[POLS V1601] Introduction to International Politics

She's an extremely engaging lecturer but bring your laptops...she talks a mile a minute and crams a ton of information into each lecture. Her lectures summarize the readings for you but those summaries won't be enough for you to bs your midterm essays so you'll have to do some of the readings.

I firmly disagree with a previous posting about this being a boring, high school-esque class. This is the most comprehensive introduction to the diverse and complex field of int'l relations you will get anywhere. It is an introductory class that covers a huge amount of information. You couldn't ask for a better expert in this subject. Professor Marten is member of the Council on Foreign Relations, has written op-eds for the NY Times, and was embedded with Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. She is well organized, and writes an outline for each of her lectures at the beginning of class. She is very clear of what her expectations are for her papers and exam. PAY ATTENTION to her directions. There are two 5-7 page papers that must be completed in one week, and a fair final that has 7 ID terms and two essays. You must do the readings! If you can't read all of them, at least skim the ones you can't get to, because for both the essays and the final you have to be able to synthesize, analyze and make comparisons of the readings at a much more sophisticated level than if you try to get by with just her lectures. To do well on the essays, make a strong argument, back it up with examples from the readings, define your terms, and address the opposing argument. Professor Marten does not shy away from controversy, and you will cover issues of terrorism, the Jewish lobby debate, and globalization. She is very engaging, even when presenting dry information. She is incredibly smart and funny, and very accessible. I wish her upper level classes were in areas that interest me, because I would love to take her again. I can't emphasize what a fantastic person she is. My one critique would be that she doesn't spend enough time addressing radical or progressive frameworks and really relies on the dominant conservative and liberal frameworks.

Professor Cronin presents a great overview of international relations. This is not a particularly challenging course and will not leave with a newfound appreciation for international relations; however, Professor Cronin solidly applies the theories discussed in class to current and historical events in a way that will allow you to integrate the knowledge from this class into your everyday discussions about politics. As someone who applied to Columbia because of its polisci department I was pleased but not overwhelmed by this class. It will absolutely provide anyone taking the class with a more nuanced view of international politics. A great class for first semester freshmen.

On the whole, Professor Cronin is okay- not great, not terrible. He structures the lectures with the same power points each class. Most of the class fussed around on their laptops or slept while a few people asked questions and Cronin strived to get through the whole of his lecture. Often he rambled or went off on more or less irrelevant tangents. There is a lot of assigned reading (probably 100-125 pages per week), but most of it has little to do with the lecture material because the lectures and the assignments are so disjointed. Occasionally he made jokes or danced. He's a good guy, easy-to-talk-to, and clearly knows what he's talking about, he just has trouble engaging a large lecture. If you want a really easy Intro to International Politics class, take this one. If you want to actually really learn something, I don't necessarily recommend it.

Shany is a fantastic teacher. He will be an asset to any university as a student or hopefully a professor. More than being a good teacher, he cares about his students. He didn't have to make the extra effort but he did. For that, all of us are thankful.

First off, everything you've heard is true: Prof. Marten is a fantastic teacher. She knows her stuff and she's really really good at explaining things. But there is one curious thing: I think she can be really malicious sometimes. Why? I'm not entirely sure. It's like she's afraid of being challenged or something, which doesn't make sense because a) she's the dept. chair, and b) everyone really respects her. But occasionally, it seems that if you ask a question that she doesn't like or point out an inconsistency in what she says, she just gets crazy and uncomfortably forceful. Very bizarre.

Example: Prof. Marten gave somewhat confusing instructions on the midterm (citing is optional and not so important, she said) then came down on us after the fact and said "you didn't cite enough!" An international student with a heavy accent then asked a "but you said..." question and she just ripped into him, the poor guy.

I'm hoping these episodes are due to some sort of exogenous factor because I like Prof. Marten so much that I don't want to attribute it to any fundamental character flaw.

So I say this: Prof. Marten is the best Intro to IR teacher out there, but just watch yourself. She has a darkside that is hard to explain or understand.

STOP.

Reality check: this class is about as close to a high school course as i have ever been at Columbia.

If you want a teacher who has created a simple version of history she is completely convinced is true and infallible, who will present it to you in an oustoundingly clear, outlined way, and ask you to skim a couple of articles for her class every day...congratulations. This is your spot.

You can sit with all the barnard groupies in the front row and worship Marten, as if she doesn't have a high enough opinion of herself.

This class is easy. It doesn't require thinking. It requires the ability to nod and take notes and take whatever your professor says to be the word of God.

If you want to think for yourself, ask questions, challenge yourself intellectually...then skip it. Its not worth your time.

If you know anything about 20th century politics or international affairs, RUN.

If you enjoy asking questions, SPRINT: Marten takes any questioning of her 'infallible' theories as a personal affront.

I have never written a poor review of a professor. She never gave me a bad grade. She never was a jerk to me, personally, in class. I just watched as she shot down questions from anybody who had a solid background or half a brain.

Dissapointing.

She should run for President!

