PLAP 3500

This class was a disaster... contrary to how it was marketed this class is not focussed on the current elections and does not foster bipartisan understanding or effective political dialog (it actually stifles it). Prof. Lawless was combative, condescending, and dismissive to students and her coprocessor (who often seemed unprepared or unaware). Exams and quizzes (there is one before every class) emphasized irrelevant trivia and side remarks over substantive content. When questions did address course material, they were often poorly worded, confusing, and occasionally inaccurate (points were never given back). The final assessment was a randomized 10 person group project to make a campaign ad and write a short memo in less than a week which was abstractly harshly graded "over a glass of wine" without any feedback. The only good things I can say about this class was that a few of the guest speakers were interesting and Lawless has done some interesting research (which she should stick to instead of teaching). You may think this class looks interesting and that it will be an A or A- but it is far from either. This was the worst class I have taken at UVA, and you should not make the same mistake I did.

This class is a joke. First, the syllabus: for a class marketed as "Election 2024" and which will be marketed as "Election 2028," this class had nothing to do with the 2024 election. It was a various smattering of random elections-related topics, most of which are well-known parts of the American electoral system. Only two or three lectures were actually about the 2024 election, of course a cycle with a lot of hard political news and greater undercurrents, both of which could fill a syllabus easily. Some of the political science readings could have tied in interestingly, but the non-textbook readings were poorly chosen and added nothing of learning value. The textbook, written by Lawless herself, and which she touts as a great resource, is formatted and reads like American Politics for 6th graders. You gain zero knowledge from it. Zero. Someone mentioned they can't believe what this class is like for upperclassmen Politics major -- this was the last class I had to take for the major -- and it was such an incredible waste of time that I came to view it as a mockery of the study of politics.

Next, the grading. The daily reading quizzes and exams, despite what Lawless claims, are most certainly written to trip you up. Remembering exact words from guest speakers serves no use. Lawless claims to write questions to promote close reading. From my experience with these readings, close reading will lead you to the opposite answer from what she wants. Daily reading quizzes, which are generally very black-and-white in other classes I've taken here, were very unpredictable. Furthermore, doing well on the exams is an impossible task. You can know everything there is to know about the 2024 election (which I'm sure many students did) and still do poorly. Likewise, her final grade round-up policy was completely arbitrary (among other things, it required doing better on the second midterm than the first, something which I imagine is very close to 50% just due to the randomness of the exams). The final project, making an ad and memo for a presidential candidate, but as others have noted, 10-person groups are unworkable, very little time is given for the project, and it is graded harshly with no feedback.

Lastly, Jennifer Lawless. It is not difficult to find a Jennifer Lawless critic around, and for good reason. Once again, as someone sympathetic to her views, I nonetheless could not stand her. She hogged lecture time from Professor Cary, and while I thought she was effective in standing up for her beliefs in arguments with Professor Cary, it was eminently clear to me that Professor Lawless does not care about either Professor Cary or the students. If you ask her even any minor question about the course, she gets extremely defensive and dismissive. In academic settings, she is highly unapproachable (and as a political scientist, very full of herself) and has zero lecturing ability. Being her student, particularly in a class this large, was an extremely unpleasant experience.

I am not personally a member of the Mary Kate Cary hype train, but she conducted herself admirably. It's clear she cares about the subject, and she deeply cares about the students, but she was just dragged into this class so Lawless can claim to teach a bipartisan class. If there is any value in the class, it would be with her, but it is entirely drowned out to the point where I cannot under any circumstances even suggest this class. This was a terrible semester of a terrible class controlled by a terrible professor.

I was really excited to take Election 2024 because I'm very interested in politics and assumed that it would provide thought-provoking, insightful discussion into current events. I'm sorry to say that I was disappointed with how the class turned out.

First of all, Professor Cary is lovely. I don't agree with a lot of her political views but she was always respectful and graceful in explaining her point of view, which I really appreciate and commend. I haven't taken any of her classes yet besides this one but I definitely plan on doing so in the future. She has vast political knowledge and experience; I would recommend taking one of her classes. Don't be scared away by her right-wing politics, she's a treat and you will learn a lot.

On the other hand, Professor Lawless is completely the opposite. Although I align with her more politically, I found myself wanting to disagree with her because of the combative and immature manner with which she approached class discussions. While Professor Cary was evidently trying to foster a bipartisan environment and start productive conversation where everyone was welcome to share their perspective, Professor Lawless constantly shut down her opinions and sometimes made the class atmosphere incredibly negative and uncomfortable. When one guest speaker started making some admittedly controversial statements, Professor Lawless visibly fumed and turned off her Zoom camera. Just unprofessional. Another review called her "embarrassing" as someone who shares a lot of similar views and I agree with this assessment.

