Thursday, February 26, 2009
Lecture Cancelled 03/04/2009 (Both Sections) for Makeup Exams
Due to the number of students who missed the first exam, I am canceling lecture on 03/04/2009 for both sections so I can administer the makeup exams during normal class time. I will adjust the course calendar soon to account for this.
To recap: All makeups for exam 1 (both sections) will be given during normal class times this coming Wednesday. If you are not taking a makeup, you do not need to come to class on that day.
To recap: All makeups for exam 1 (both sections) will be given during normal class times this coming Wednesday. If you are not taking a makeup, you do not need to come to class on that day.
Exam 1 Availability
Next week, I have arranged for a couple of graduate students in the political science department to hold special office hours so that you will be able to drop by and look over the first exam if you like. There are separate times for each section.
Section 503 (10:20-11:10)
Peyton Wofford (Allen 2054)
Tuesday, March 3, 1:00-4:00PM
Wednesday, March 4, 1:00-4:00PM
Section 504 (11:30-12:20)
Stephen Huss (Allen 2034)
Monday, March 2, 1:00-4:00PM
Thursday, March 5, 1:00-4:00PM
You will be able to look over your exams, and I will make answer keys available, but you may not take these with you or make copies of them (though you may take notes).
Because these grad students will have the exam copies in their offices, I won't have them back in mine until the following week. So, you are welcome to speak with me about the exam in general during my office hours next week, but we wouldn't be able to go over your specific exam.
Please take advantage of these opportunities now. This is the best chance you'll have to look over the first exam prior to the second exam without having to drag yourself over to the Allen building for my morning office hours.
Section 503 (10:20-11:10)
Peyton Wofford (Allen 2054)
Tuesday, March 3, 1:00-4:00PM
Wednesday, March 4, 1:00-4:00PM
Section 504 (11:30-12:20)
Stephen Huss (Allen 2034)
Monday, March 2, 1:00-4:00PM
Thursday, March 5, 1:00-4:00PM
You will be able to look over your exams, and I will make answer keys available, but you may not take these with you or make copies of them (though you may take notes).
Because these grad students will have the exam copies in their offices, I won't have them back in mine until the following week. So, you are welcome to speak with me about the exam in general during my office hours next week, but we wouldn't be able to go over your specific exam.
Please take advantage of these opportunities now. This is the best chance you'll have to look over the first exam prior to the second exam without having to drag yourself over to the Allen building for my morning office hours.
Undergraduate Research Opportunity
I know that many of you are freshmen, so this won't be applicable at the moment, but the university is accepting applications for its Undergraduate Research Scholars program. If any of you have completed at least 60 hours at A&M and have at least a 3.0 GPR, you may be eligible for the program which is designed to let you complete an original research project under the supervision of a faculty member.
This is an exceptional opportunity for students interested in graduate school, and I encourage those of you who may be eligible to pursue this. If any of you might be interested in applying to the program to conduct research in political science (now or sometime down the line), you are welcome to speak with me.
Here are the details:
The Office of the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Research wishes to announce the call for proposals for the Undergraduate Research Scholars Program for the 2009-10 academic year. The goal of this program is to encourage capable undergraduates to participate actively in
research/scholarly projects and to give them the opportunity to communicate their findings as principal authors to the university's scholarly community.
To qualify for participation in this program, students must have completed at least 60 hours of undergraduate courses with at least 24 hours at Texas A&M (exceptions may be made with the approval of the student's dean). Students should also have and maintain a Texas A&M GPR
of 3.0 or higher, and be currently involved or planning to start a suitable undergraduate project. If you have a student working with you who you feel would benefit from this program, we urge you to work with them in preparing an proposal for this program. The deadline for proposals for the 2009-10 academic year is Monday, April 20.
For more information about the UGR Scholars Program, visit our Web site at http://ugr.tamu.edu/scholars.
Application guidelines and instructions may be found at
http://ugr.tamu.edu/scholars/application-materials/guidelines . Sample proposals and timelines are also available on the website.
To view requirements for the program, please visit,
http://ugr.tamu.edu/scholars/requirements0607 .
If you have questions about the Undergraduate Research Scholars Program, please direct them to Dr. Robert C. Webb, Associate Dean for
Undergraduate Research, by email at ugr@tamu.edu or phone 979-458-0039.
Dr. Robert C. Webb
Associate Dean for Undergraduate Research
1112 TAMU
318B Jack Williams Administration Building
College Station, TX 77843-1112
979-458-0039
This is an exceptional opportunity for students interested in graduate school, and I encourage those of you who may be eligible to pursue this. If any of you might be interested in applying to the program to conduct research in political science (now or sometime down the line), you are welcome to speak with me.
Here are the details:
The Office of the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Research wishes to announce the call for proposals for the Undergraduate Research Scholars Program for the 2009-10 academic year. The goal of this program is to encourage capable undergraduates to participate actively in
research/scholarly projects and to give them the opportunity to communicate their findings as principal authors to the university's scholarly community.
To qualify for participation in this program, students must have completed at least 60 hours of undergraduate courses with at least 24 hours at Texas A&M (exceptions may be made with the approval of the student's dean). Students should also have and maintain a Texas A&M GPR
of 3.0 or higher, and be currently involved or planning to start a suitable undergraduate project. If you have a student working with you who you feel would benefit from this program, we urge you to work with them in preparing an proposal for this program. The deadline for proposals for the 2009-10 academic year is Monday, April 20.
For more information about the UGR Scholars Program, visit our Web site at http://ugr.tamu.edu/scholars.