So there are two international politics classes next semester, and after wondering why Marten had 147 slots filled and Cronin had only 4, i did some research. it's not that he's bad (well, who knows, maybe he will be) but he is new, and no one really knows about him.
he's taught internationally, published some acclaimed work, and was most recently an assistant professor at CCNY. he's now moved uptown. the students at ccny say this about his course: (from ratemyprofessors.com)

"I took him on Int. Law. Be prepared to write fast and listen carefully to waht he says. Midterm is really easy. Final tricky. Good professor, funny and experienced. Its worthy."
"doesnt take attendance, is always ready to teach, requires a couple of papers no test so thats good you ll pass just do ur work, which is not much"
By the time preregistration opens up again for sophomores, i'll probably not be able to get into prof. marten's section. but even though he's new to the school, i think he'll be okay. i'm signing up for the class.

CCNY website:http://www.ccny.cuny.edu/psc/BruceCronin.htm
biography (second one down):http://www.globalknowledgereview.com/page6.htm

SO MUCH READING. And you have to do most of it because there are reading quizzes. The TA grading is erratic on the papers. That said, the reading is usually interesting, and after a while you learn to skim very well. Also, Jervis is rather funny and puts politics into a very historical context, which is appropriate for how he teaches the material and also helps you learn more about international politics. Overall, I was satisfied with the class (except for the erratic grading) and felt I learned a decent amount regardless of having taken higher level international politics classes before.

Reviews here are generally accurate - the man is brilliant, no question, but the worst lecturer I've had so far at Columbia. All he really needs is a mic - his organization is pretty decent, but he swallows half of his words. Naps were too common, and many people cut lecture altogether- a mistake, given how dense most of the reading was. Take this class if you must, but sit in the front row and bring coffee. You'll get something out of it if you work, but don't expect a free ride.

From what I hear, hers is one of the few engaging intro-level poli sci classes.
and because it's an intro class, it'll cover a lot of what seems like just facts.
This was my first poli sci class, and i felt like she did a good job of teaching us various models of looking at international relations. However, you need to have had some sort of a global perspective to begin with in order to follow a lot of what she talks about; if you've never made it a point of reading international news, then don't bother taking up a space in this class.
That said, Prof. Marten is a really engaging lecturer. She puts an outline up on the board at the beginning, which is incredibly helpful if you end up zoning out for a while. Definitely shop for a good TA, because the discussion is the only way to pick up on important points if you don't do all the reading.

Professor Marten is the professor to take if you are really interested in International politics and want to know as much about it as possible. If international is your subfield, you should definitely take her. If you are forced to take this class, or want an easy class, this is NOT the prof for you. She gives you A TON of information, and her class is challenging. The workload is actually pretty standard for a poli sci class (which is a lot, but that's poli sci). Even though the class is more challenging than it is with other professors, you will walk away an expert in international politics. She is extremely clear and informative and her class puts you in a much better position for your classes in the future. I walked away exhausted, but knowing that my work was worth it because I actually learned and understood so much.

This class is extremely daunting. There are roughly 65 readings (books & journal articles). The lectures are just as daunting with Marten speeding through a flurry of names, dates & terms & often going overtime. There are 2 midterm essays that you have a week to write but the questions are so vague & you have so much material to include within 5-7 pages that you will spend 6 days just staring at the question & not knowing how to write it. Those are graded quite harshly by the TAs who are also overwhelmed by the material as evidenced by their struggle to cover at least a small part of the readings in the weekly discussion sections. You will also be dumb-founded about how to study for the final, which is cumulative. However, the exam is pretty straightforward & final grades are relatively generous. Marten herself comes off as very scary & intimidating at the beginning of the semester, but she is pretty willing to take time to answer questions in class, as long as they are relevant, & by the last class, she had really won me over.

Wow... don't expect to get much out of discussion. Show up and have something to say and you will do fine. She wont look at your papers ahead of time and isn't too helpful with final preparation. But she is nice and pretty understanding and great responding to e-mails. She does give map quizzes (I think only because the professor made her).

Is she brilliant? Absolutely.

Is she an good professor? Not in the least.

She spits out information and calls it teaching. Her lectures have no meaning, it's a jumble of dates and facts that she thinks are important.

The only worthwhile class was when she discussed her time in Afghanistan. For once, she taught something instead of reciting her notes right from the page.

The interesting material of the class is ruined by her inability to teach.

If anything, she's completely overrated as a prof. Like I said - the woman is intelligent for sure. But she is a horrible professor.

Parent is by far the most intelligent and knowledgeable TA I have ever seen. He really has a good command of the material, and he knows current events and events of history very well. Organization is his greatest strength, so the material is all broken down really well in the recitation. He once taught in place of Prof Gartzke during one of the lectures, and he was so good at covering a large extense of material in a corny and funny manner which made it really easy to understand. His examples are also relatable. Also follow his guidelines on the in-class essays! They help a lot. I have the biggest problem with introductions, and so I followed his guidelines, and got a "good intro" commment by the grader. He may be a hard grader, but if he is one of the 4 TA's, your paper can be graded by him even if he is not your TA, since the papers are randomly distributed among TA's and instructors, so grading doesn't really affect the recitation experience. Parent is definitely recommended.

