Daunting challenges of teaching an introductory comparative politics course make it almost fanciful to urge over-burdened colleagues to take on one more task: to introduce undergraduates to standard reference sources in college and university libraries. And yet the task, I submit, needs to be done.

Like many others, I long took for granted that students would know or soon discover the treasures hidden in library reference sections. I assumed, for example, that students would know where to look for bibliographical sources for term papers. I reacted with scholarly indignation when they locked in orbit around Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report. I had trouble understanding why other students contended that topics involving recent political events could not be researched, because no books had yet been written on them. I was baffled by the frequent inability of students to obtain biographical information on major foreign leaders, to check the names of party candidates, to find election results, or to learn the composition of cabinets or politburos (admittedly a dicier problem these days).

One solution was to prevail upon the excellent reference librarian at our college to brief introductory students on the holdings of the college library. As informative as these briefings were, I came to fear that even the most receptive students were in a passive mode, lacked a sense of immediate relevance, and would soon forget what they were hearing unless they were asked to put it to early use.

Simulations, like many games of sport and politics, are capable of producing complex, entertaining and, often, instructive behavior on the basis of a simple format and small set of rules which structure the activity. Although the real congressional budget process is highly complex, the simple simulation materials presented here reproduced an authentic process and set of outcomes for the students involved in it. In our “run” of this simulation last fall, these results came as quite a surprise to the student participants, who began the exercise skeptical both of Congress' efforts to reduce the deficit and of the power of simulations to capture real, complex phenomena. After the simulation, the shared experience provided a basis for several discussions of the merits of different explanations of policy outcomes: those achieved in the simulation, in the current Congress, and by policy makers more generally.

This simulation was developed for use in an introductory course in public policy, but it is equally well-suited for any course involving legislative policy making or national taxing and spending policy. The simulation materials themselves are provided in the last section of this presentation. The next sections describe the context of the simulation in the course, how it worked when we used it, and the character of the discussion which resulted from it.

The purposes of this introductory course in public policy are first, to introduce students to the substance of public policies, for example, to what defense policy or tax policy actually consists of, and second, and more important, to develop in students a capacity to think critically about why particular policy outcomes evolve as they do. We use texts, such as Dye's Understanding Public Policy (1987), which combine substantive material with different theoretical approaches. The simulation comes at the point in the course where we are shifting from political explanations of policy choices to structural and environmental theories; that is, from explanations which reference the interests and intentions of policy makers, to theories which explain choice in terms of constraints, such as the amount of resources available, which cannot easily be manipulated by decision makers.

During the 1987 Iran/Contra hearings, Senator George J. Mitchell of Maine spoke eloquently about the importance of the rule of law in a culturally pluralistic nation like the United States:

The students we teach live in what is certainly one of the most culturally pluralistic cities, and nations, in the world. They are increasingly part of a society in which this pluralism affects them either as members of cultural minorities, or as members of the so-called dominant culture who interact with many different cultural groups. As a cultural anthropologist and a political scientist teaching in a college with a focus on law and justice, we felt it important to bring to our students a deeper understanding of the possibilities and problems of cultural pluralism in a democratic, constitutional society. While Senator Mitchell's words surely express a fundamental ideal in American society, how closely these words express the reality experienced in American society is a question that had long interested us.

The study of the American Congress raises compelling issues for both teachers and students in the examination of three interrelated arenas of analysis: Congressional members, Congress as an institution, and the role of Congress in the American political system. Underlying my approach to teaching Congress is a strong emphasis on discussing the role Congress should play in our Madisonian policy process as well as the role of elected representatives in a representative democracy. In many ways, then, a course on Congress or Legislative Politics and Policy making allows the instructor and students to examine the broader operation of the American political system by looking over the shoulders of congressional members as well as Congress as an institution. In doing so, broad structural questions might be addressed: To what extent is a Madisonian framework of government relevant for confronting and solving the policy problems that we currently face and will likely face in the future? What role can (and should) Congress play in addressing issues, such as the deficit, energy and environmental problems, homelessness, education, and covert foreign policy operations? In confronting these questions, I have found that students seek the opportunity to place Congress in an historical context. In doing so, I ask students to examine the three times in this century when Congress has responded to sweeping presidential domestic policy initiatives, including FDR's New Deal (1933-1936), Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs (1965-1966), and Ronald Reagan's first-term budget and tax cut initiatives (1981).

The study of the politics of the Vietnam War raises some interesting dilemmas for both teachers and students. Opinions differ about the importance of the war to the politics and history of the United States. Many books are available concerning the American involvement in the Vietnam war, but most accounts differ from book to book. The relevance of the Vietnam experience needs to be discussed in a broader perspective. Certainly, the Vietnam war was different than any war fought previously by the United States of America.

Recently, a professor at a southern university defined war as having winners and losers (c.f. Emerson, 1976). She then asked her 150-student American government class to identify the winner of the Vietnam war. Because no one could provide an answer, her second question concerned the last time American troops were used in a foreign country. The answer the professor was expecting was the Christmas 1989 invasion of Panama. No one made the correct identification. The only student who hazarded a response suggested that the last use of troops was in Nicaragua! If students have difficulty remembering what happened a few months in the past, they are likely to conceive of the Vietnam war as ancient history. Yet, the war provides lessons that future decision makers need to learn.

