17.30 is the worst class I have ever taken. Ever. This includes all of elementary school, middle school, high school, and college to date. We learn nothing. The essay topics are... non-topics. Example:
WARNING: Anger and wrathfulness at bad class ahead. May cause blindness, skin irritation, and severe tire damage.

< wrath >

"Please write a 4- to 5-page essay in which you make an analytic argument about why and how advocates define problems in U.S. politics. As you formulate your argument, you may want to ask yourself: Why do advocates define problems, and what are the elements of an effective problem definition? To support your argument, you should draw on all the cases we’ve read about and discussed in class since your previous essay (GM foods, obesity, smoking, immigration), as well as on newspaper coverage of these or other issues you have been following in the news.

In constructing your essay, please consider the concepts we’ve introduced to help you focus on important elements of the policy process: advocates, values, interests, science/uncertainty/risk, stories, and choices. You may want to write about some particularly interesting aspect of the relationships among these elements of the policy process.

In this essay, as in the previous one, you are making an analytic, not a normative argument; that is, you are making a claim about how politics actually works and why, not how it should work. You are free to consider the normative implications of your argument in your conclusions, but the argument itself should be analytic, and the body of the essay should support that argument with logic and evidence."


Through extensive discussion with my TA, I've been able to figure out:
That this is NOT an essay about the rhetorical devices that advocates use to influence people's decisions;
That this is NOT (contrary to the prompt) meant to make us discuss all of the elements of effective problem definition;
That we're NOT expected to know whether any of these elements is either necessary or sufficient for effective problem definition;
That we're NOT expected to come up with some criterion for "effective";
But that I should "put together a compelling argument one way or the other" on... something. Something that's not any of the above.

THIS TOPIC MEANS NOTHING.

Also, as with all the papers, no outside research is encouraged or required. Talking about "issues that well beyond the class" is discouraged--after all, what would the point of writing the paper be if you tried to use _outside_ information to explain anything rather than relying on the single article on a single, highly specific theory of regulatory problem definition that they gave you?

Also in this class, I've had the delightful experience of losing points for failing to fundamentally convince my TA that her convictions were incorrect in a 5-page essay with no research in it, and for proposing a thesis that contradicted Rawlsian (J) political philosophy and must therefore have been fundamentally indefensible.

The problem, my TA has finally concluded: I just have difficulty in expressing my ideas.

"Nonsense!", I rant helplessly inside my head. "I am one of the top debaters in the league! I have consistently produced good analytical essays since I was taught how to write them! And I _promise_ that I understand the subject material better than at least 90% of the kids in this class!"

I. Hate. This. Class. So very much.

So if I end up dropping out of college and living in a gutter, being slowly nibbled upon by bubonic-infested rats--or getting kicked out for having a full psychotic, wrathful breakdown in the middle of lecture--blame Andrea Campbell (professor), Judith Layzer (professor), Matthew Amengual (TA), and Isabelle Anguelovski (TA).