Pretty average TA. In retrospect, we didn't actually discuss almost any material during sections. He is however, open to answer any questions by students, and he will either have the right answer or think he has one. He's not afraid to criticize a professors's shortcomings, which is nice. Overall, don't shy away from him, but don't expect to be wowed.

Maggie was afraid that she would get a bad, horrible, scary review on CULPA, but she has no reason to fear. I enjoyed the section. Keep up the good work, Maggie!

i read the same reviews you just read, but listen up...i waited til my senoir fall semester to take intro to interpols with this woman BECAUSE of culpa. granted, as a polisci major, it was either this or comparative so i didnt have much of a choice....
here's my point: perhaps its because her reviews or so spectacular or that i waited with baited breath for three years to take the class...but ITS A HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT.
her lectures are FULL of information but she talks so fast that by the end (which tends to be five minutes after the class shoullllllld have ended) everyone's head is spinning.
she takes questions, yes...but only when shes not a lecture behind. a rarity.
the class is fine. take it if you have to. which lots of you do i think. but its not great. and the reading is ridiculous.
and here i am, polisci major, a senior!!, and its my most stressful class....do yourself a favor and check out your other options.
this ladys not doing me any favors.

This class is AMAZING. Although the semester isn't over, so far I am very pleased. Professor Marten is an expert in her field. Her lectures are clear and concise as well as her outlines that she posts on the board before class. A variety of topics are covered, most of them VERY interesting. I have never learned so much so quickly. Given that-a lot of reading. An insane amount. But it is doable.
I highly recommend this class. As a freshmen, it might by kind of indimidating with a lot of poli sci majors sitting next to you. However, it is worth it.

If you're going to take this class, make sure the rest of your semester is light. The amount of reading is obscene (he made us buy a $73, 900 page coursepack on top of a very dense textbook). There are three reading quizzes so you have to have a pretty good idea of what's in the coursepack and textbook. The lectures are interesting, if you can hear him. He is clearly brilliant, but he has a tendency yo trail off at the end of a sentence, leaving you in the dark.
The grading in this class is weird to say the least. The TAs never give above an A- on papers and only a handful get an A- for the class. Most people either get pulled up or down to B/B+ range.

She is amazing and every lecture is riveting.

Kimberly Marten is a great teacher and lecturer. Her lectures are clear and structured, making them easy to follow. She even writes an outline on the board before beginning the lecture- a rarity in college ( It shouldn't be) which proves very helpful. She is very approachable as well. The midterm essays require the readings and thought, but aren't too dificult. The final exam was straightforward, but you need to do the reading. Overall, an excellent course!

As far as political science lectures go, especially for an introductory course, Prof. Marten offers probably one of the best classes at Columbia. She is thoughtful, organized, and interesting in her lectures and tries to get everyone thinking by balancing theory and application. She also tries to keep the class current, which is refreshing, by discussing terrorism and how recent events have modified IR theory . Take her class. She cares about her students and it shows in her lectures and on the syllabus.

Shany knows his international politics. Some people don't like him because he is opinionated, sometimes brusque, and cuts people off, but I appreciated his command of our sections. His opinions are usually correct as well. Doesn't repsond to emails sometimes, but talking to him is usually productive.

Shany is absolutely terrible. Whoever wrote the good review on him was doubtlessly one of the annoying suck ups that are almost as annoying as Shany. He is rude, anal, and totally unhelpful. And his lisp will drive you crazy.

I disagree with the person who reviewed before me. I think International Politics is a fine course to take first semester, as long as you do the work. This class is not one to take if you don't plan on doing the reading or showing up to class. I read everything (with the exception of a reading out of one of our books which I couldn't understand), and didn't have a problem with it. And on top of it, she's an incredible professor. She is approachable (although I will admit to being a little scared of her), keeps her own opinion out of her lectures, and is uniquely prepared to teach the class.
There was one class spent just going over the time she had spent embedded with Canadian Peacekeepers in Afghanistan. I HIGHLY recomend this class, especially if you are interested in IR or majoring in political science.

Well, I really have to disagree with the stuff being said about Shany. I thoroughly ENJOYED my semester with him as my TA, and I know a lot of other people did too. A few people got on the wrong side of him, which, true, is not pretty. Ok, so he doesn't allow food in class--but for heaven's sake this is a DISCUSSION section, when we DISCUSS the course. You can do without food for 50 minutes. Really. It's only 50 minutes--which, incidentally, is why you should not come late to class. This is basic stuff, and there's no point complaining. Shany was only friendly, helpful and encouraging to me. We met outside of class on several ocassions and he struck me as a really nice guy.
That said, it is true that he likes the sound of his own voice and that he encourages excessive talking from some students, often those least qualified to do so. But people, let's be realistic, Shany is NOT some terrible TA, he may have a couple of faults, but if you do the reading, make (valid) class contributions and don't mess him around, you will have a good time. I really recommend him.