One dilemma for teachers is choice among subject matter. American policies are important, but other factors need examination as well. Should a combination of both American and Vietnamese politics (North and South) be considered? What about those who stayed home, protested, or went to Canada? The material can be overwhelming.

In recent years, public officials in the United States and abroad have expressed increasing concern over the economic effects of defense spending. It has been alleged that defense spending is a major cause of the budget deficit and is at the root of America's economic “decline.” Even in the Soviet Union, questions are now being raised about the impact of military spending on the civilian economy.

As director of a research program at Harvard that focuses on economics and national security, I decided it was important to offer a course on the “political economy of national security.” While Harvard and other major universities in the Boston area offer courses in political economy on the one hand and national security on the other, students have few opportunities to examine national defense from an economic perspective. Given that national security is the largest single economic activity in the United States and many other countries, and given intense student interest in the topic, the time was ripe to devise such a course.

The course was first offered in the Harvard Summer School, which is open to undergraduate and graduate students from Harvard and other universities. The only prerequisite was an introductory course in economics. As it turns out, most of the students were more than adequately prepared; among those who attended were students from Harvard Business School, the Kennedy School of Government, some local defense industry executives, military officers, and a number of Ph.D. candidates. For those who might consider offering such a course, I would suggest that the required economics course not be waived in any circumstances; otherwise you will spend a lot of time explaining basic concepts.

Among the excellent national simulations available—the Harvard Model UN, Cleveland Model UN, Howard University Model Organization of African States, etc., and several regional models—the best may be the National Model League of Arab States, held annually in March at American University in Washington, DC. Sponsored by the Arab League Information Center and the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, the Model (in its seventh year in 1989) imitates the League of Arab States, an organization founded in 1945 for the purpose of coordinating issues related to Arab development and cooperation.

College and university student delegations represent the 22 member states of the Arab nation. As they debate, lobby, and caucus, students learn about the interplay of the state system, international and regional organization, intra-Arab cooperation and conflict, issues of the region, and superpower impact upon the area. As participants gain greater understanding of the culture, concerns, achievements, and problems of the Arab world, they shed stereotypes, question prejudices, and begin to appreciate another perspective on regional issues.

The Model League consists of plenary sessions, five committees (political, economic, social and cultural, legal, and Palestinian affairs), and a summit conference of the League Council. The bulk of time is spent in the committee sessions, where students introduce, debate, and build coalitions in support of resolutions. In the process, they practice parliamentary procedure and sharpen forensic and bargaining skills. Faculty advisors evaluate the delegations and nominate individuals for awards.

Like many colleges and universities. Elizabethtown College has adopted a writing-across-the-curriculum program that attempts to establish writing as a principal means of communication and as a tool for the development of intellectual skills. Set to begin in Fall 1990 as part of a new core curriculum, the program requires that each core course provide writing assignments that “emphasize the process of writing or rewriting in response to critical evaluation by faculty and/or peers.” A major stimulus to the development of the program was an NEH Summer Seminar on Writing Across the Humanities, conducted on campus in 1985 by faculty in the College's Professional Writing Program.

The Department of Political Science, with four professors, has been an active promoter and participant in the campus writing program. Most of our own less formal conclusions about the role of writing in learning are congruent with those of the Harvard Assessment Seminars. We, too, find that close faculty-student interaction in assignments spread out sequentially provides the writer with directive and suggestive comments in a less threatening and more encouraging way. Such consultation leads to a higher quality final product and student mastery of more skills in style, organization, and analysis of substance. Two assignments that have worked particularly well for us at the introductory level are the foreign policy issue brief in the international relations course and the issue analysis project in American national government.

In the fall of 1986, I agreed to meet with a handful of students and a Policy Studies professor to discuss undergraduate education at Syracuse University. I had no idea that four years later I would be referred to as “founding member and president of Undergraduates for a Better Education.” I'm still trying to sort out what exactly happened and how it affected me. It's true that, in the beginning, I was idealistic and had hopes for great improvement at the university. It's also true that the more I learned about how the university works, the less confident I felt that anything could be accomplished by an energetic, but somewhat naive group of students. At this point, I'm wavering between “Wow. I was president of a national student organization” and “Higher education is a mess and it will always be a mess and what good did any of it do?” In spite of this indecision about what I actually accomplished, I have little doubt about what I learned.

Structural problems do largely account for a university's shortcomings. Many of our proposals for change were met with an administrator's explanation of logistical problems. At first, we were convinced that our ideas were being brushed away with excuses. I finally began to realize that there are serious structural problems in university communities which prevent even small changes from being made. One dean told us early on, “You fix one problem, you get twenty more.” I didn't really believe him at the time. Now I do. Also, there are structural problems in motivating students to take steps toward improvement. It's not easy to find a student who will complain about an incompetent professor who teaches a ridiculously easy course.

