Student Roundtable

Christopher Evans
Senior, Northern Arizona University

Video Presentation
Conference Discussion

When I look back over the years to think about the most memorable experiences I've had in learning about politics, I find that they fall in two distinct and rather basic categories: the good things and the bad things. Since I'm a bit of a pessimist, I'd like to quickly go over the negative things first. In my defense, I think mentioning the bad things is perhaps more instructive for improving teaching techniques than the positive ones, so please keep that in mind.

First, I think that the best thing a teacher of any subject can do is to learn the names of their students. It is, admittedly, a hard thing to do, especially in those giant intro-level survey classes, but I don't think anything does a better job of connecting the student to the learning process than to make them feel that their teacher sees them as a real, living, breathing person. The only teacher for whom I ever truly lost respect was one who felt that names were irrelevant. I took a class in Constitutional Law at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, (UNCC) and the professor, not only neglected to learn our names, he insisted on calling students by names other than their own. It's incredibly frustrating to tell a person repeatedly that your name is Chris, not Kevin, and have them ignore that fact.

Second, tests don't reflect the learning process. Yes, I understand that they are a necessary evil for grading, but there are other things that can be done to determine a grade that are equally indicative of what a student gets out of the class. I personally like writing assignments (both long and short) and graded class discussions (based on participation, comprehension of the assigned material, and analysis of the subject matter). Dr. John Leung, Chair of the History Department at Northern Arizona University (NAU) does this, and the simple fact that it made learning the class material in History of Chinese Political Thought fun is a testament to its efficacy.

Finally, students universally revile group projects. I understand that they are intended to be a reflection of the "real world" workplace, but more than anything else, group projects teach students to despise their classmates. Having worked at a full-time job for years that relied exclusively on teamwork, I admit that this is often the case with co-workers as well. I think, however, that school should be more enjoyable than the real world; the point of college should, to some extent, be to foster a love of learning, and by making the process work-like, that goal is defeated.

Now, I would like to move on to the more pleasant experiences I've had in learning about politics. Over the years, many people have asked me why I chose to major in the field, and I think what drew me to political science in the first place is that it is alive and going on all around us. It is important and relevant in the larger world, a claim that not all fields can match. Political science is about more than just what is happening on the evening news; it is about why those things are happening. Figuring out that why keeps me excited about learning.

Having said that, allow me to take the opportunity to share what I've experienced in the past that has made learning exciting and memorable. In a general way, I enjoy multi-media approaches. There are so many tools available today that it seems a shame to rely only on books and lectures. Movies, videos, Internet sources, audio presentations, even non-traditional literature help round out the learning process. Perhaps my favorite text ever was a Japanese comic book that examined the US-Japanese auto industry clashes of the 1980s. That one came from a class I took at UNCC titled US-Japanese Relations, taught by Dr. Harry Chernotsky. It indicates his willingness to find other sources for connecting with students.

This brings me to a specific instance that I found memorable. Once again, it took place in one of Dr. Chernotsky's classes; this one called US Foreign Policy. We did a simulation on the policy making process, with roles assigned to each class member ahead of time. We were responsible for researching our position (I was the National Security Advisor) and being prepared for whatever he threw at us. At the start of class, he outlined the situation and then turned us loose. Periodically he would give us updated information so that we were reacting and trying to form policies on a real-time basis. Even though the details have gotten vague over the years, I still remember that sense of fumbling around, trying to get reliable and accurate information, trying to coordinate with the relevant parties, and most of all, the fear that I would make a mistake that could result in the deaths (theoretical, of course) of hundreds of people. I often think of that and realize that the same thing goes on in governments around the world all the time. It's sobering to think that the people who are entrusted with the safety of millions of very real people experience that same sense of fear that they will make a mistake.

I think that the whole episode reflects an important concept in learning about political science. Details, while important, eventually fade from memory. What stays and changes who we are and how we think is that sense of empathy. Recognizing that languages and cultures may differ, but that there are aspects common to all people everywhere creates a connection that transcends the theoretical and goes right to the heart of the practical. Political science is about trying to find those connections, and in doing so, making the world a better place for all of us. I hope that I've accurately conveyed that feeling, and that others will agree. After all, that would be a connection in itself, wouldn't it?