I took this class as a first-year student, in my first semester, which I do not recommend. I started out behind and never quite caught up. The reading is EXTENSIVE, but even Professor Marten says not to do it all. I suggest you find some reliable friends and divide up the readings, summarize them, and trade notes. (I didn't do this...but I should have). I actually enjoyed learning from some of the readings, so I did all the ones that interested me. I found the class fascinating, but overwhelming too. It was history, current events, political theory, and application all at once. I do think she's an excellent lecturer. She's open to questions and some discussion even though she has a ton of material to cover every class and there were like 150 students. You can tell she's liberal, but she tries to present both sides of the story and each theory, which I find admirable. I talked with her during office hours a couple times, and she was very approachable after my initial anxiety. She's friendly and pleasant, and very smart, but human too. She was kind to grant me an extension when I was sick. I found that she was fairly available to her students, although she did travel because of her new book. I learned more in this class than any other. It made me think, and it definitely made me work hard. It was almost traumatic, but very worth it if you can handle a class like this. The TAs weren't too good about going over the material thoroughly. Just keep up and be smart about it, but don't expect an "intro" course.

It was with much trepidation that I took this course, after having read the reviews on here that go on and on, but honestly, it wasn't that bad. It does have a lot of reading, but it's nothing unmanageable; I was rarely caught up, but I eventually found time to read almost everything (and I'm pretty lazy, not some anal star pupil). As for the whole power bitch thing, yes, she definitely enjoys being in control of the class -- she once called out a guy who was reading a magazine during class in front of everyone -- but whatever, that's just the persona she's trying to build. If you talk to her in person, she's actually pretty sweet -- the barrier is definitely maintained, but I'm sure that if you visited her during office hours a few times she'd take it down at least somewhat if you were truly interested. Anyway, enough psychological analysis; the class is pretty damn good, you learn a lot, and if you do the work, you should be fine. However, I'll end the review with a note of warning: I got a B in the class when I expected a B+/A-, a situation that's still unresolved. Oh, and the TA's were all terrible, which is too bad, because good TAs would have been appreciated.

International Politics with Professor Marten is not for the faint of heart. The course covers tons of material, ranging from the international political economy to security keeping in Bosnia and Kosovo to the World Wars. The midterms (two 5-7 page papers and a sit-in final of 2 essays and 4 IDs) required significant review and a very good understanding of the readings (of which there were a ton). I was surprised this was listed as an 'intro' class because, in my opinion, it clearly assumed the student held a lot of previous knowledge about international affairs. Those who have taken a relavent class (ie, economics, previous polisci classes, maybe even a modern world history course) will probably fare significantly better than those without much experience,
On the flip side, Professor Marten is an excellent lecturer who keeps things moving quickly. I went to every lecture-she's that good. Some complain that she's ostentatious, but she can back it up (writing for the NYT, publishing her books, political connections, etc). For those of you who like challenge, this is a class that will really make you think (no, honestly) and make you decide what your political views are.

The discussion sections are not particularly helpful, but go to them anyways to secure the A- (for 10% of your total grade) Professor Marten guarentees you if you go to all of them.

"Now, I speak so fast, my own mother can't understand me... but i'm not teaching a class on international political strategy, analysis, and history."

Professor Marten speaks so fast. If you take a pause, you will find yourself amongst 150 other students furiously scribbling notes, head bent down, trying to keep up.

The analysis and subject matter are fascinating. But Marten speaks so fast that it is like trying to understand all the credits at the end of some TV show while the credits are minurized and jam packed and scrolling speedily off the screen. Such is the constant heart-pounding agitated state you will be in through out class.

by the time you realize what kind of missle someone used somewhere, she's on to the next shrimp net in south america.
There is so much minute detail... Marten FAILS to actually TEACH the material. Instead she reads without character- from notes like some stiff and awkward stage-frightened monotone actor...

She has lots to say and teach.. but she goes through info like a time line, again, really failing to at least give you somethinking time to put all this info into some cohesive and worthwhile form.
SMART LADY- no doubt... but JUST because these Professors WRITE a BOOK... doesn;t mean they know how to teach.

Also: probably with good reason... she's a bit of a snob. in my opinion she doesn't give much care to whether students walk away more knowledgeable or more educated in world affairs... she talks, you listen... and I guess we should all be grateful... I mean, she's written books.

Kimberly Zisk Marten is an amazing lecturer and is clearly extremely intellegent.
Her class is very interesting and up to date, but is extremely hard. She only gives 15% of the class A's which makes it extremely competitive, especially for an intro class. The reading list is enormous and seems neverending. A LARGE LARGE portion of your time will be devoted to reading endless artlicles, and stressing over finishing all the homework. Marten also speaks at an extremely fast pace which causes problems when taking notes, but you learn to adapt pretty quickly. Overall, this class is great, but sooooo much work. DO NOT TAKE AS A FRESHMAN!

