Woodrow Wilson Department of Politics
University of Virginia
American Politics Comprehensive Exam
August 2013
Students taking the exam as a MAJOR have eight hours to answer one question from
Part I and one question each from two of the remaining three parts. Students taking
the exam as a MINOR have six hours to answer one question from Part I and one
question from any of the remaining three parts.
The exam is semi-open book. Students may consult books, articles, and syllabi, but may
not access notes or the internet during the exam. Students may not receive assistance
from or give assistance to another student.
Exams will be evaluated according to the following criteria: 1) the extent to which you
address the issues raised by the questions; 2) the breadth and depth of your knowledge of
the relevant literature; 3) the skill with which you critically analyze this literature. This is
your opportunity to demonstrate in depth your knowledge of the major theoretical issues,
scholars, literature, and methodological approaches of the discipline. Answers that
simply offer literature reviews without thoughtful theoretical and empirical analyses will
be graded less favorably. You should take care to cite a wide variety of specific authors
and works to support your answers. Your discussion should also illuminate broader
points about the field of American Politics, using what you know from the literatures you
have read on American Political Development, American Political Behavior, and
American Institutions.
On each essay please indicate clearly which question you are answering.
Part I – Overview
You MUST answer ONE of the following two questions.
1. In 1961 Robert Dahl posed a [the?] question at the center of the study of American
politics: “Who Governs?” Write an essay that evaluates what scholars of American
politics have to say about this question—or the somewhat broader question of who has
power in American politics. Your essay should cover material from at least two of the
three major divisions of the field (APD, Institutions, Behavior) and should give attention
to the substance of empirical findings as well as the different theoretical and
methodological approaches that different scholars bring to this question.
2. The various subfields within American politics have, over time, become identified with
particular empirical approaches and methods – for example, research on public opinion
and behavior relies heavily on surveys, scholars of Congress and the bureaucracy
frequently use formal and rational choice approaches, and studies of the presidency and
political parties often employ historical approaches. Choose three core research areas
within American politics (those named here, or others you identify and define) and
consider how the theoretical approaches and methodologies applied in these areas have
shaped the kinds of questions scholars ask as well as the answers they propose. What do
these research approaches lead scholars to understand very well, but also miss? What
might a different research approach applied to each area add to our understanding of
American politics?
Part II - American Political Development
You may answer ONE of these questions
3. The theory of “critical realignment” once dominated and organized the study of party
development and historical electoral behavior. In the last two decades it has come under
increasing criticism and arguably no longer enjoys its previous status as the reigning
paradigm in the field. What is this theory? What are its strengths and weaknesses? What
have been some of the most important critiques of it? In what respects—you may include
modifications or adaptations--does it retain validity or value?
4. The role of ideas in shaping institutions and policies has been a major source of debate
among scholars who study American political development. Some APD scholars emphasize
political culture or “traditions” and place considerable emphasis on American political
thought. Others tend to focus on political structure or “orders” and put more stock in the
institutional dynamics of American politics over time. Are these ideational and institutional
approaches fundamentally at odds, or can these approaches be reconciled? What research
might be undertaken in the future that would add important theoretical and empirical
insights to our understanding of the relationship between ideas and practice?
Part III – Institutions
You may answer ONE of these questions
5. In recent decades, the study of American Political Institutions, with distinct roots in
Positive Political Theory, has risen from shadows of the Behavioral tradition to become a
major sub-field within the general American Politics field. With this in mind, answer the
following three-part question: First, in studying American Political Institutions, what are
some of the pros and cons of incorporating a rational-choice perspective? What are some
things a rational-choice perspective assumes (or takes as given), and how does this
advance and/or limit theory building? Second, in conducting Institutions-based research,
what are some of the costs and benefits of taking a single-institutional approach versus a
multi-institutional approach? Provide some examples. Third, what are the logical next
steps, research-wise, for the Institutions subfield? More specifically, where do
theoretical/empirical gaps exist, and where does our current understanding (as a research
community) need improvement?
6. Idealized accounts of the decision making of government officials often associate a
particular mix of decisional influences with a particular office. For instance, in making
their decisions, idealized legislators are expected to accord the most weight to the
preferences of their constituents and their own policy views. Bureaucrats and judges are
expected to give much less weight to those considerations, with bureaucrats giving more
weight to neutral expertise and their principals' preferences and judges giving more
weight to the law. To what extent are findings from empirical scholarship consistent with
these idealized expectations (or others that you identify)? What institutional rules or
structures strike you as most important in explaining the consistency or inconsistency of
practice with these expectations? In your answer, you should discuss at least two types of
institutions.
Part IV - Political Behavior
You may answer ONE of these questions
7. Many scholars studying opinion at the individual level draw attention to ways in which
the American public falls short of what democratic theory requires. Others point to the
“miracle of aggregation” to argue that things may not be so bad, after all. Describe the
basic findings in each of these traditions, and discuss who you think is right, or more
right. How should we understand the disjunctures between these two literatures?
8. The scholarly consensus among students of political communication from the 1950s
through the 1980s was that the mass media had “minimal effects.” How has that
conclusion evolved? Explore in detail how the minimal effects model has been revisited
or revised, reinforced or refuted in recent decades. Is there a new consensus? What do
we know about media effects on attitudes and behavior?