The course content was pretty basic and seemed typical of an elementary politics course. I'm a second year but I can't imagine taking this course that's advertised as a 3000 level course as a third or fourth year politics major. The textbook readings were incredibly easy and the other readings were slightly more difficult and very dry. My major problem with this course was the manner of assessment. I don't know why Professor Lawless thinks that remembering a specific phrase that one guest speaker said once is a compelling way to test understanding and mastery of course content. I remember hearing from friends that previously took her courses that her exams were annoyingly specific and now I know what they meant. I understand creating specific test questions to encourage close reading and thorough note-taking, but these exams were a step too far. Basically, if you wrote down everything that a guest speaker said and memorized it, you could do well without actually understanding any of the broader political implications or takeaways. The midterm and final were both a matter of rote memorization not comprehensive understanding that probably suffocated the political enthusiasm of many students. This was extremely frustrating.

The final project was, in my opinion, a better test of understanding of course objectives and material. However, assigning groups of ten for a video and a memo was absurd. It was very difficult to divide work evenly, especially since the project was assigned right before Thanksgiving break and due the next week when everyone was not at school. All of the projects were shown back-to-back in class but I would appreciated if the professors had paused after each video and discussed it at least a little bit. They graded projects pretty harshly and provided no feedback whatsoever. Again, another great way of supporting your students and developing political expertise!

Overall, a poorly constructed and poorly run course. I think that shorter lectures and a discussion section would improve this class as it's hard to get a lot out of a lecture with 400 students. Professor Cary was respectful and knowledgeable, Professor Lawless was not. Needless to say my expectations and excitement for this course were not met.

This class was the best course I have ever taken at UVA and Professor Lawless is probably the best professor I have ever had. While some exam questions were very hard and specific, there were so many questions on the exams that you could still miss a good amount and do very well. Professor Lawless always made time to meet outside class to review any questions and was always very kind and helpful. I thought the readings for the class were very interesting, and the reading/class quizzes had unlimited time so you could go back and find the answers. Professor Lawless truly knows so much about American politics and was able to provide a lot of information I would never have been aware of going into this election cycle, and I really enjoyed the political engagement activities that were offered. Overall, I do not think the course was very challenging if you put in the work and go to lectures, and it was by far the most informative and rewarding class I have taken.

Do NOT take this class under any circumstances. Do NOT take any Lawless class under any circumstances. She is a total b****. She does not care for her students. She only wants to preach and then give exams asking the most random trivia questions. Continue reading if you’d like more specifics:

Professor Cary is one of my favorite professors at UVA, so I went into the class feeling optimistic. However, after seeing Professor Lawless teach, I wish I did not take this course. This class was supposed to be this one of a kind learning experience taught by both a democrat and a republican, but I felt like Lawless' combative and defensive nature contributed negatively to the course, and I did not get as much out of the class as I should have. The content was giving AP government energy combined with Lawless badgering Cary whenever Cary would share her opinion, which she has a full right to share and the class would love to hear. Lawless was embarrassing, and I say this as someone who shares the same political views.
I felt like the textbook was mostly common sense and would be insightful for a 101 government class but not necessarily a 3500. It was also written by Lawless and basically the same as the lecture content.
When lectures were not about the readings, we had speakers. I enjoyed learning from Margaret Brennan and Paul Begala for sure, but the speechwriting speakers were kind of a mess and we couldn’t hear them half of the time. Another note about the lectures - we would always have technical difficulties and start class late, which started to get annoying, so I would just plan on arriving late.
I think this class would have been better with more engaging projects rather than exams. All exam questions seemed to be class trivia rather than questions that would be helpful to know the answers to in our academic journeys or journeys in politics. I'd study hours and hours for exams and would get a question wrong because I did not remember if two speakers wrote for their college newspapers but I did remember why these speakers shared important and invaluable perspectives and what those perspectives were.
I am a very passionate politics student and was told to take this class by many. However, I was immensely disappointed in the nature of this class and do not think that the University should market it the way they have been doing. Professor Cary’s classes are wonderful and should be promoted, but Lawless was embarrassing in this class, and I’d urge students to not take it. Her arguing is insufferable. Her quiz and exam questions seem like they are written to trip people up. She talks about her weight ping ponging and why we should not buy luxury coats. She suppresses the voice of her republican counterpart. She urges us to set her up with a Democrat her age for a date because she is lonely. And, she does not prioritize what she should.

Once again, I am saying this all as someone who shares her views, Lawless is just this intolerable.

I took this in spring 2024 which was an aberration for two reasons. First, professor lawless gave a big boost to all grades because of the protests on grounds. She also says students commonly do better on the final than on the midterm but that wasn’t the case this time. Final was much harder. I still would have made the cutoff for the A without the extra points but it’s worth keeping those things in mind. I really liked Lawless’s personality so I didn’t the lectures were my favorite part of the class. Her class is weird though because half of the classes aren’t her lecturing but guests she brings in. These can be hit and miss and they’re on zoom so hard to stay focused with them. Also, I believe 10-15 percent of the grade was determined by attending political events or otherwise getting involved in politics outside of class. This can be incredibly annoying especially if you have to take time out of a difficult semester to attend such events. However abt 30% of the grade is based on attendance at these events and at class. Then roughly another 10 is determined by ridiculously easy quizzes that follow each class for 20 in total. It’s a class that is generous with points and shouldn’t be a problem for you as long as you don’t overlook the midterm and final, but you could really detest this class if you don’t mesh with the teacher and attending events. But you also really don’t have to do the readings either which is a plus