we can make a difference. It would be nice if instructors encouraged us
66















to be powerful changes for good in the world instead of saying “why the hell, would you want
to run for public office.” One instructor I had didn’t even seem to like politics & made me
wonder why he was teaching it. There is a lot wrong with this country & when we learn about it
some of us want to do something, it would be nice to have some guidance & direction to feel
like we are trying to make it better rather than sit & become horrified about how bad things
have gotten.
I now analyze both sides of the issue. There are always more than one valid argument in every
issue. Politics is about perception of our surroundings and our lives.
Since I have started here I am much more skeptical of politicians and U.S. policies. I’m also a
lot more aware (or so I believe) of what’s going on around the world and attitudes about things.
I found how many components constitute political science, that in order to understand what
goes on today, we might have to go back in history 2-3 centuries. That domestic and foreign
policies of our government depend/influence policies of another.
All my perceptions were altered in the sense that my ideological perceptions were broken down
and the inherent complexities of political institutions, were revealed in multiple ways.
I am really starting to despise radical sentiment at all ends of the spectrum. This only differs
from my ability to tolerate it previously.
I think the greatest thing I learned was how ignorant many people are in regards to politics.
Should the American public take the time to educate themselves about politics,
elections…many of the world’s problems wouldn’t be as bad.
Simply my perception of not only the political process but the origins of our process here in
America & our interaction around the world & how we view ourselves politically & why.
Growing up in Washington with 40% of our political positions held by women I didn’t realize
how much women are left out of political science. Now when I watch congress in session or the
executive on television I can see almost no women. Before taking Dr. Yoon’s classes, I too
though only male equaled person.
Politics is messier than I thought. Democracy may be overrated.
Yes I realize that politics is much more complex than I thought. Economics, History,
Diplomacy, Elections, Weather, and many more things play huge roles in political decisions.
My horizons have broadened/expanded. I know feel completely educated and aware of the
entire political spectrum from the far left to the far right. I understand what has influenced and
guided politics not only is U.S., but also throughout the world. I feel I now have an in depth
understanding of all political ideology we have in this world.
When I came to CWU I had lived a very liberal life, but after hearing liberal profs bash on
conservative theory, I soon converted to conservatism, all thanks to a bunch of men
complaining about their country and teaching an opinion and not covering both sides. Don’t get
me wrong…they have developed an appreciation for politics that burns passionately inside my
heart. I have learned so much from all of them.
From the opinions of all prof’s since I did not have Manweller the over all dislike for our
Presidnet. So much Bush Bashing was a little too much, sometimes it was a distraction to
learning- (you may think this is over sensitive but serious)
I have a much more developed perspective on politics (national, international, & my own), and
I am a much stronger advocate of any political topic I choose.
Politics are messy & complicated, half the problems of the world could be resolved if people
took the time to understand politics, instead of making ignorant & uninformed comments &
actions/decisions. If you don’t understand something, educate yourself before you make a fool
of yourself. People complain about politics & 95% of the people don’t understand what they’re
complaining about.
67





















I feel that politics is more than debating and just the simple bureaucracy. I have learned a great
deal in policy, political economy, and appreciate women in politics.
Politics is much more complex than I thought had thought, and no one can figure out the
answers.
I’ve enjoyed my experience at CWU with this subject. I stared out being fascinated by
American Politics especially in how it’s related to American History. Every new subfield I was
introduced to I fell in love with. So I guess in answer to your question my perception has
changed in the broadness and intricacy of politics.
A deeper understanding of the history of political thought and how its transcended through
history.
Well I have learned so much about political science. The subject interests me even more than it
had in the beginning. I believe that I am even more interested in political science than I was
before I started. My teachers have definitely influenced my appreciation for the field.
I perceive politics in a more economic fashion. I.E. I can exercise more knowledge of politics
as a rational science.
