POLS W4842

3 short papers and a final (w/ or w/o taking home the essay portion)

In response to the first review, I don't think Joe was ever "trying" to be funny. He's a very opiniated man and I don't think he's the type of person who cares what his students think of him. He's also really witty and laid back as a person and can transform the tedium of the required discussion section into an enjoyable experience. Not only that but he's very good at deconstructing arguments and going right to the heart of a text. His grading standards are somewhat eccentrically rigorous, but the professor of this particular class gave out a high curve which turned at least a couple of Joe B's into A's.

I am very surprised by the reviews that claim this class to be "the class" for learning about the Middle East. As someone who has studied the Middle East for a while now, I have to totally disagree. Here are the positive aspects of the class: no big surprises on any writing assignments or exams. If you work hard and study what she tells you, you will certainly get a good grade. Also, she is VERY knowledgeable about many aspects of Middle Eastern politics...VERY. HOWEVER, she is possibly the worst lecturer I have ever come across. I did not take any notes all semester, though not by choice. I simply could not follow any coherent point in class. The only day I have good notes from is the day that the TA lectured. Lectures were truly painful and she often takes attendance. It is interesting material, but she somehow makes it seem terribly boring. Overall, the lecture was a complete waste of my time, and I want those hours of my life back. However, the readings were often quite good (you don't have to do any until you know what your paper topics are, but there is a discussion section to prepare for). The readings, the syllabus, the papers, etc were all well- planned and interesting, but the lectures (essentially, "the class,") made me want to jump out of Hamilton. If you want a great class to learn about the Middle East, avoid this course. If you want a relatively fair and somewha…

normal: take home midterm--fairly demanding final that asks you to answer question types that you have not seen before in the semester--annoying but manageable discussion board postings that can get you 5 extra points though if you do them regularly

I totally agree with the previous review. There are much better classes to take on the subject as pointed out before. Prof. Weinberger is a wonderful person but she might well be the worst lecturer the world has ever seen--she gets sidetracked all the time and loses herself in details that seem to have little relevance to the class as a whole..I don't know--the class was a relatively easy A but frankly, I would rather take Khalidi or the graduate student that has the reputation to be really smart and really tough El Gobashy..also in my opinion the class is biased toward the Israeli-US side which would be fine wasnt there the claim that the class was neutral and there are NO conflict resolution mechanisms etc. taught whatsoever--it is basically a history course (and there we should go to khalidi and the history department)...I dont recommend this class at all..even if the grading was super lenient the lectures are too painful to get through..

standard. readings are medium-heaviness, but you can get away without doing all of them if you know anything about the region until exams. midterm - take home, two papers each 1000 words, questions well in advance. final, 3 hours, in class, one long essay (1000, can be take home), two mini essays, two role plays, two quotations from the reading. heavy reliance on discussion board online for debate and extra credit-easily got. grading is fairly easy, and she tells you the finals questions (gives you a list of possiblities) long before (and constantly reassures you about them). not hard.

First, if you are interested in conflict resolution, look elsewhere-this is really just a slightly confused overview of the middle eastern region, history and politics. Also, try el-ghobashy (fall) or Khalidi (spring) instead if you want a more rigorous introductory look at the region. The structure of the course: first half was a week-by-week look at different countries of the middle east. second half was on the israeli-palestinian dispute. Readings are a selection from main texts and coursepacks. In general they are pretty flimsy; a few are good, but many are a bit pointless or really lacking in information, depth or interest-value. Some people struggled because they had no background work on the area and couldn't manage to write the midterm or final without extra reading to provide background and depth. Weinberger is absolutely lovely and friendly, and tries to make it all exciting, but the class often feels like high school and the paper topics on the midterm and all the final topics were poorly structured. If you want a brief glimpse into the region, the class is fine, if you want anything intellectually challenging or thought provoking, avoid. She begins every class telling you how unbiased she is and we must be, which really means the vast majority of the material on israel-palestine is presented from the standard US israel-sympathetic perspective. This is fine, and har…

Just pay attention in class and you'll do fine. There is a whole lot of reading, but she realizes you can't do it all. Take it from me though: you should start reading early, because it adds a whole new dimension to the course.

THE COURSE to take if you want to know anything about the Middle East. Period. The degree of fairness and impartiality that Dr. Weinberger brings to the table is outstanding, and certainly refreshing in light of the outspoken bias of other professors at the University. She brings all views to bare, careful to point out the biases, and her entire goal (as she states numerous times) is to get you to a point when you'll be able to think for yourself. I would even venture to say that she is the best prof you could take on the field.