Many political scientists find that they have difficulty generating enthusiasm (from both themselves and their students) when they teach the introductory course in American politics. The material can be very dry and basic, students are often required to take the course, and many believe they know the material from high school civics classes. In short, motivation can be a major problem, and the instructor must find a way to get students involved with the course. This is especially important, because this course often serves as the gateway to other offerings in American politics. If students are not excited about the Intro class, they may not go any farther in political science.

I believe the key to motivation in this class lies in getting students to actually participate in the interest group process. This allows them to test the theoretical constructs presented in the course in the laboratory of real world politics. Therefore, I have designed an introductory course in American politics that is centered around a small group project that requires students to try to get a government (local, state, or national) to do something substantial that the group proposes.

In many respects, my course is a fairly traditional introduction to American politics. We cover the Constitution, federalism, interest groups, civil rights, elections, theories of power,and the institutions. The reading is reduced a bit to allow time for students to work on the projects. After describing the project, I will explain how it fits into the framework of the course.

One of the most difficult aspects of teaching a comparative politics course is getting students to “feel” the politics of a nation they have not visited. Students may be able to repeat what they have learned from a comparative politics text; but such rote learning does not guarantee understanding. Students need to place material in context. Indeed, this quite visually-oriented generation needs to “see” material for reinforcement.

For the teacher of British Politics (or of a Western European course emphasizing Britain), a unique and affordable resource is available. C-SPAN visited London in November and December of 1988. The interviews they completed with British politicos is available through Purdue University's video archives.

I used a series of these tapes to supplement my lectures in a Summer 1989 course I taught on Contemporary British Politics. While I made no attempt to measure it, my feeling is that these tapes (together with the usual textbook assignments and numerous copies of articles from British newspapers) gave the students, a much better understanding of British politics than that normally evidenced in such courses taught in American colleges. For American students, it was almost like “being there”; they witnessed the House of Lords in action; they saw the Queen's Speech at the Opening of Parliament; and they had the functional equivalent of class visits with some notable British political figures.

Undergraduates for a Better Education (UBE) is an official student organization at Syracuse University which grew out of an informal study group that started in the fall of 1986. The purpose of this article is not just to tell you about this organization but to exhort you to try a similar activity on your campus. Working for UBE provides students with the opportunity to develop skills and test theories about politics in a policy area that is very important to them. And even if you don't buy the proposal on pedagogical grounds, you certainly can appreciate the justness of UBE's cause —to pressure administrators and fellow faculty to give higher priority to teaching. However, you may want to think twice before embarking on this road especially if you are not a tenured full professor.

A study group composed of seven students in my freshman course, PAF 101: Introduction to the Analysis of Public Policy, met in the fall of 1986 to discuss public policy issues. From this small number of students, a highly visible student organization emerged with representation from across the university. The organization has had an impact at Syracuse University and has held two national conferences attended by twenty different schools from across the United States. As its faculty advisor, I played a major role in its creation but at this time play a smaller role. (I talk or meet with officers about once a week and attend a meeting once a semester.) Michael K. O'Leary, a political science professor, has served in an advisory role on several projects. Other professors have offered private support but kept a public distance from the organization.

Professors Rosati, Schlozman and Conradt offered some interesting views on the United States Government and Politics advanced placement examination in the Fall issue of The Political Science Teacher. I would like to add a few comments to the discussion. My remarks are based on my experience teaching 144 Kingswood-Oxford AP government seniors over the three years of the test, as well as my contact with other AP teachers. I have led the U.S. Government and Politics workshop at the 1988 and 1989 Northeast Regional Conference on the Social Studies, where I have had a chance to talk with many teachers who are offering AP courses.

First, Professor Rosati identifies the inadequate background of some high school AP Government and Politics teachers as a significant problem. While all the teachers I have encountered seem well qualified, I concede that inadequately prepared staff may be a problem. Undoubtedly, the most concerned are the teachers themselves: no teacher enjoys groping his or her way through unfamiliar material for a semester, with the added pressure of awaiting AP results which may reveal clearly the gaps in the course. Professor Schlozman suggests a remedy which I feel should be underscored. Workshops and institutes are helpful, although not all can attend and they are over in a few days or weeks. More useful is an on-going reliable relationship between a high school AP teacher and a college professor who is familiar with the introductory American government course.

C-SPAN's mission is to present as complete and unfiltered a view of the policy process as possible. The organization prides itself on providing “the whole story without editing and without commentary.” The Purdue Public Affairs Video Archives tapes and catalogs all of C-SPAN's 24-hour daily coverage of the policy process, thus facilitating the use of C-SPAN for teaching and research. For professors reluctant to adopt the added burden of using C-SPAN in the classroom, Purdue Archives significantly reduces that burden.

C-SPAN viewing is not meant to replace lectures and classroom discussions. Rather C-SPAN viewing is meant to enrich a course curriculum. Ideally, the use of tapes should complement class lectures and discussions. C-SPAN allows students in an American Government or Congress course to observe directly the House and Senate in action. Viewing can incite student interest, reinforce class materials, and enable students to experience the drama of the legislative process. C-SPAN viewing will instigate class discussions, though professors must provide the context for student viewing by introducing the tape and directing discussion afterwards. These tapes are not filmstrips.