Yes, I now feel as though I may assert an informed opinion regarding politics. From knowledge
of the inner workings of the legal system, political ideologies to Supreme Court cases.
Therefore, I no longer feel like one of “The Mob.”
I feel like I have a much better understanding of global politics than before.
I always felt I was a liberal but after majoring in political science I feel really confused which I
think is a good thing. I can argue a substantial case for either side of the political spectrum now.
I have learned to question what I am told and to look at issues more deeply in order to
understand all the aspects.
Yes, definitely my knowledge is much greater, not only in the U.S.A. of politics, but the rest of
the world, which is very important because political issues in the rest of the world affect our
every day life.
I’ve become more educated about my views- now I use facts when I debate.
My mind has just been more open.
I have a broader overall perception of many political issues. I have had the chance to formally
study them and determine my own mind set. I have opened up myself to more ideas and
curiosity in politics.
I have learned why I am liberal, and at the same time taken a softer line as far as partisanship.
I feel I have a greater appreciation for how politics have evolved & come to meld together. I
have a better understanding of how many cultures can work together, or not work together, &
how they relate through politics, & why it may be that different politically thinking does or
doesn’t work.
Matter of factly, I once perceived myself as being at the liberal end of the political spectrum.
However, as my knowledge base expanded so did my political views. After taking a myriad of
Manweller’s courses, I now lean more toward the libertarian side of the spectrum.
That politics has a valid place in society. Society is ignorant on the world & politics around it.
That religion and politics do mix and make good dinner conversation.
The biggest change I’ve noticed is just realizing opening your mouth is half the battle. I guess
that’s a more broad answer for knowledge in general- but you only have to ½ way know an
answer and as long as your willing to speak up it usually work out.
Decidedly more conservative than I was before. This is due mostly to courses in economics,
though.
No. My perception of politics is the same however, I gained a strong understanding of several
other perceptions of politics.
68

















My perception of how complex politics is has changed. There are so many levels & factors that
shape politics it is amazing. This is especially true in the court system. Most people don’t
understand how the courts work or what influences effect them.
I now want to become a Prof. of Political Science rather than a lawyer. (I know – huge pay cut)

I went in pretty close-minded. My parents are conservatives as was I. This program opened up
other ideologies and concepts which allowed me to better understand my feelings as well as
others.
I have learned to never trust anyone for they are all self interested
No, I don’t think there’s anything that changed. I learned that politicians will go to any length
to sell you a sack of shit. I think that Brown, Schaefer, and Launius have done a good job of
illustrating that.
I have more questions now than before. The world is much more complex and interconnected
then I thought. I think the world is cruel and unfair from a 3rd world perspective. If there is a
god, HE loves Americans. No, but I believe I am extremely lucky to live in the U.S. and I am
extremely lucky to have the opportunity to get an education.
When I came here to study politics I thought I was going to study how govts. function and how
they interact with each other. I did not expect to encounter so much theory about how govts.
act, but rather to how they actually acted with each other. These theories are helpful to
understanding politics.
The more I learn about politics, the more cynical I become. I do not particularly care for either
party, and I know better than to throw my vote away on the Libertarians. Alas, politics is the
path I’ve chosen, so that’s where I suspect I will stay.
Politically, no. My interest in international politics and how they work have expanded. I have
also come to realize that many of these organizations waste time and money. However, I do
like what the WHO does.
My perception of politics has not changed, other than to say that I now hold a deeper
understanding of the field, as well as a greater overall appreciation for it.
This major has not changed my views of politics as much as it has broadened my understand of
the environment around me. The greatest thing that has occurred to me while taking courses is
that I am now more open & willing to see all sides of an issue even if I don’t believe in their
point of view, I can now understand where they are coming from.
Its made me look at where I stand in America. Also it made me realize the effect money plays
in America sometimes for bad, for good.