Application guidelines and instructions may be found at
http://ugr.tamu.edu/scholars/
To view requirements for the program, please visit,
http://ugr.tamu.edu/scholars/
If you have questions about the Undergraduate Research Scholars Program, please direct them to Dr. Robert C. Webb, Associate Dean for
Undergraduate Research, by email at ugr@tamu.edu or phone 979-458-0039.
Dr. Robert C. Webb
Associate Dean for Undergraduate Research
1112 TAMU
318B Jack Williams Administration Building
College Station, TX 77843-1112
979-458-0039
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Exam 1 Grades Discussion
So, as a group, both classes performed well on the exam.
The average grade (before any extra credit) was almost exactly 74 for both classes. In terms of a distribution, letter grades broke down like this:
A: 10%
B: 25%
C: 33%
D: 22%
F: 10%
For those of you who did well, keep it up. For those of you who did not do as well as you might have hoped, you need not despair. It's important to keep in mind that this exam (intentionally) counts less than the remaining two. Now that you've been through the first third of the course and seen the structure and format of the exams, you have a chance to adjust your studies and improve over the next two exams.
Literally, three quarters of your grade is undetermined, so there is a substantial opportunity to improve.
The average grade (before any extra credit) was almost exactly 74 for both classes. In terms of a distribution, letter grades broke down like this:
A: 10%
B: 25%
C: 33%
D: 22%
F: 10%
For those of you who did well, keep it up. For those of you who did not do as well as you might have hoped, you need not despair. It's important to keep in mind that this exam (intentionally) counts less than the remaining two. Now that you've been through the first third of the course and seen the structure and format of the exams, you have a chance to adjust your studies and improve over the next two exams.
Literally, three quarters of your grade is undetermined, so there is a substantial opportunity to improve.
Exam 1 Grades Posted
I have posted grades from Exam 1 on the course's BlackBoard website. You can login at http://elearning.tamu.edu/. There is also a link in the top right corner of the blog, under the course information tab.
You should be able to view two grades so far. The first is your "raw" grade for exam 1, the second is your grade with any extra credit you may be due from the majority cycle assignment or the review session.
There are a very small number of students who did not fill in their UINs or did so incorrectly (or did not fill in their names correctly). These students' grades are not yet posted. If you took the exam, and your grade is not yet up, you may be in this category. So, please give me a day or two to straighten this out.
Also, there were a few students who had been dropped from the course for one reason or another who I allowed to sit for the exam. If you have not been re-enrolled in the course, it will not be visible to you on BlackBoard. Once you have officially been added to the course again, contact me, and I will upload your grades.
You should be able to view two grades so far. The first is your "raw" grade for exam 1, the second is your grade with any extra credit you may be due from the majority cycle assignment or the review session.
There are a very small number of students who did not fill in their UINs or did so incorrectly (or did not fill in their names correctly). These students' grades are not yet posted. If you took the exam, and your grade is not yet up, you may be in this category. So, please give me a day or two to straighten this out.
Also, there were a few students who had been dropped from the course for one reason or another who I allowed to sit for the exam. If you have not been re-enrolled in the course, it will not be visible to you on BlackBoard. Once you have officially been added to the course again, contact me, and I will upload your grades.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Congress and Congressmen
So far, this course has focused on formal institutions and how choosing one set of rules or another can influence social choices. We have seen that the same group of people, with the same preferences, can be induced to make different decisions simply by manipulating the rules which govern how decisions are made. In contrast, we have paid somewhat less attention to the people (and their preferences) who make choices within the constraints imposed by a particular set of institutions.
That will now begin to change.
Institutions structure social choices, but people animate institutions. To understand politics--the process of making binding social choices--we need to go beyond the study of institutions in a vacuum and take some time to understand the motives and interests of people in political situations.
So, to get us started in this new direction, we are going to begin our discussion of Congress somewhat differently. Instead of talking about the formal institutions that govern Congress, we will start out talking about the people who serve in Congress and how they got there. Our goal will be to try to find some insight about the way that Congress works (what institutions or rules it has and what outcomes they produce) by thinking about what motivates the people who choose those institutions and live under them.
With that in mind, I want you to read this article from Money magazine. It's a profile of a man running for Congress that focuses on the difficult personal financial challenges facing him and his family as a result of his campaign. As you read, I'd like you to think about the prospect of running for Congress. Does it seem easy or hard? What are the costs and benefits of running for Congress? What kind of person would take up this particular task? And, given your thoughts on these issues, how would you expect an institution populated by this sort of people to behave?
That will now begin to change.
Institutions structure social choices, but people animate institutions. To understand politics--the process of making binding social choices--we need to go beyond the study of institutions in a vacuum and take some time to understand the motives and interests of people in political situations.
So, to get us started in this new direction, we are going to begin our discussion of Congress somewhat differently. Instead of talking about the formal institutions that govern Congress, we will start out talking about the people who serve in Congress and how they got there. Our goal will be to try to find some insight about the way that Congress works (what institutions or rules it has and what outcomes they produce) by thinking about what motivates the people who choose those institutions and live under them.
With that in mind, I want you to read this article from Money magazine. It's a profile of a man running for Congress that focuses on the difficult personal financial challenges facing him and his family as a result of his campaign. As you read, I'd like you to think about the prospect of running for Congress. Does it seem easy or hard? What are the costs and benefits of running for Congress? What kind of person would take up this particular task? And, given your thoughts on these issues, how would you expect an institution populated by this sort of people to behave?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)