<p>Hi guys, I’m interested in studying politics/international relations or a subject along those lines, and I was wondering whether UChi is good for this subject (undergraduate). I’m choosing between this Uni and Georgetown…also, is it true when people say UChi is where “fun goes to die”? Is it really that much of a drab to study there?</p>
<p>To answer your questions in a slightly roundabout way:</p>
<p>We have two best-selling t-shirts. One is sold by Tufts House, and it has a little cute U of C emblem on the front. On the back, in big, big, big, letters, it says, “Where fun comes to die.” So it’s not “people” who say we are “Where fun comes to die,” it’s the students themselves who think this phrase is a howler and the students themselves who line up to buy them in droves.</p>
<p>Another of our bestselling shirts, sold by Breckinridge (sp?) House is, “That’s all well and good in practice, but how does it work in theory?” In other words, our institutional emphasis is away from the immediately practical and towards the more intellectual and theoretical. You can do lots of things with your degree-- you just won’t really learn how they’re done as an undergrad.</p>
<p>Is it a drab to be here? Nope, not if you enjoy schoolwork in general, enjoy your classes, and want to be here. Besides, there’s lots of campus goings-on that don’t involve academics at all… fraternities and sororities, lots of student clubs, theater, Doc Films, etc. etc. etc. So it’s not like every moment will feel like you’re working intensely.</p>
<p>Thanks. :)</p>
<p>That slogan can shape your life here, but only if you specifically seek out and stick to the people that model themselves on that stereotype. You can even find ones that behave this way without a hint of irony. But within the “fun comes to die” crowd, for sure the majority manually slay their fun and prefer to eat it bloody, by which I mean it’s all in the spirit of shameless self-deprecation to bolster their boasting creds. Wow I have been up too late. Honestly, it’s more of an unspoken inside joke than any reflection on the workload or humorlessness of these 4500 people.</p>
<p>Polisci is probably one of the most well-renowned departments here [you say Mearsheimer, people say ‘where?’], for better or for worse. It’s wonderfully challenging if you’re the sort who speaks up and goes to office hours, because you will get a dose of some of the world’s most rigorous thinkers in the field. On the other hand, you’ll get a good education just by sitting in the back of the classroom. Also there’s honestly remarkable breadth of courses to choose from. Of course Realism has a pretty good hold on a chunk of the faculty, but you’ll find lots of courses in Political Theory and Comp Politics and American Politics, etc. Take a look at the latest American Political Science Review or International Security for articles by UChicago faculty; you should find something to sink the teeth into.</p>
<p>I don’t know too much about the IR undergrad program, but I would say you’ll encounter more attention to theory-oriented topics than in the other departments, if only because the more practical topics would fall under other classifications, eg Public Policy, Human Rights, Environmental Studies, Polisci, etc. I mean I’m currently writing my BA in Polisci, but under the subfield of International Relations, just as a matter of perspective and preference.</p>
<p>Anyway, that’s my bit on a Sunday night</p>
<p>Is there much in international security for undergrads? Does IR tend to focus on area specialization or by topic (i.e., development, human rights, etc.)? Thanks for your great post – I have a junior who is considering IR and Chicago and is eager to learn more.</p>
<p>Look at the “International Studies” concentration in the course catalogue. It’s completely wide open – basically “whatever you want” with a few core-ish courses on international issues and a requirement to go abroad for a quarter.</p>
<p>I don’t know how popular it is. In general, Poli Sci is considered very strong at Chicago, but (like other departments there) comparatively quant-y, while International Studies looks like it could be math-free if you wanted that. On the other hand, a number of the study-abroad programs are aimed at social-science students, and have a lot of substance.</p>
<p>Most students with an interest in international relations at Chicago take a canonical core of sorts, in their second or third year, which is includes: “Introduction to International Relations,” usually taught by Charles Lipson, “War and the Nation State,” usually taught by John Mearsheimer, and “Strategy,” usually taught by Robert Pape. These are the same courses PhD students take preparing for their comprehensive examination in the area, and while they can get rather beastly, they are definitely worth it. If you are a political science major - the way to go given its flexibility - these will count as three of your twelve courses, and fulfill one of your subject area requirements. However, you definitely need some exposure to European history from the industrial revolution on, particularly WWI through the Cold War, to really grasp the topics at hand. </p>
<p>International studies majors meanwhile are required to take a two course, UG only sequence, which I have never really heard anything too positive about (other than that it can be a real savior to students who did not get serious history instruction in high school). They can also take the aforementioned courses if they wish. </p>
<p>As for political-economy, there is not much at Chicago for undergraduates. If you are looking for classes on globalization full of discussions about the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, European Union, World Trade Organization, microfinance, etc. you are out of luck. Likewise if you have a strong interest in American domestic affairs - welfare, social security, congressional policy making, elections. There are one or two courses here and there, which are normally very good, but you cannot cobble together a whole informal concentration under the aegis of a major. </p>
<p>This is because Chicago’s political science department is considered top flight, and consequently, the only courses that get taught are what fit the individual faculty members’ whims (there is a strong international relations and political theory lean to the department). That said, there is enough cross registration with other departments such as history, sociology, anthropology and so forth to really allow for a robust curriculum in most areas (although not all, as noted prior). Meanwhile, as a UG at Georgetown you are going to get stock undergraduate offerings every year on US presidents, American foreign policy, comparative constitutional law, etc. This is because the faculty are simply not as distinguished*, and from a curricular perspective are going to be teaching you about other people’s research, and far less their own. In contrast, there are numerous UChicago courses that definitely borderline on being titled, “seminar in professor so and so’s political thought,” where the professors own journal articles or those of other closely associated faculty collaborators make up the bulk of the syllabus. </p>
<ul>
<li>Before the storm starts, I mean less distinguished in a purely academic sense of journal citations, national academy membership, and intra-professional esteem. Yes, I know, Ambassadors (ZOMG!) teach at Georgetown with plenty of (literal) war stories to tell. Nevertheless, its not considered a top tier research department, which does change its character even at the collegiate level.</li>
</ul>
<p>I’m another UofC alum. I also have an M.S. from Georgetown.
I can’t address, specifically, the comparative recent offerings in the two Political Science departments. However, I think the previous post does capture important differences in the approach of these two schools. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that a Political Science concentration at Chicago will build on courses in the social science “common core.” There is continuous, decades-long dialog about what those courses entail. They are not based simply on individual faculty members’ whims. </p>
<p>Within the College, there always has been a certain ambivalence and tension over the concept of an academic major. The faculty tries to provide a broad perspective in the common core. So these are not supposed to be introductory or “survey” courses in English or Anthropology. Even after those first two years, the purpose of the major is not necessarily to turn you into an expert on some set of au courant concerns within the PoliSci or Sociology field. It’s more a matter of learning, from a few first-rate scholars in some field of interest, how scholarly inquiry is done from the perspective of that field.<br>
It is hard to teach that from a textbook. </p>
<p>It’s all the difference between leaning how to cook, by practicing from recipes, and learning from a Chef, as he or she delves into the properties of food and the art of the meal.</p>