I have learned to look at politics in a logical way, with processes, and actions, rather than just
baised or opinions.
When I first started studying polisci, I wasn’t aware of how much it included. I thought it was
just public opinion and the presidency. The historical aspect fascinated me and opened my eyes
to what the study includes. My perception of partisan believes have changed as well, but that
would happen to any Democrat from the Westside who’s stuck in Eburg.
I came with an open mind willing to listen and critique information provided. As a result my
perception of politics has substantially grown and continues to change to this day. I believe my
provisional conclusions are something that this department set and have been add on by other
institutions and experiences. If anything, the world acts in anarchy.
I have learned to look at issues from both sides, which pitifully, I did not do previously.
I wouldn’t say drastically. I would say I am even more pessimistic and think even less of
people now because of my time here though I would not thought it possible. Politics=a bunch
of people fighting over shit. I guess that is more clear than what I thought before.
69














I knew absolutely nothing about political science when I took my first class, 101 w/ Rex, but I
now feel like I know everything I need to know to graduate. I appreciate politics because of the
teachings of Brown and Rex. I enjoy politics because of Schaefer’s love for politics and the joy
he has when talking about it.
If I have learned one thing it is that nothing is as it seems in politics that everyday citizens are
exposed to. It is only with training in political science that the facts of true politics can be
uncovered and studied. Additionally, I have learned that when it comes to the facts of politics
there is no dispute. Only different ideologies and the actual engaging in politics brings about
confussion and conflict.
I think term politics has become so broad to me I never really understood how huge the world
of politics is and hard it is to narrow this field into a distinct area. Being a political science
major it has made more interested in law and I am hoping to persue a law degree.
Maybe the “motivating factors” behind political leaders’ decision. I originally held a limited
view of how decisions are made – either strictly for personal interest or strictly as
representative. It seems that in reality, a variety of factors determines policy, dependant upon
the situation.
Nothings really changed I just understand things better and know the history of politics. Oh, I
love it when Schaefer gets all excited during lectures and he makes that voice that sounds like
grandpa Simpson!
I am more cynical – never thought that could happen.
Manweller’s political economy class challenged my ideas on economics – the maximum wage
laws, redistribution of wealth, etc. Wirth showed us how all kinds of things can fall into the
category of politics that I wouldn’t have previously considered a part of politics.
Ya I found out they really matter, and that people need to be more informed I started this just
to get to know my enemy
I have the ability now to identify politician views and ideology, even if it is a view I disagree
with.
I understand the political process in America much better now; I am not so critical of how
things are done because I understand the complexity of the government. The knowledge about
public policy and economics is invaluable to me. And the two degrees make for a great, wellrounded education.
Having only taken courses this year, my perspective hasn’t changed that much. If any, I have a
better understanding of the philosophical background that has influenced a variety of political
thought
Before I began taking political science courses, politics did not interest me the least bit.
However, I took international politics and found it extremely interesting. I had decided I
wanted to go to law school and political science was a relevant second discipline to major in. I
have also become much more interested in American politics and theory than I was when I
began the program.
Actually, I was relatively uninterested in American politics when I began, but since then, I have
become substantially more interested, although it is still on the global and international level
that I’m interested in American politics, it is really interesting getting a university level course
on American gov’t which definitely shows both sides of the debates in our culture and
processes, rather than the mediocre middle-school and high-school courses that still swear
Columbus was a great man, and that American ideals are above everything else. Theory has
also, turned out to be very interesting. Otherwise, I still hold my values near and dear, but am
able to see issues more objectively, and play the devil’s advocate more often. 
My personal beliefs on politics are more or less the same as they were before I started taking
political science classes here at Central. My interest in politics is much higher now than it was
70










before and it has expanded as I have learned more about different aspects of politics through
the classes I’ve taken. By adding depth to the amount of political knowledge I have on current
and historical political issues, I have developed new perspectives and beliefs, especially on
local political issues, that I wouldn’t have thought of before taking classes at Central.
