In recent years, sparked by the path-breaking reports issued by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) in 1991 (Wahlke 1991), the political science profession has paid an increasing amount of attention to the relationship between the structure of the political science major and student learning outcomes. A few studies have recently sought to examine this relationship empirically (Breuning, Parker, and Ishiyama 2001; Ishiyama and Hartlaub 2003; Ishiyama and Breuning 2003). However, these studies have focused largely on using the political science curriculum as an independent variable (i.e., affecting student outcomes) and in most cases have been limited to one or two institutions (with the exception of Ishiyama 2004). No study has broadly and systematically examined variations in curricular design across several institutions, nor has any study examined which factors affect how institutions have structured their majors in the way they have. This paper addresses this dearth by broadly surveying a number of liberal arts and sciences colleges and universities across 10 Midwestern states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin) to determine how many political science programs structure their majors in ways according to the recommendations made by the Wahlke report.

Political science undergraduate students often have a difficult time understanding the processes and methods of social science research. The foci of courses in comparative politics such as Latin American Politics or European Politics are typically descriptive information, concepts and theories, and an overview of the principal debates and research findings. This stands in sharp contrast to undergraduate pedagogy in the natural sciences, where laboratory sections supplement classroom activities. For example, biology students learn the basics of the discipline in the classroom, and simultaneously use the tools and methods of scientists in the lab to replicate elementary experiments. This multi-method approach not only reinforces the students' understanding of biological concepts, but also gives them an appreciation for how their professors spend their time and the challenges, pleasures, and limitations of academic research.

Teachers of international relations and comparative politics spend a considerable amount of time looking for ways to bring the politics of the world outside of the United States into their classroom to enhance student learning experiences through increased relevance or “reality.” Simulations are one method to make world politics seem more relevant (e.g., Dougherty 2003; Kille 2002; Shellman 2001; McIntosh 2001; Newmann and Twigg 2000; Kaarbo and Lantis 1997; Smith and Boyer 1996). The use of film is another popular method that enhances the drama and emotion of foreign cultures and politics (e.g., Waalkes 2003; Weber 2001; Kuzma and Haney 2001). Finally, the Internet and web-based technologies (e.g., Cogburn and Levinson 2003; Hauss et al. 2002; Bonham and Seifert 2000) and foreign newspapers (e.g., Schattle 2003) are also employed to connect textbook knowledge to the real world of foreign affairs.

This symposium stemmed from a 2002 panel at the APSA Annual Meeting in Boston, MA. The panel discussed the major professional contributions of several political scientists who graduated between 1935 and 1955. They attended graduate school during “separate but equal” in many Southern states. Yet, they achieved and made major contributions at many black and white universities. Many black students were motivated to study political science, enter graduate school, and pursue a pivotal career in political science and law. The preponderance of these early political scientists was employed at black or African-American universities. They established strong programs at these institutions and encouraged students to pursue degrees in political science and law.

The pioneering career of Ralph Johnson Bunche in political science can only be briefly summarized in this limited space. Fortunately, an increasing number of works published in the last decade are rescuing his legacy for new generations. I have chosen to focus my comments on three aspects of his career: his education, his contributions to Howard University, and his contributions to the discipline of political science. (For his contributions to the APSA, see Henry 1983.)

Jewel Limar Prestage recently retired from academia after five decades of a professional career as a political scientist. Through teaching, mentoring, research, and service, she has had a profound influence in the political science discipline and on the lives of thousands of students.

G. James Fleming was a quiet, unassuming man who lived an exemplary life, made a big difference in society, and impacted on many lives across the country and abroad. A search of the archives reveals that very little written record on this impressive individual is readily available. In discussions with many that knew him, they had only kind words to say, but nothing in writing that could be shared. It is hoped that this paper will add to the written record and further memorialize a pioneer.

The Homestead Act of 1862 enabled the great grandparents of Merze Tate (Harris 1981) to migrate from the east in Ohio into central Michigan. Many other blacks, whites, and immigrants from northern Europe also migrated to central Michigan. The Homestead Act provided 160 acres of unoccupied public land to each homesteader for a nominal fee after five years of residence.

It is indeed an honor and privilege for me todiscuss the careers of two outstanding early black political scientists—Twiley and Lucius Barker. They have both singularly and jointly plowed and tilled the fields for other young black political scientists to follow. I consider myself as one of their followers—young I am not, but a follower I am.

The 2004 Conference for Political Science Department Chairs was dedicated to discussing the strategies available to chairs who are dealing with growing budget constraints. Themes included declining state budgets, surviving administrative mandates, tradeoffs of using adjuncts, and supporting professional development. APSA President Susanne Rudolph opened the conference, noting the theme is both relevant to the discipline and valuable for political science department chairs. Susan Pharr, Departmental Services Committee (DSC) chair, moderated the panel, which consisted of Michael Baer, Stephen Majeski, Shirley Geiger, Donald Baumer, and John Brehm. The Conference drew over 65 attendees to hear the five presentations and to consider concrete suggestions for how to operate efficiently under a shrinking budget. Given the widespread interest in the topic, the DSC has asked that the participants publish their findings in this symposium.

