PLCP 2420

I enjoyed this class a lot and the prof cared a lot about students. Class was divided into small groups and was assigned a group project. I actually enjoyed the group project. Essay topics are covered in class and good feedback is given. Readings are very long and there is a discussion post for each one. There is a lot of work but it is manageable. Extra credit opportunities are given. The prof has a passion for graphic design. #tCFS24

Echeverri-Gent's class is fine. I mirror a lot of the notes here: large lecture hall, long readings, and lectures are not all that engaging. This class being a comparative politics class also doesn't help either since it really does belong in political theory (and there are much more engaging CP classes you can take to fulfill politics requirements).

That being said, if you are interested in the following writers and want a survey of their ideas, I do recommend this class: Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Charles Tilly, Michel Foucault. There are some other authors discussed, but they are neither given much attention in lecture nor are they all that interesting either. At it's heart, this is a survey class: you are not engaging all that far into these author's ideas, and if you have no experience with any of them, Echeverri-Gent has some good lectures to translate their archaic prose into something that's workable for an essay.

Finally, the professor is a bit meh in lecture, but he is a really kind person. I went to his office hours a few times and he is a pretty approachable person and I didn't find it all that difficult to communicate with him. Generally, I recommend this class if you want an introduction to a lot of theorist's ideas on about 'modernity,' but if you are a) very busy, b) don't want to read 60-100 pages a week, c) are already familiar with these thinkers, I cannot recommend this class. #tCFS24

Honestly this course is more of a theory class in my opinion but an A-/A is achievable. Going to office hours really helps with understanding what he expects and the material. There is graded attendance but the lectures are helpful for understanding the readings. As long as you pay attention in lecture and have some quotes from the readings on hand you'll get a good grade on your essays. The Professor is actually a pretty nice guy and is honest about the readings -- you don't have to read everything just only focus on the important parts of the readings and it shouldn't take more than 1.5 hrs/reading. The discussion posts are your only "homework" but are low stress as long as they relate to the reading well. Course is graded on 3 essays and a group movie project -- as long as you pay attention in class you'll do well.

I will preface this by saying that this course is a lot of work, and honestly should not be a 2000 level class. There is a lot of reading involved, and you have to write discussion posts before every class. At the time I took it, attendance was taken and mandatory, but this honestly lessens the 'burden' of active participation when you're thinking about your final grade. However, I do think it gave me an excellent Western political theory foundation which has helped me IMMENSELY in many of my other politics classes. I would definitely recommend to politics majors or those interested in reading more theory; the professor breaks it down for you really well. He also posts all the lecture slides, and there are no exams, just papers. Once you get used to the discussion posts and readings, this class becomes a lot more manageable, and I have truly found it valuable.

This course should not be considered a comparative politics course, and I fail to understand why it is classified as such. The class is western theory-heavy, primarily focusing on Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Foucault. The course structure, expectations, and grading were rigid in ways that are not typically reflective of a 2000-level course at UVA. Unlike most classes that require multiple papers, Professor Echeverri-Gent refused to provide any guidance on prompts, review outlines, or provide any transparency on his preferred paper structure and organization. He also grades quite harshly, focusing on minutiae that no one can anticipate unless one can read minds. The stringent grading of discussion responses did not promote any genuine analysis or interaction with readings. There are good politics classes to take at UVA. This is not one of them. Drop it while you can.

I don't really understand how this is a comparative politics course, and I would probably avoid taking it if I could again! Professor Echeverri-Gent is nice, and a great professor to ask questions, but the class is pretty dry. There are some movies which are used to connect to different concepts covered in class and those are fun, but otherwise I found the class unnecessarily complicated. I don't think I'd recommend this class, unless you want to take a class that makes other politics courses seem really interesting and engaging. Additionally, the professor wasn't understanding of many issues students took with the course and I found the rigidity, especially during a semester with lots of changes to rules and a pandemic still going on, pretty disappointing. The reading response questions feel forced, and I really struggled to keep motivation to keep up with the course.

This class is not bad if you apply yourself and take in what the professor was saying. I feel like a lot of people I met in this class had a tough time, partly due to the fact that they never showed up. Attendance seems unnecessary but coming to class everyday and taking notes will give you that push from a B+ to an A-. While this class is a lot of work, there are no exams and he is a lenient grader when it comes to participation. There are a total of three papers and one group project (video project) which were not all that bad. Take this class if you are a politics major and want to know/are good at theory.

This class is great if you are the kind of person who doesn't get anxious about talking in front of people. Echeverri-Gent is a nice guy and is exceptionally knowledgable about political theorists such as Marx and Weber but does a terrible job relaying the information, so he can also come across a little judgy when you don't understand or get a question wrong. Most days the readings are well over 100 pages, and rather than reviewing them and making sure the essential points come across, he makes you discuss in groups with people who also were not able to complete the extensive readings. By the time the first paper came around, many students, including myself, were so lost that we did not even know where to begin. I eventually withdrew from this class which has been the smartest decision I've made so far at UVA.

There are three essays in this class, no final, and participation grades based on attendance and forum posts. This class is good if you want to read a lot of theory (Marx, Durkheim, etc.), however I wouldn't say it should really count as a comparative politics class because it's all European writers. The reading can be very extensive and dry, but if you try to get the gist of what's going on, he is pretty good at explaining the concepts in class. The only issue i really had was that most class periods, we were just lectured at for 75 minutes, which could get pretty tiresome. I feel like I learned a lot from this class and he isn't a super tough grader, so I would recommend for those who are interested in politics.

I sort of went into this class blind because there weren't any reviews, but it was a pretty interesting class. The set-up of the class was pretty unusual for such a big lecture--we were split up into groups of around 6-7 people based on a Myers Briggs test and sat in circular tables with our groups everyday. Professor Echeverri-Gent built in discussion time during the class where we had to talk about the readings with our groups. I ended up really liking the "active learning" part of the class but he does do cold calls occasionally which is stressful if you didn't finish the readings. This class was A LOT of work!! We had to submit a question by 9pm the night before each lecture based on the readings from Marx, Durkheim, Foucault, Weber, etc.. These readings were super dense would take forever to read/understand. I had a lot of late classes and there was just not enough time to do all the readings before submitting the questions. These questions were graded on a scale of 1-8 and it was very hard ( almost impossible) to get full credit and most people would get between 5-7. This was frustrating because there weren't any guidelines for what to include in the questions so it was hard to write better ones. We also had to write 2 midterm papers and a longer paper due during finals week. I spent FOREVER on these papers but I ended up doing well on them (I got A-s on both) Basically, as long as you take a lot of notes in class and pull good quotes from the readings, you can do well on the papers. Even though this was a hard class, I'm glad I took it because it was very important to me that I have a background in the writers we studied for other classes going forward. The professor genuinely tried to make the class fun and engaging and even assigned a fun video/podcast group project to do which I enjoyed. Overall I would recommend this class, but only if you are prepared to put in the time and do most of the readings.