PLCP 3410

JSW knows his material and he also seems deeply involved in the topic. That said, he does not broadcast this at all and shows very little passion during lectures which makes them hard to follow, especially if you're taking notes on a computer. Before I outline a list to rate this course want to say this: Kubinec is a fantastic TA and discussion leader providing both nuance and a deeper understanding of the topic.

1. Difficulty: I wouldn't say that this class is terribly difficult. I did pretty well with almost no background in Middle Eastern studies and the material usually isn't very difficult to grasp (There are some notable exceptions). The reason I gave it a 3 for difficulty has more to do with the workload than with the actual difficulty.

2. Workload: Here's my issue with this class, while it's usually relatively easy to understand the material, the amount of reading assigned is beyond absurd. There are weeks, I kid you not, when you're assigned 300 pages of reading. A good week will be 80-100 and those are far and few between.This will also require you to buy six books (two textbooks and four non-fiction country specific ones). However, the amount of regular reading does not end there as you have to read a seventh book, a novel of your choosing and write a response to it. The response essay is not too bad, but it means an additional 50-ish pages a week if you spread it out as he only gives out the novel titles several weeks into the course.

3. The exams: The study guide is absurdly long. Basically he gives you upwards of 50-60 "IDs" (different terms for the midterm and the final) as in terms you have to know for the exam, but only 15 or so will be on it (six for the midterm). These terms are not defined which mean's you'll be doing that and there's no template ID to illustrate what he's looking for so at best it's a shot in the dark. If you're like me this means that you go overboard on the definition and end up spending 20 hours on a study guide that's only worth about 25% of the test grade, meaning less time to study more consequential matters such as country trajectories etc. The structure of the exam also means that if you skipped readings in the country-specific books (you can skip the textbook readings if you go to lecture) you're finished as you'll have to know all those books since there'll be response essays on the exam. So in short, you'll have to know obscure arguments from several readings and terms that may only be mentioned once or twice that are sometimes incredibly difficult to locate as they don't always appear in indexes.

4. The essays: The novel one isn't that bad. You basically read a novel and respond to the arguments that are made in it. The reason I dislike it is because it adds more work to a class that already assigns too much. The second essay is poorly structured: Again it's not that difficult just overwhelming. You basically have to do a week's worth of reading (we're talking 100-300 pages here), OVER THE WEEKEND, write an essay and turn it in on Monday before the lecture starts. I argue that this is a terrible way to structure the assignment as it adds a tremendous amount of stress to a class that is already making your overall workload a living hell.

5. As I mentioned. Professor JSW doesn't show a hint of passion or interest making it very difficult to pay attention.

That said you will learn a tremendous amount about the Middle East so if you are absolutely fascinated with the region and maybe taking a reduced course load, you might consider it. Otherwise I can't recommend this course in good conscience. The sheer amount of reading and the uninteresting lectures make for an unattractive combination.
I urge anyone reading this to heed the warnings. Coming from a competitive high school I was convinced that people were just complaining about the reading and that it wouldn't be that bad, they weren't and it is. DO NOT take it to simply fulfill the non-western/social sciences requirement, even if you get a good grade it's just not worth the effort.

Like everyone else has stated, this class isn't well structured and ridiculous given the amount of reading and nature of assignments. If you do have to take this class (Middle Eastern studies major or something like that) then TAKE HIME 2002 FIRST. It will make your life SO MUCH BETTER. You have a better look into what's going on in each country historically and it's much easier to get a firmer grasp on everything on the political stage. BONUS, the use the same main textbook for general background info. I took PLCP 3410 in the fall and HIME 2002 the following spring and my grade and overall experience in the class would have been so much better if I had switched it up.

Yeah this guy was not a good lecturer. At all. He was ridiculously dry and boring. He also graded the class on a bell curve which just freaked everyone out. Would not recommend.

Only take this class if you have an interest in foreign policy and international relations, particularly with the Middle East. I loved this class because I found the material fascinating -- a brand-new perspective on international politics. Jonah, however, was very dry and difficult to pay attention to during class...so beware. Overall though I found it incredibly worthwhile because of how interesting material was. Mostly writing-based. #‎tcf2016‬

Do not take this class if Schulhoffer-Wohl is teaching it. Just don't. His reading list is insanely long. His lectures do not even cover the material that you read, although you have to know all of it for the tests. Our lectures were spent mostly watching YouTube videos of the Middle East. Sometimes he tried to turn a class with 100 people into a massive discussion, and (as you can imagine) it was chaos. You have to write 2 papers during the course, one on a movie and one on a book--those were okay and decently graded. The man's tests are completely unreasonable in their scope--not to mention brutally long. The only redeeming thing about the class was that it counted for a non-Western perspective credit. Also the guest lectures were amazing: one guy was a former IDF soldier talking about Israel and partition, and the other was an Islam religious studies professor talking about modern notions of jihad--truly phenomenal, both of them.

Professor Schulhofer-Wohl is an outstanding professor. He is incredibly knowledgeable and well-informed on current international conflicts and news. He is probably one of the most impressive professors I've had. If you are genuinely interested in the Middle East and North Africa, US foreign policy and counterterrorism initiatives, civil wars, political conflict, religious and ethnic conflict, MENA languages and cultures, foreign film and literature, or comparative politics in general, I highly recommend this class. As mentioned by several other reviewers, this class is reading intensive, and at some points the reading load may seem insurmountable; however, the readings were mostly very interesting, important, enriching, and valuable. This is a professor that has extensive research experience, and really provides his students with an abundance of knowledge on pertinent topics, global issues, and international relations. The information I have learned in this course has truly resonated and has contributed to my success in several other courses and beyond the classroom. If you want to learn about this material, you will enjoy this class, and you will do well.
Professor Schulhofer-Wohl also manages to provide a seemingly unbiased approach, which is refreshing when constantly bombarded with polarizing perspectives. The paper topics are fun but not frivolous. His guidance and feedback is genuine and helpful, and whenever I have expressed confusion, self-doubt, or just been a flat-out mess he has treated me with kindness, respect, support, and sincerity. He is an extremely fair grader which means that there is no room for bitterness; you get what you earn. This course is not easy, which is what makes it highly rewarding.

I came from a community college where courses were much easier than S-Wohl's so take this with a grain of salt. I will admit he is an outstanding professor in terms of knowledge and passion on the subject of comparative politics, but this is not a class i would recommend to someone. It almost felt as if i was in a history class the entire time. He assigned hundreds of pages of dense, dry reading material for every class and we had debates and discussions every Wednesday that pertained to the reading. If you didn't do the reading, you would just sounds like an idiot with your 3-person group discussion or during debates. I ended up with a B in the class, but i had to work for it. There is a lot more i could discuss, but it would be unfair to S-Wohl because there are plenty of people out there who, if they thoroughly enjoy the subject, would love this class. He tries to make it fun during debates and even brought food on the last day for everyone. lastly, his grading scale is different from most professors in the university. He gives A's to the top 25% of students with the highest average at the end of the year, B's to the next 50%, and C's to the bottom 25% of students. Many would be attracted to this grading scale, but often times in a class like this, there are more than 1/4 of students who can receive an A because there are so few graded assessments and assignments.