The more classes I have taken, the more I hate government in general and the more radical my
libertarian thought has become. I entered a socialist and have come out an anarchist. To be
honest, I have learned more about political theory from the Internet than I have in class, but my
classes have put my thoughts and views in context. I would recommend that everyone at the
university take Manweller’s American Politics as a civics requirement, but any political science
class will do.
My understanding of the government structure and international relations has increased but my
ideals have not being impacted dramatically since joining the political science department.
A friend of mine once stated that “politics is nothing but promising one thing and doing
another.” While this is funny, and somewhat accurate in some settings, it is also extremely
wrong. He was actually associating my study in political science with the practice of politics
and politicking that is often described in the news, and was very wrong in thinking that political
science is somehow a method in which students learn HOW to lie, cheat, steal, and run for
office. I know this is not the case, but I would be lying to myself if I said I didn’t actually hold
this belief to a certain extent before I entered the program.
My ideas of how I could personally contribute to the process has change, because I thought that
I would simply have to just work or run for office to work for the government. But after all the
courses I see all the different approaches one could begin getting involved in. It could be
through a Campaign Manager, to Indian Tribal issues, Interest Groups, City Halls, and Survey
Research.
I just have a deeper passion for the discipline of political science. I was already interested in
politics but now I watch CSPAN for fun, read online newspapers multiple times a day, and
watch cable news nightly. I suppose I am a bigger dork now than before.
My perception of what politics encompasses has certainly been expanded and I have found a
much greater appreciation and interest for areas of international study.
N/A
Yes, I’ve learned that the world of politics isn’t so black and white. I also have a much better
understanding of how politics work, and why I feel the way I do.
I feel that I have learned the process and nature of politics.
[blank]
71
APPENDIX C: Faculty Professional Profile
Faculty Profile Table
2001-2002
# of
faculty
2002-2003
% of
faculty
# of
faculty
2003-2004
% of
faculty
# of
faculty
2004-2005
% of
faculty
# of
faculty
2005-2006
% of
faculty
# of
faculty
% of
faculty
5-yr total Annual
avg
% of
faculty
Scholarship Measures: (Use categories applicable to your departmental & college criteria)
peer reviewed articles
2
33%
1
17%
2
33%
2
33%
4
67%
11
2.2
abstracts/conference proceedings
1
17%
1
17%
3
50%
2
33%
2
33%
10
2
36.60%
30%
conference presentation
4
67%
4
67%
4
67%
2
33%
2
33%
24
4.8
43.40%
professional conference session organizer
1
17%
1
17%
1
17%
2
33%
1
17%
13
2.6
20.20%
professional journal manuscript reviewer
0
0%
1
17%
2
33%
1
17%
2
33%
9
1.8
20%
workshop/training participation
0
0%
1
17%
1
17%
1
17%
0
0%
3
0.6
10.20%