Alex was God's gift to me, and every other int'l relations student last semester. She genuinely cared about her students and tried absurdly hard to help everyone understand the material. She went far out of her way to be available to all students in the class (not just in her discussion section). She definitely saved my paper (which was worth 35% of my grade) and probably about 30 others. Alex was incredible, i think I'm in love with her.

Shany is without a doubt one of THE WORST teachers I have ever had. He must be on some sort of power trip, because he really enjoys hearing himself talk. He interrupts students all the time and wouldn't let us discuss what was interesting or confusing, only the material he thought was necessary. He's actually annoying more than anything and is quite possibly the most anal person I have ever met. Don't come late to class. Don't ever let your cell phone go off. NEVER bring food to class. Oh and make sure you sit in the group circle. Last but not least, if you're unfortunate enough to get stuck in his section, be sure to talk a lot.
It doesn't matter what you say, honestly, because half the time people were either spewing verbal diarrhea and getting credit for it, or they were being interrupted in the middle of a sentence. I came out of Shany's section more confused and pissed than when I went in. I was planning on maybe majoring in Poli Sci, but after going through the torture of Shany's boring and immensely irritating section, I'm having second thoughts. Save yourselves while you still can!!!

The one-sentence summary? Jervis is wasted on the first-years. I took Intro to IR as a freshman and fell asleep regularly every week. the TA made the class bearable, and I did pick up what I was supposed to, but I didn't leave with a good impression of Professor Jervis himself.

Two years later I took Conflict and Coop with him, and fell in serious academic crush with the man. I'd trot eagerly to class first thing Monday morning (and I'm not a morning person) to sit and hear his amusing expositions on The State Of The World Today / The State Of Today's Headlines. witty AND incisive, they cut through the crap and helped shed valuable light on what was actually taking place. every time I read about a new political development I'd want to hear what Jervis would have to say about it in the next class. The lectures were for the most part just as insightful and interesting (though I'd be lying if I said I didn't doze off even once). Reading was on the heavy side but all good selections. The grading wasn't easy, but I felt like I worked for and earned what I eventually got - and unlike so many classes, I actually took increased knowledge away with me at the end of the semester.

Bottom line: the man deserves his reputation. Definitely consider taking one of his classes if/when you're not a freshman any more, and better able to appreciate what he's saying. A genuine interest in the world around you also helps.

Miserabely boring professor but interesting reading material otherwise. Going to class was a major waste of time--just do the reading and you'll be fine. My TA was great, though, and was helpful with the quizzes and papers.

Prof Marten is the best professor I have had. Her lecturers are never boring and she always includes a question/answer section that helps turn her huge seminars into lively discussions. That said this class is hard with a lot of readings and notetaking, however the work is well worth it and Marten is readily accessible to students questions/problems. The opportunities for extra credit don't hurt either.

Funny, very accessible, good class handouts. Breeze of a course! Lenient grader. B+/A- is very attainable, you gotta bust your butt for anything higher.

I've got to agree with most of the reviews. Jessica was a great TA. Very helpful and accessible.

Great lecturer--very organized and gives a clear and comprehensive presentation--she'll have you writing for the full 75 minutes. She gets a little too caught up in "professors across the street" but her skills are up to par. Reading list is quite extensive but you don't need to do more than skim the articles. She scared a lot of people in the class by saying she "didn't give As" which means that the two take-home midterms (5-7 pgs) are graded on a curve (I'd never heard of a Poli Sci curve but apparently the TAs are only allowed to give 20% As). Not to worry, if you get a reasonable TA, all the other papers get a grade of B or B+. My only complaint about the class is the TA sections--poorly organized and completely pointless but unavoidable, the TAs take attendance that counts for 10 % of your grade. The newer material at the end of the course is pretty interesting--she actually gives a few lectures on bio/chemical weapons, terrorism, and the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (most courses that intend to make it to the present day don't make it past the 80s). Overall she's a pretty good authority on the major topics in IR, and manages to give a nearly unbiased view of all the material (very rare for a Poli Sci teacher). I would certainly recommend taking IR with her.

Jessica was a truly great TA; I attribute my success in International Politics to her. Her discussion sections were orderly, clear, and informative. She went out of her way to assist us in writing papers, and created extra office hours towards the end of the semester. She also gave very thorough, comprehensive comments when grading papers.

I completely agree with the other review here—Jessica was the only thing that made Intro to IR bearable. Discussion sections included her spending a few minutes succinctly clarifying whatever the professor had confused in class, and then leading discussion in a way that both helped confused students get a good grasp on the issues and those with outside knowledge or strong opinions contribute in a productive way. She is great at synthesizing what people are saying and helping them sort out their own arguments, even on issues that aren’t her specialty. On top of this, she’s incredibly nice and genuinely eager to help her students—by far the best TA I’ve had. Next time the Political Science Department needs to ask a PhD candidate to teach, it should be her!

Jessica was a great TA -- always available, great at explaining things, and a really nice person to chat with. She definitely knew her stuff (she was able to field questions from some pretty educated students), and was a pretty soft grader with good explanations for her grades. If becoming a professor is what she aims for, she'll make a great one.

