<p>Note: The professor for this semester is Katzenstein.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Do I need to be really well-versed in current events in order to do well in the class? Unfortunately, I have (fairly huge) holes in my awareness of current events, and that was part of the reason why I wanted to take this class. But after attending the first class, I feel like a lot of what was talked about in the open-mic session went over my head - is it still possible to do well in the course? (not decently, but well)</p></li>
<li><p>What are the discussion sections like? I'm shy, so I'm kind of worried about participation, especially if, as I was wondering before, we have to link back to current events. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>I've heard such wonderful things about this class and the professor, that I would really like to take it in spite of the huge amount of work required, and despite (probably) not being a Govt major. Any thoughts?</p>
<p>Don’t drop a class with Katzenstein. You will only regret it. I didn’t take 1817 with Katzenstein (I had Kirshner, who was also fantastic), but I did take his 300-level international political economy course. Katzenstein is tough and I’m not sure of the current events requirements for that class, but if you read the headlines once a day you’ll be ahead of the curve. You don’t even need to read the articles, just have a general sense of what’s going on. In his upper level class, he only tested us on articles he gave us, so I can’t imagine it being different for his intro class.</p>
<p>Discussion sections are to generally go over the material, as you would expect. Usually you’ll review the readings of the week. You don’t have to be super-talkative, but show up and seem attentive. Make it your goal to speak up once per section. I think you’ll find talking about something in class (or even making an attempt, even if poor), will give you a better grasp of the material.</p>