on-going applied research project
0
0%
0
0%
1
17%
1
17%
1
17%
1
0.2
10.20%
Book
0
0%
0
0%
2
33%
1
17%
1
17%
3
0.6
book chapter/encyclopedia chapter
1
17%
1
17%
2
33%
2
33%
2
33%
12
2.4
26.60%
book review
0
0%
1
17%
1
17%
2
33%
0
0%
5
1
13.40%
public reports/evaluation research
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
17%
1
0.2
17%
Grants
External
Internal
Funded / Unfunded
Funded / Unfunded
0/0
1/(1)
0% 0/0
0% 1/(1)
17% 2/(2)
33% 1/(1)
17% 1/(1)
17% 0/(2)
17% 0/0
17% 2/(4)
0% 1/(4)
.4/(1)
6.80%
34%
5
1
16.70%
Service measures
CWU Committees, Faculty Senate
2
33%
3
50%
3
50%
2
33%
2
33%
18
3.6
39.80%
CWU program presentations/panels
2
33%
1
17%
2
33%
2
33%
2
33%
11
2.2
29.80%
Delivered guest lecture in college course
2
33%
2
33%
2
33%
1
17%
2
33%
16
3.2
26.60%
Leadership & Service - Professional Organizations
2
33%
2
33%
2
33%
2
33%
2
33%
12
2.4
33%
Community Service
3
50%
2
33%
2
33%
3
50%
3
50% N/A (too
many)
advisor to student organization
2
33%
2
33%
3
50%
2
33%
3
50%
15
3
Undergraduate projects
3
50%
2
33%
2
33%
1
17%
4
66%
48
9.6
40%
Graduate Committees – Supervising thesis/projects
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
17%
1
0.2
3.40%
Graduate Committees – Participation
thesis/projects
1
17%
2
33%
1
17%
2
33%
0
0%
6
1.2
20%
N/A
43.20%
39.8
Faculty Mentored Research
72
APPENDIX D: Faculty Vitae
[WILL PROVIDE ONCE ALL GIVE IN E-FORMAT]
73
APPENDIX E: COMPARATIVE QUANTITY AND EFFICIENCY MEASURES W/C.O.T.S. DEPARTMENTS
(source: COTS data from Sociology Review)
Table 1: COTS FTE
Faculty by
Department
Anthropology
Biological Sciences
Chemistry
Computer Science
Geography
Geology
Law & Justice
Mathematics
Physics
Political Science
Psychology
Science Education
Sociology
Poli Sci Rank
19992000
10.1
14.8
8.92
4.86
11.34
8.73
10.98
15.36
5.08
6.99
24
1.7
11.24
20002001
10.56
17.17
9.01
5.7
8.76
7.93
12.71
14.65
4.63
6.33
24.77
1.7
10.88
20012002
11.12
17.17
7.01
5.35
11.23
8.03
11.22
15.02
4.22
6.08
23.89
1.47
8.42
20022003
11.66
16.8
8.2
5.4
10.56
6.92
11.75
16.19
4.77
5.55
22.98
1.83
9.57
20032004
12.82
16.48
9.45
5.89
10.76
8.96
12.7
16.84
5.12
5.46
24.69
1.97
9.9
10
10
10
10
10
74
Table 3: COTS
FTE Students by
Department
Anthropology
Biological Sciences
Chemistry
Computer Science
Geography
Geology
Law & Justice
Mathematics
Physics
Political Science
Psychology
Science Education
Sociology
Poli Sci Rank
19981999
203.6
237
128.1
108.6
213.8
119.6
193.5
331.2
56.1
111.1
483.2
25
204.6
19992000
215.9
234
154.1
135.2
207.5
118.7
188.5
313.2
62.1
106.6
494.6
22
192
20002001
200.6
237.9
133.4
141.7
203.6
121.2
227.8
332.4
64.2
85.2
459.2
16.6
192.9
20012002
205.5
250.9
148.7
149.7
215.2
150.5
282.8
330.1
62.4
98.6
431.7
21.4
173.6
20022003
199.4
269.7
159.2
138.9
213
167.2
302.2
363
61.4
99.7
464.7
23.7
196.8
10
11
11
11
11
20032004
208.8
285.8
171.2
131.9
245.3
155.6
318
399.1
73.3
110.4
502
29.8
227.9
6
11
9900FTES/FTEF
21.37624
15.81081
17.27578
27.81893
18.29806
13.59679
17.16758
20.39063
12.22441
15.25036
20.60833
12.94118
17.08185
Student FTE/Faculty FTE ('widget efficiency') – ALPHABETICAL
1999-00
Anthropology
Biological
Sciences
21.38
2000-01
15.81
Anthropology
Biological
Sciences
Chemistry
17.28
Computer Science