Attention female undergrads: Joe wins as the best looking TA in political science! (seriously, I mean really good looking not just better than your usual geeky grad student. this guy works out!) Ignore the jokes and check out the biceps.

I can't quite put my finger on why Jervis' lectures are sometimes painfully boring. When I made the extra effort to stay with him instead of nodding off, I always found him to be insightful, extremely well-informed and even funny. I learned a lot from the lectures that I forced myself to stay awake for, but it seemed to be a constant battle. The good (or bad) thing is that it is not necessary to got to class since we were quized on the readings rather than lectures.

Jervis is a very difficult professor to review... He has written a lot of important work and is very knowledgable, but this has created a rather sizeable ego that occasionally becomes irritating. By far the best part of class is the first 30 minutes in which he analyzes current world events and takes student questions... He constantly provided subtle and enlightening theories about what was happening; some people accuse him of bias against the Bush administration, but I felt that he was good about presenting different sides of each issue(although he does let us know what he thinks so that we can take his bias into account). In comparison the actual course material, while still interesting, seems abstract and obscure. This is not necessary, but Jervis's shaggy-dog style of lecturing can make even the most simple ideas seem complex as he embarks on ramble after ramble. Nonetheless this course completely changed the way i think and debate about international politics and I recommend it to anybody who is willing to invest a little time into understanding world politics beyond simply reading the news.

I know a lot of people complained about his lectures, but I really enjoyed them even though you could technically miss every single one and still do fine in the class since we were tested on the readings rather than the lectures. Jervis usually spent the first thirty minutes talking about current events, complete with his personal takes on different issues. The rest of the lecture had to do with whatever section we were on at the time. Sometimes the lectures seemed really disorganized, but if you do the reading when you are supposed to do it, it all fits together. Given that Jervis is a giant in the world of political science, it seemed like a waste of a good resource to skip out on his classes, except maybe if it is a particularly nice spring day. Not only that but Jervis is funny. He has a very dry wit that colors his lectures. Sure he name drops a lot, but given the list of colleagues he has, who wouldn't? And even if it is contrived, he often humbles himself by admitting his mistakes. Overall, I think he is a good bet for IR.

Genius, perhaps...but I'm still not convinced. Jervis' lectures cover only the tip of the ice berg that is the thousands of pages of readings that he assigns, offering you the John Madden version of IR (master of the obvious style). Jervis is considered by some to be a giant in is field, but I am fairly sure that he was just the first one to write on topics that everyone else takes as common sense. He devotes the first 30+ minutes of each class to a critique of the Bush administration, and not once stop to offer a retraction when Bush actually succeeded where Jervis said he would fail. Jervis constantly references his "sources in Washington," but I am fairly convinced that he is refering to the Times and the Post, as every little gem of insoide info he offered up was generally in the early edition. Most folks know to avoid this prof, there are certainly better instructors for this course. Take someone else, save Jervis in case you want to specialize in Perception or Game Theory.

Unfortunate to say, Jervis is wasted on teaching this class. He obviously is a brilliant guy, top of his field and all the rest (he has the class read his own book!), but many people have trouble getting beyond his sometimes difficult method of conveying information to figure out what he is trying to say. Regardless, if you make the effort to attend the classes and do the readings, it is possible to learn a hell of a lot from this guy. Unfortunately, it is sometimes difficult to produce that kind of motivation for an introductory class.

She is an excellent teacher. She has her political personal biases, but in class, she reviews all sides and is objective. She knows her material and class is always interesting. The readings are interesting, but much of the materials on the midterm and final can be picked up just by going to lecture instead. She is approachable in her office and she is enthusiastic about her work.

Professor Marten-Zisk is amazing. She is hard, but you learn so much in her class. I became a pol sci major because of her. She is very organized, knowledge, and clear. You come out of the class having a better grasp of the world. The readings and lectures were very interesting, although I wished that we didn't focus so much on 9-11. Also do be warned that it is going to be lots of readings and note taking. Her lecture covers a lot, so expect to have intensive hand exercises for every class. I do recommend taking this class or any class with Professor Marten. She is very inspirational and definitely one of the best professors I have encountered at Columbia

Professor Zisk-Marten is a wonderful lecturer who makes class exciting. She outlines every lecture at the beginning of class on the board and sticks to it, making notetaking very easy. The course material she chooses is interesting and pertinent and she seems to be very nice as well.

Joe is the best TA around! He is witty and intelligent and knows exactly how to present the facts in a CONCISE and understandable way. Joe is educated enough so that he is able to give his own opinions and not necessarily be a pet to the teacher. I loved his section, he was especially helpful with essay writing.

Joe tries to be funny at the discussion sections, sometimes he is and sometimes he is a typical poli sci grad student dork. He starts every section with trivia and gives out candy prizes which is thoughtful. He seems to really enjoy teaching and political science but he grades ruthlessly. However your grades are based on improvement and most students do. He loves to use sexual metaphores and bar/dating senarios in a lame attempt to relate to students. But he does speak perfect english which is important since many TAs are incomprehensible with their heavy accents. Also he makes himself available outside of class to discuss any questions or how to improve your papers.

