Nadia Urbinati

Many students (myself included) went into this course expecting to encounter a diverse cast of political theorists, engaging discussion, and a critical, modern lens in the study of political theory. I was disappointed to discover that many of these aspects were sorely lacking. Professor Urbinati is a brilliant scholar on populism and other modern aspects of political science, but none of this comes out in her lectures–which are instead long-winded, repetitive, and serve only to summarize each theorist's writings rather than critique them or make connections to modern issues. As a result, the readings are seldom engaging. Discussion sections led by TAs are a bright spot, since they essentially force you to participate and give you some freedom to engage with the texts on your own terms. Essays (which make up the bulk of your grade) are straightforward and TAs are more than willing to help if you ask. TLDR: subpar lectures and readings BUT good discussions and very manageable assignments (become friends with your TA!)

I really enjoyed this class. Urbinati is an engaging lecturer and the TAs were fair graders. Readings were reasonable. I learned a lot. Great to take in conjunction with CC. Urbinati's accent and way of phrasing things is a little difficult to understand sometimes but not prohibitory (although keep in mind I'm a native english speaker so if your not as used to english or have auditory processing issues this might not be great for you).

In a sentence: this course was the worst course anyone could ever take at Columbia, in my opinion as a Senior. Because we are taught about checks, balances, and accountability, it is my duty to write this review. The Professor knows her content, but there is no structure whatsoever to the lectures. It is just a long train of thought recited in a loud, repressive voice. Whenever students raise their hands, they are promptly interrupted, their question preempted by "I know exactly what you're going to say. Stop right there." As a result, no one asks questions anymore. Office hours are intimidating, often beginning with: "have you even done the readings?" After more than five minutes, it is "next!" As a result, no one goes anymore. As for the syllabus? The most ambitious and vague I have ever seen. It is essentially an extended and unfeasible repeat of CC. Finally, don't expect to get an A. "No one gets an A." Essays are graded with no explicit standards, requirements are arbitrary, and we are encouraged to *not* cite the books we read, only to summarize what we heard in lecture. This course was anti-intellectual in its essence. *Sciences Po students: this is a repeat of what we learned in France, don't do it.*

Urbinati embodies the problem with a lot of professors at institutions like Columbia. Yes, she is extremely knowledgeable and well-respected in her field. However, she is a horrible professor and lecturer. Her lectures are disorganized and confusing, she often goes on long, seemingly disassociated tangents and never really does a good job of fully answering student's questions. She has clearly spent a lot of time studying political theory, but she literally can't communicate her ideas clearly. If you have to take one of her classes for a requirement, prepare yourself for a bumpy semester.

The last review for Urbinati's rendition of CC is pretty much spot on. First to note, and of extreme importance for such a small class, is that she really shows almost no concern for students. She loves to take attendance religiously, either passing around a list or glancing around the room, during which she frequently marks a student here who is absent, or vice versa, and when someone points out her mistake, more than once I've heard her mutter some excuse and pretend that she actually knows which face goes with which name. Under these circumstances one would expect class participation to be meager enough, but there's more: you get about 6 seconds to make your point before she cuts you off, and a huge amount of the time she completely misses the boat and the student is faced with the uncomfortable and absurd choice of either shutting up, or continuing to press her patience. Even in the latter case, it's usually a lost cause. One time I remember going to her office hours after she gave them in class. She seemed shocked to see me, and asked me, incredulously, if I hadn't seen the e-mail she set adjusting her hours. Two problems with that: first, the e-mail had been sent about twenty minutes before I got there, which is obviously far too little notice. But secondly, as I later discovered, in the e-mail she had curtailed her hours to end at some time that was still some fifteen m…

This class is amazing. Prof. Urbinati is brilliant and an enthusiastic lecturer. She's very intense in her lectures, but that doesn't mean that she doesn't want any give-and-take in terms of class discussion. Her lectures, without being exegetical, helped me understand the readings far more than I ever thought I could, and whenever I take on a new reading, it's always easier to understand and FAR more interesting than I ever thought it could be. I've never found her to be unapproachable, but even if she does come across as such, don't be afraid to go talk to her in office hours. It's definitely worth it.

If you are intelligent, serious, and tremendously interested in political theory, then do not listen to the other reviews. They're all right about one thing. Nadia knows her shit. In fact, she is one of the most well-respected teachers by the graduate students. Her passion is political theory, and it shows. She is intense. There is no bullshit with Nadia. She won't baby you. They're right--don't expect her to teach you how to write or read political theory. Don't take the class unless you can do these things already. What you can expect from Nadia are lectures that will keep your attention (yes she talks in an extremely loud voice, as a result of her intensity) and a comprehensive syllabus that introduces you to the vast array of aspects and problems in democratic theory. Yes, she is self-absorbed, and doesn't seem to have a lot of time for her students, but if you do the reading, and make an effort to show your interest, she will make the time for you. In other words, even if it doesn't seem like you're welcome at her office hours, go anyway. Sometimes, it's like pulling teeth with Nadia. But the rewards are worth the effort. She is actually a very sweet woman. Her knowledge, intelligence, and passion for what she does have greatly inspired me; she is in no way the traditional "good teacher", but for a student who is serious about political theory, she is about as good as it…

Professor Urbinati was honestly not that bad. The Culpa reviews scared me, but Political Theory ended up being one of my favorite classes this semester. Her lectures can be a bit convoluted (and the accent can be hard to understand, especially for non-native English speakers), but she obviously knows what she's talking about. She has a fun personality and does a good job of integrating questions into the lecture. The class is also very TA-dependent. I happened to have a wonderful TA who graded fairly and helped summarize the readings.

When she gives you the booklist, you will be shocked. It lists 20 books but don't despair. Most of the reading are short essays or sections from those books. I got by without buying any of the books because most of the assigned reading can be found online or through Columbia's e-books. The lectures are hard to understand at times because of her accent but if you go to each class, there is really no need to do all the reading because she gives a very comprehensive overview of each texts in class. She, or her TA, whoever grades, does not grade hard at all. She likes simple, straight to the point essays for the midterm and final and also for the one paper she assigns. It is a boring class but if you are really interested in the history of democracy, then this is the class for you.

I don't understand why Columbia keeps her. She is horrible, she does not teach, does not care about her students, has a freaking attitude when you ask her a question and is awfully rude. NO one cares if she is very smart or not, the problem is that she is in a place where students seek knowledge and she can't give one. Her smartness does not help if she is not productive and on top of that so obvious in not caring about her students. It feels as being cheated, since you pay for the class and you get nothing, absolutely nothing besides being frustrated and nerve racked about the whole thing. One advise if you get her class make sure at least you have a distant TA, she had Camila Vergales or smth don't remember her last name - she was even worse than Urbinati, Oh my God, every time you would answer her question it felt as if she is competing with you, she was never satisfied, and yea her accent does not make it easy, she speaks a foreign English, you don't get what she says either because of it or because she can't explain. She makes things more complicated than they are. It is a joke this class was 100 level and it taught political theories, how hard can that be but no wait you have "smart" Urbinati and her puppet TA Camila making this class a freaking disaster. This class is not worth a penny, don't forget that the money you pay goes into their paycheck, so save your time and…