27.81
19
2001-02
18.48
13.85
Anthropology
Biological
Sciences
Chemistry
14.81
Computer Science
2002-03
14.61
Anthropology
Biological
Sciences
Anthropology
Biological
Sciences
16.29
16.05
Chemistry
21.21
Chemistry
19.41
18.12
25.72
Chemistry
Computer
Science
24.86
Computer Science
27.98
Computer Science
19.16
Geography
20.17
Geography
22.8
24.16
Geology
Geography
18.3
Geography
23.24
Geography
Geology
13.6
Geology
15.28
Geology
18.7
Geology
17.1
2003-04
17.34
22.94
17.36
Law & Justice
17.17
Law & Justice
17.93
Law & Justice
25.2
Law & Justice
25.7
Law & Justice
Mathematics
20.39
Mathematics
22.69
Mathematics
21.98
Mathematics
22.42
Mathematics
23.69
Physics
12.22
Physics
13.86
Physics
14.79
Physics
12.87
Physics
14.32
Political Science
15.25
Political Science
13.46
Political Science
16.22
Political Science
17.97
Political Science
20.22
Psychology
20.61
Psychology
18.54
Psychology
18.07
Psychology
20.22
20.33
Science Education
12.94
Science Education
Science Education
14.56
Science Education
12.96
Psychology
Science
Education
Sociology
17.08
Sociology
Sociology
20.62
Sociology
20.56
Sociology
23.02
Page 75
9.76
17.73
25
15.13
Student FTE/Faculty FTE ('widget efficiency') - RANK ORDERED
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
Computer Science
27.81
Computer Science
24.86
Computer Science
Anthropology
21.38
Geography
23.24
Law & Justice
25.2
Psychology
20.61
Mathematics
22.69
Mathematics
21.98
Geology
24.16
Mathematics
20.39
Anthropology
19
Chemistry
21.21
Mathematics
Geography
18.3
Psychology
18.54
Sociology
20.62
Chemistry
17.28
Law & Justice
17.93
Geography
Law & Justice
17.17
Sociology
17.73
Geology
Sociology
Biological
Sciences
17.08
Geology
15.28
15.81
Chemistry
Political Science
15.25
Geology
13.6
Law & Justice
25.7
Mathematics
23.69
23.02
22.42
Sociology
Computer
Science
Sociology
20.56
Geography
22.8
19.16
Psychology
20.22
20.33
18.7
Geography
20.17
Psychology
Political
Science
Anthropology
18.48
Chemistry
19.41
Chemistry
18.12
14.81
Psychology
18.07
Political Science
17.97
17.36
Physics
Biological
Sciences
13.86
Political Science
16.22
13.85
Physics
Biological
Sciences
14.79
Anthropology
Biological
Sciences
Geology
Biological
Sciences
16.05
16.29
14.61
Science Education
12.96
Anthropology
Science
Education
Science Education
14.56
Physics
12.87
Physics
14.32
12.94
Political Science
13.46
Physics
12.22
Science Education
9.76
POSC rank
Page 76
10
12
10
Computer Science
2003-04
25.72
Science Education
27.98
2002-03
Law & Justice
17.1
9
25
22.94
20.22
17.34
15.13
7
RANK BY % CHANGE IN EFFICIENCY (99-04):
Law & Justice
47%
Sociology
35%
Political Science
33%
Geology
28%
Geography
25%
Physics
17%
Science Education
17%
Mathematics
16%
Biological Sciences 10%
Chemistry
5%
Psychology
-1%
Computer Science -17%
Anthropology
-24%
COTS FTE
Students by
<-Department
2004-05
2005-06
addendum
Anthropology
214.2
213.3
Biological Sciences
292
282.6
Chemistry
176.5
158.3
Computer Science
136.8
138.1
Geography
269
297.1
Geology
154
168.2
Law & Justice
333.5
324.1
Mathematics
447.1
467.8
Physics
71.1
71.1
Political Science
119.6
127.4
Psychology
500.3
519.3
Science Education
Sociology
218.9
232
POSC rank'
Page 77
11
10