Prof. (Zisk) Marten was a truly wonderful lecturer for this huge intro class. She provided very clear outlines on the board which she followed closely - making note-taking very easy. Her lectures were always well organized, clear, and thought provoking. By referring to her own research fields, Prof. Marten added much to her lectures. She was also very willing to go over subjects with students during her office hours.

Marten-Zisk (is a good lecturer, but not a great professor. Unfortunately the exams are based primarily on the readings, which are long and often boring. Her reasoning for giving as much reading as she does is that a lot of polisci majors go to law school, so unless you fall into that category, you might want to look elsewhere for an intro to international class. Her test were two take-home essays and an in-class final. You had to sign an honor code for the take-homes, promising you would not discuss the material with anyone else, which seemed counter-productive to me, as she asked about current affairs. Good news is it turns out the reading is not as necessary for your grade as she claims.

As a fresman, Professor Martin was very impressive to me. Although some upper -classmen complained that she was "nothing special", I really enjoyed her class. Her lectures are systematic enough so that they are easy to follow, but she is NOT a robot. She makes the information extremely lucid, easy to grasp and very interesting and applicable to today's political situations. She takes plenty of time to answer questions, and class time is well alotted. Martin is a fan of the socratic method of teaching and responds to many questions with further questions. Sometimes this is frustrating but it is often an effective way in urging class participation. All in all, a good class to take.

Zisk is an AWESOME lecturer. Each class you learn so much and take so many notes it astounding. She makes a 250 person class feel like 30 buy taking quesitons and asking questions. You never find yourself looking at the clock in her class. That being said, this class is very tough. A ton of reading, accompanied by some tough grading make it not a grade inflator. However, if you are interested in international relations, she is the best.

Professor Jarvis is the single worst professor I've had in my academic career. Good luck trying to stay awake during his lectures; the man is unbelievably boring. If you don't believe me, just look around. You'll find more people asleep than awake. Additonally, it's no surprise that his lectures are completely disorganized.

Okay, so ..be prepared for a a large amount of reading, most of which is not particularly exciting. In addition, do not attend class..it is really not worth it, unfortunately I waited until after Spring Break to make this decision. Lectures are nothing short of sheer boredom. The discussion sections are suffice enough to handle the 3 quizzes. So watch out, there are better professors who teach this course.

Organized, dynamic, and extremely engaging. Cooley doesn't let the lecture format of the course stop students from participating actively in class; several times per session, he stops and asks if anyone has questions, then gives thoughtful and detailed answers. He digresses at points, but seldom rambles, and does a wonderful job of sticking to the syllabus and covering the necessary material in the time allotted. Those already taken with international relations will likely enjoy the course just for the readings, but Cooley's skill as a lecturer adds an extra element to a well-designed course.

She's tough in terms of academic work - no bulls. But if she knows that you are trying really really hard, she will award you accordingly. Her lectures are organized, and quite up to date and interesting. She knows her materials very very well, and is a clear speaker and easy to understand. In person, she's very friendly - go chat to her during office hours - she's very likable and nice. She seems to have a really "hard-as-nails" persona in class, but she's actually really down to earth and friendly in person, and she'll love to help you in any way once you get to know her.

Jervis is TERRIBLE. He's completely boring and prefers name-dropping to lecturing. When he does actually lecture, good luck with keeping your eyes open. Forget entirely about addressing the reading. The good thing is that lectures are completely superfluous. If you want to do OK, opt for the TA sessions instead.

Pofessor zisk is amazing! don't miss this tough-as-nails woman whose cunning intelligence and sense of humor make her lectures totally worth attending. her courses are challenging but well worth it for those who are truly interested in cutting some teeth on foreign affairs.

absolutely awesome prof... Great lectures, interesting, etc..... Although it is a large class, there was discussion.... I would def. recommend this class!

Contrary to some other reviews, I found Professor Cooley's class an interesting, organized, well-delivered, thorough (if you did most of the readings) introduction to International Relations. While the class may seem a bit easy at times, Cooley himself is a dynamic, incredibly intelligent, yet fun lecturer who encourages questions and participation in a large lecture class and gives straight-forward answers. Taking his class this past semester was also very helpful for me to deal with Sept. 11, as we would have a quick update almost each class; he changed the final class to one on Islam, which I found fascinating. I would definitely recommend taking any class professor Cooley is teaching.

Um, um, um, Um--be prepared to listen to this sequence of speech for 3/4 of the class, but don't get me wrong this man is SMART. He's published, gone on TV, and he's from Hopkins IR department etc. BUT there's a catch, HE'S BORING!!!! If you can stay awake in one of his lectures then you are either on acid or a strong strong dose of espresso. He's fair--his final is straightforward, his papers are manageable. However, Its not easy getting an A, but if you have a brain you can get no lower than a B-. The TA's are nice and this is an intro class so don't expect to be enlightened. Cooley will not make you want to be a Poli Sci major, but he won't make you not want to be a Poli Sci major either. Honestly, he's funny, cute, and a down to earth nice guy, but you wonder sometimes why only 40 ppl show up to a 180 lecture class all the time. Not bad, not great-- your choice.

