Letters to the Editor

To the Editor:

Thank you for your story describing the proposed changes to the political… To the Editor:

Thank you for your story describing the proposed changes to the political science major. There are just a few points of correction and clarification that might be useful for students who are currently majoring in political science or who are considering the major. First, the new requirements will apply to all students who declare the major after this semester (not just to freshmen and sophomores, as reported). Students who are already declared majors will have the option of completing the “old” degree or the “new” one. Second, the criteria for an honors degree in political science will be a 3.5 QPA overall and a 3.7 in the major (not a 3.0 and 3.7, as reported). Third, the departmental capstone seminars, which will satisfy the writing requirement for our majors, will not necessarily require papers of 20 to 25 pages in length (though some will). The requirement is that students write a total of at least 20 pages in the course, and that they have the opportunity to revise at least some of that work. While a long paper is one way to satisfy that requirement, it is not the only way.

Finally, the article left unclear that in place of our honors program we have created a new degree program, the bachelor of science in political science. This degree is tailored for outstanding students with interests in the formal or quantitative study of political science and will make an excellent course of study for anyone pursuing graduate studies. For outstanding students whose interests are more qualitative or normative in nature, we will be working with the University Honors College to advise and encourage students to pursue the bachelor of philosophy in political science. Again, this degree provides excellent preparation for graduate study.

Sincerely, Michael Goodhart, associate professor Director of Undergraduate Studies Department of Political Science

Dear Editor,

Gregg Schell’s column “Liberal gasoline proposals defy economic theory” is a patronizing one, filled with sweeping generalizations and unfounded beliefs. The author is under the impression that, after reviewing the opinions of two Democrats and one environmental group, the entire “liberal wing” of this country is trying to hurt the American consumer by raising gasoline prices.

Although his fundamental economic theory is correct, the statement “the government can raise gasoline taxes steeply without causing too great a decrease in consumption” has no supporting evidence. To be sure, Europe’s gasoline prices are much higher than ours, and the result is significantly less consumption on their part.

In contrast with what the author believes, the liberal ideology generally seeks to support those who are affected by particular government policies. To suggest that they – every liberal in America – want to raise gasoline prices to promote their own agenda is not only an inaccurate assessment but an irresponsible one, too.

Andy Madden School of Arts and Sciences