Jeffrey Stacey

As one of very few who attended every one of his classes, I can safely say that I actually learned quite a bit from Professor Stacey. His lectures aren't entertaining, but they are interesting and useful. He is not near as bad as most of the reviewers claim he is - they probably only went to half his classes anyway. I would recommend him.

One of the most ridiculously awful professors I've ever had. Some of the readings on theory from the first two or three weeks were interesting, but many of the readings he assigns (which were often not put made available on CourseWorks or in the Reserve Library until a week or two after they were assigned) are redundant and completely inane. He managed to waste eighty-five minutes twice each week transcribing an outline on the board that was always completely worthless. He spent most of the time writing up "definitions" on the board that meant absolutely nothing. His grasp of the material (which is fairly basic) was less than impressive--his lectures were almost always simplistic and ignored the more nuanced treatment of material in the readings. When all three TAs obviously know much more than the professor, something is wrong. This really is the worst class I've ever taken (either at Columbia or even back in high school), and what little I came away with was no thanks to Professor Stacey.

Professor Stacey is a new professor, which is the only explanation I can think of for his poor performance as the instructor of International Politics. He took an interesting subject, and managed to make it dull through his teaching style. The policy simulations were overall useless, although in the end, I feel that I have gained a lot of knowledge about the subject matter.

After receiving a class-wide e-mail from Prof. Stacey yesterday that thanked us "for the many nice comments," a classmate IMed me and asked, "Who gave nice comments? Were they deaf?" Hands down, Professor Stacey was the worst professor I've ever had! His lectures are dry summaries of the readings, which he often can't even get straight. His answers to simple questions turn into vague ramblings on obscure topics as he tries to circumvent questions he can't answer. The first day, I knew the class would be bad! He arrogantly assumes that all students are up to date on international current events and are familiar with unimportant international politics abbreviations such as WTO, GDP, and ITC. He only caters to the typical nerdy Columbia student, while forgetting those of us he don't spend our weekends with our noses in the Wall Street Journal or the latest copy of the Economist. Furthermore, he pompously assumes that all students plagiarize and seems to go out of his way to accuse, if not catch, students of being "involved in dishonesty." His constant warnings against plagiarism leave students bewildered about the presence of some level of trust that seems to be required for a successful learning environment. He tries unsuccessfully to get to know his students by inviting them to attend political lectures and events with him, but the invitations stop coming after the first few we…

Upon reflection, this was one of the most important classes I've taken at CU. It certainly was challenging, and Professor Stacey expects a lot. But he rewards those who attend class by both giving exams that pick up on his worthwhile lectures AND spicing up IR theory. The policy-making simulations were the most interesting, but I was most impressed by the things Professor Stacey talked about to illustrate points on the board, tying in current events, new developments, and recent trends and the like. Or just riffing on things, like the day he used examples from Thucydides' Melian Dialogue and Sparta's decision to go to war with Athens. I asked him about it later, because he didn't lecture about it or assign readings on it. I couldn't believe he just plucked it out of the air and broke down some highly complex events in a digestible - and funny - manner, way better than an earlier class in which a prof lectured a lot on such material (THAT is what makes challenging classes worthwhile).

I generally agree with the majority of the comments made about Prof Stacey, although I think he is well-meaning, conscious that his job includes teaching students (and is not just a distraction from his research), and by the last couple classes he improved a bit, simply in how he conducted class. This may mean that as he gains more experience (this was his first year), he'll get better.

The reviews here have gotten a little sketchy, I'm not quite sure what's up, but here's what I think. Towards the beginning of the class I was very excited: Stacey somehow managed to keep us involved despite the great number of people attending, he related things back to current events, and he seemed to have a great understanding of the material. However, by the middle of the semester, it had become clear that Stacey wasn't the perfect teacher. His lectures often got boring. They sometimes seemed like summaries of one of the articles from the course readings. He would ramble off topic for up to 10 minutes. Although he could usually answer the hard questions, he often couldn't explain simple topics sufficiently. (On the other hand, in most classes of that size, I doubt the professor would allow the kids to ask so many questions. Still, when he didn't know the answer, he would ramble about something else, leaving us all confused). I have no idea why everyone was so delighted with the policy simulations. The JFK one was interesting, but I'm going to have to take some of the comments people left on it as a joke. While it showed that one day in the future he could be an excellent teacher, it wasn't 75 minutes of pure bliss. The lessons in the final part of the semester were excellent. If google is right, the subjects he covered (globalization/North-South relations/EU) were his area…

I wrote a review here several months ago, but I wanted to put in one final word on what I believe happened this semester in Intro. to International Politics. Professor Stacey, a very intelligent man but a tragically inexperienced teacher, initially taught his class in a boring and derivative manner. Cynicism and apathy welled within the students taking the class (yes, I attended almost all of the lectures and listened during class, and yes, I still hated being there). A few of these students wrote unfavorable, and sometimes scathing and unproductive, reviews on CULPA. An article in the "Spectator" mentioned these reviews and was read by everyone in the class. Professor Stacey, I believe, also read this article and the CULPA reviews, but he remained completely calm and upbeat in the face of this rather sudden (and, I add now, inappropriate) assault. He took it in the best, most mature way possible: he simply made his class more interesting. The last three classes were truly fun. After attending these three classes and reading the article in the Spec, students (at least those I talked to) felt tremendously guilty. Perhaps as a way to expurgate this guilt, they posted absolutely gushing over-the-top rave reviews on CULPA that condemned those students who had written the initial scathing reviews, even though nearly everyone, EVERYONE I talked to early in the semester was dissatisf…

Often, it is only at the end of the semester that one is able to accurately appraise a professor. I understand the negative reviews that have been posted over the course of this semester. They have attacked Stacey's teaching style, personality, and intellect, and for much of the semester I would have agreed with them. I didn't like him and I didn't like his style. Still, I find now that I have learned a great deal more than I have in many classes I've enjoyed more, and for that I am grateful. The measure of the course should not be how lenient the grading was or how entertaining the lectures were but rather how much the student is able to take away at the end of the semester. I thank Professor Stacey for doing his best to bring a large body of material across to his students, and I commend him for being an extremely effective teacher. The class wasn't fun, but that's not what it's for. As a side note - some of the reviews have attacked Stacey for an inadequate understanding of international politics and for holding to a particular point of view in the face of the student criticism. To these reviewers: 1. You are an undergraduate. Read Stacey's CV - he knows what he's talking about. 2. Anyone who has ever taught can appreciate the difficulties of dealing with pretentious students more interested in proving their own intelligence than in learning something. In an introductory co…

Ok, I'm not quite sure what wacky CULPA drama has been going on, but all these Stacey reviews are ridiculous. I doubt there are even this many people qualified enough to review him since almost no one even came to lectures. However, as someone who did, I can tell you that (Professor) Stacey is a mediocre teacher-- inexpereinced and arrogant, but with very interesting material and readings to back him up. Anyone who thinks this is the best class at Columbia has been taking the wrong classes, although there isn't a huge range of grades (B to A- mostly) and Stacey does work to tie in current events (although sometimes odd, vague ones). So, if you have an interest (and some prior knowledge) in international politics, plus a fascination with theories, go ahead and take Stacey's class. You won't be on the edge of your seat during lectures (actually, you probably won't show cause everything is takehome), but it takes care of the poli sci intro requirement. Overall, good subject matter with a poor professor -- take your chances. Oh and my TA kicked ass, which make all the difference since they grade everything and re-explain his lectures for those who don't show up (or those who did and were still lost).