In a five minute survery, Cooley said "huh" once every 4.3 seconds. Other than that, he is a good teacher and is really into international politics.

I thought he was a good professor, he'd make an outline on the board that usually would really help you understand the readings, and even though the class was huge, he was open to questions and discussion. In the first class, he comes off intimidating and scary, but hes really not, and the TAs are really helpful. Classes supplemented the readings, and as someone not really interested in poli sci, this wasn't exactly such a good class for a beginner, but I thought it was interesting. He doesn't try to trick you, and his rule for the two papers was just to defend your views logically using the sources, as long as you backed up your arguments, it didn't really matter what you said.

I took Zisk's lecture and was so impressed with her clear and organized lecture style that I needed to take her seminar. Although she does not beleive in grade-inflation and her reading list can be daunting, this is a class that you will learn something in. Zisk will put up an outline at the beginning of class and work through it during her lecture. Makes note-taking significantly easier. Zisk takes no crap from anyone but is by far the best prof I've ever had on campus and everyone should take her class (PoliSci major or not)!

While he isn't a bad lecturer, it would take a significant stretch of the imagination (or outright lies) to call Jervis interesting. He is occasionally funny, but spends most of the lecture without attempting to make the subject matter vaguely enticing. He presents the lecture materials clearly enough, but it's just a rehash of what you were supposed to read. Of course, this means if you DON'T do the reading, you can get away with going to class and paying (some) attention. There are definitely better lecturers out there, but at least he isn't among the worst.

Jervis is one of my favorite professors. Although many seem not to like his lectures, I enjoy them immensely. He's absolutely brilliant and even a little funny. What i love most about him is his intellectual honesty -- something you don't find often in academia nowadays. He's a realist and a "yellow-dog" (his words) Democrat, but he'll acknowledge any fallacies in or exceptions to his arguments. He's very nice and approachable and, again remarkably, HUMBLE, especially considering he's one of the top people in his field.

Fortna knows her stuff... if you're serious about IR, take this class... the reading is excessive, but, in my opinion, totally necessary. This class will give you a great foundation for your IR studies. Unfortunately, Fortna doesn't exactly spice up her lectures. There is no extra effort on her part to add a bit of excitement to the class.. it is cut and dry. This class still pales in comparison to punching the clown.

Jervis has got to be one of the most boring lecturers I've ever been subjected to. In addition, a lot of the reading is dry and seems pretty pointless, his own precious book included. But you sure as hell don't need to do all the reading, and you definitely don't need to attend every lecture. Oh, and yeah, as you might expect, he doesn't go near your papers or your quizzes.... all the grading bitch work is done by the T.A.'s . But that's not necessarily a bad thing, seeing as that they aren't so harsh. And then of course you've got Columbia's unofficial grade inflation policy to pick up any slack you (or they) might have left behind.

Prof. Fortna provides a good basis for the foundations of interntional relations. Her lectures are easy to follow and interesting, although at times (during topics she does not like much) the lectures can be boring. She encourages class participation and is extremely approachable. She is easy going. The reading, like any poli sci class, is substantial, but much less then other int'l politics classes.

Fortna really is a good lecturer...sometimes a little boring, but she's warm, has a good sense of humor, and is very straight forward and clear, if a little fast sometimes. The reading is a little much and can get boring as hell, but the midterm at least could be taken straight out of the lecture notes. Harder to do with the papers, because you have to have something to cite.

Bubbly, a bit flighty, but she knows the issues, projects her voice and is enthusiastic. Shop around for a good TA in her class, it'll make a big difference.

Nice lady, certainly smart, grapevines about the lecture platform. Practically cries when speaking of Rwanda. First years seem to find the course and Zisk a life-changing experience... older students know better--better than average but not superlatively fantastic. Tells you quite simply how to do well in her class, and it works. Just don't do other things during lecture. She hates it and she'll notice.

Professor Zisk is the most inspirational teacher I have ever had. She manages to cover a tremendous amount of material and make it interesting. She is energetic and brings in her own anecdotes to the lectures. The readings can also be fascinating, though many are dry and tedious.

Zisk knows her stuff. Her lecture method is the best I've ever seen at Columbia. She clearly outlines all her points on the blackboard and addresses each point in order. Her class is hard. The reading list is surreal (I thought it was a joke when it first was given to me). But the paper assignments aren't too hard (just make sure you get a decent T.A.).

She's a fantastic lecturer - organized, understandable, good speed, good examples. However, it's extremely difficult to get an A from her unless you do almost all of the extensive and dense reading. By attending virtually every one of her classes, taking extensive notes and doing almost no reading (that's right!), I was able to get an A-. If you're a non-reader, be warned: I found out after the class was over that much of her final was based on info from the readings NOT touched on in class.