[POLS W3290] Voting and American Politics

Erikson knows everything possible about the subject and is a nice guy, but the class is really really boring. Not only is it early, but his voice is monotonous and his lectures and slides and usually worthless. The midterm and final are entirely based on the reading, but since the reading isn't necessary for class every session, its easy to fall behind. The material can be interesting, covering topics like party identification and electoral history. In addition to the midterm and final, there's also a paper that can be either a statistical analysis of exit polls (since we learn nothing about such statistics in class, not sure why this is an option...), a comparative book review, or another topic.

This class is pretty much what the name says, and not much more. You learn about the history and function of voting in America.

I can't say that I expected the class to be riveting, especially at 9am, and it really wasn't. I found the lectures I attended to be snoozefests, but also worthless. There is nothing that you need to learn from the lectures that you couldn't learn from the reading. And by reading, I mean Erikson's book. His book is good, in fact the only worthwhile book you're required to read. The other books give you unnecessary background about the history of American politics. If you know this stuff, then you're fine and you can skip it all. Looking back, I would like to suggest not attending any class except for the review sessions, but there is a ridiculous participation requirement for a lecture class. There is no way that you can actually participate, but you sure as hell better be sitting there pretending to pay attention or you'll be docked 5% on your final grade.

So the class is average and on the boring side, but not bad. But the TA for this last year was terrible. She was way to strict when grading papers and the final. Stuff like giving you a B for using too many decimal places on a graph, when she admits your entire paper was well written and constructed.

But overall, I would recommend this class if you want to know more about the theory and practice of voting. It might not be the most in depth class, but probably good enough on the undergraduate side.

Here's the truth about this class I'll agree that Erikson's lecture style involves the use of an enormous number of repetitive graphs, and that class participation is very low. Comments regarding the workload/difficulty, however, are dramatically off. Reading varies from 20 pages a class to 100 pages a class. Sorry if that's too much reading for you, but maybe you should reconsider getting your education at Columbia. The finals are highly predictable and test material covered in class. The grading is very fair and reflective of the effort put into the final. Bottom line: if you want to learn in this class, you can learn however much you want. If you go in with the attitude--I don't want to do any reading! Waah. You won't learn anything.

Professor Erikson lacks the kind of enthusiasm and energy that is required if you to inspire students, or, at least, motivate them to care about the course material. If you have any basic understanding of how the electorate in this country behaves (i.e. most of America is dumb, apathetic, and does not care about voting, or that more educated people tend to vote more liberal) then this course will teach you nothing new. The only mildly interesting aspect of this course were the all too brief sections where we studied the history of elections or particular political movements (such as McCarthyism). Perhaps this was a failure on my part, but I came into this class expecting to learn why Americans vote in particular patterns and why our electoral system functions the way it does, but all we did was analyze voting trends at 9:00 in the morning while Erikson tried desperately to solicit class participation. Erikson is clearly a big shot when it comes to data interpretation (as his books, which is the main text for the class, is quick to point out), but he is much more of a lab rat than a qualified and charismatic teacher. This class did teach me about the 'sci' side of the poli-sci major which is nice because now I know I will never be a poli-sci major. If you are really into statistical analysis and know what STATA is then take the class, but if you want some serious political debate and discussion about our electoral system or why Americans vote the way they do, stay away.

Robert Erikson is a man who knows his stuff. Unfortunately though, enthusiasm doesn't match his wealth of knowledge; Erikson's voice will put you to sleep, and his slides will prove meaningless. There is a heavy workload as far as the reading goes-- expected for a poli sci major, and you will quickly have to decide what material is necessary and what isn't. There's also a lot of overlap in content among the books Erikson assigns so throwing material out will be easy. The exams were never a surprise, but the grading certainly was. The TA's assigned to the class were unnecessarily harsh. The poster below is right: Erikson never gave any additional points when you proved his TA's didn't know how to grade. I would say not to take the class simply because the TA's spoil everything.

He is smart....actually brilliant! However, not my type of Professor. We didnt really learn anything in class, and basically if you read the slides you were fine. If you read the readings too then you were really set, however, there was a good amount of reading so I gave that up early. The TA's were pretty tough graders and he didn't give me any extra points despite pointing out that the TA was in fact wrong in grading me so harshly. It is an alright class, you can get a B without doing much at all.

General Review of Professor: If you can't do boring graphs at 9 a.m., don't take this class. It's more Poli-Sci/Stats than Political Science, and his voice is perfect for falling asleep to. I was waiting for the point where it would hopefully start to pick up and become interesting, that point never came.

He really isn't that bad - his slides are really useless since he just rambles on and most of it are graphs, even though they never appear on the midterm or final. The course load is relatively easy if you just read the books he assigns. You know what is necessary and what isn't after looking at the books so choose wisely. TAs are not much help - he is kind of incoherent during lecture BUT he is a really nice guy if you go to him during office hours. He means really well and is easy going. The paper in the end was fun and easy. If you put some effort into it, you'll do well.