It should come as no surprise that both the amount and pace of administrative work that departments must accomplish at almost all higher education institutions has increased substantially over the past 10 years. If this is news to you just talk to your department administrator—if she/he has time to have a pleasant conversation. After all, for most institutions, operations budgets have been cut and professional and classified staff have been reduced, while at the same time, administrative work has escalated in response to increases in student enrollments, greater demands for accountability, the increasing importance of fund raising efforts, and the generation of sponsored research. No wonder that the lives of department chairs, administrators, and other professional and classified staff have become more challenging. The increase in administrative work at the department level is largely a function of increases in administrative mandates.

Ever since I have been involved in higher education, I have noticed a consistent cyclical pattern in state funding of higher education. Would that this were the pattern of the future! Although funding has historically been cyclical, since the 1970s the proportion of a state's budget dedicated to higher education has shown a steadily declining trend, from 9.8% in 1980 to 7% last year (Schmidt 2004). We are witness to a changing pattern in the relationship between the states and higher education. Higher education is increasingly viewed as a private rather than a public good, and this evolving perception will substantially impact both public and independent institutions. Tuition will become more comparable and competitive.

Today's department chairs are attempting to “do more with less,” in response to budget cuts, disappearing faculty lines, legislators and administrators who think faculty have it too easy, and an increasingly diverse student population which wants classes offered at non-traditional times. In such times, hiring adjunct professors to help cope seems to be the best way to respond to these demands. Too often, though, the crunch of time does not allow for careful weighing of the advantages and disadvantages of hiring adjuncts. In this article, I lay out some of the tradeoffs of the apparently simple act of finding “someone to cover the course.” Concerns about the tradeoffs in the use of part-time and adjunct faculty are not new to the American Political Science Association. In 1997, APSA was one of 10 academic associations that accepted the invitation of the American Historical Association to convene in Washington, D.C., to discuss the “growing use of part-time and adjunct faculty.” In my comments, I will rely heavily upon their articulation of the tradeoffs of using adjuncts as well as the Department Chair Online Resource Center sponsored by the American Council on Education. [Note: APSA has subsequently joined with other associations to form the Coalition on the Academic Workforce (CAW) to explore issues related to academic employment of adjuncts. See www.academicworkforce.org].

Declining revenue bases affects the private graduate and undergraduate school environments in exceptionally similar ways. The University of Chicago draws its revenue for the most part from a rolling calculation from its endowment (unlike, say, state revenue contributions). While there is no question that well-endowed institutions have special advantages, the climate of resource constraint and threat is nevertheless ubiquitous.

Institutional support for faculty development within higher education has increased greatly at many colleges and universities over the last 10–15 years. In the 1970s, and continuing through much of the 1980s, the big concern among top administrators about faculty seemed to be that too many were tenured. Heavily tenured departments were seen by many as a source of stagnation and low productivity. Thus, rather than emphasizing programs for faculty development, many institutions sought ways to insure that faculty would retire. But, as the number of actual and foreseeable faculty retirements ballooned in the 1990s, a new concern arose: recruiting and retaining high quality faculty members. Faculty development became trendy. Helping new faculty members be the best they could be made sense to administrators and trustees.

Carolyn Heilbrun famously observed that women of the early 20th century had no models for their public lives, no way to learn the “tone of voice in which to speak with authority.” One is reminded of Jean Elshtain's classic study of the tyranny of gender stereotyping as “public” men and “private” women (Elshtain 1981). The mentoring project at APSA invites us, men and women together, to break down the unspoken barrier between our personal stories and our professional persona. As Heilbrun said, we can't be authentic mentors if we don't “tell the truth about (our) own lives” (Heilbrun [1988] 2002, 25). The trouble is that facts are mute. “Facts need testimony to be remembered,” articulate witnesses with sufficient imagination to make the experiences of modern life understandable (Arendt [1969] 1972, 6). Yet to be useful, as well as authentic, imagination must at least attempt to be truthful. Accordingly, please indulge me while I commit an act of public disclosure and do what my mother always said a lady should never do—talk about herself. Doing so is bad manners and, besides, no one really wants to hear it, she said. I plead guilty to the former, but about the latter I have my doubts. Mentoring in political science is based on the premise that other people need to see reflections of their own careers and lives in yours and vice versa. So at least in this specific context, self-referential writing, the dreaded pronoun “I” may be forgiven.

This is the thirty-third year that I have been monitoring participation by women at our Annual Meeting. These PS reports have documented the ascent of women in our profession.

Eric Beerbohm, graduate student, department of politics, Princeton University, has been awarded The University Center for Human Values Graduate Prize Fellowship for the 2004–2005 academic year.

Leslie C. Eliason, associate professor in the Graduate School of International Policy Studies (GSIPS) at the Monterey Institute for International Studies (MIIS), passed away on April 12, 2004 after a short illness. She was only 44.

Pendleton Herring, a pioneering student of American politics and influential foundation executive, died at his home in Princeton, New Jersey, on August 17, 2004, at the age of 100. He had two successive careers, first as a leading political scientist, then as head of the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), a capacity in which he played a major part in fostering the burgeoning of the social and behavioral sciences in the post-World War II years.