AmateurNerd

My personal favorite is Philip Converse's "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics." Ever wonder why people vote for Democrats one year, Republicans the next, then Democrats again? It's because a whole lot of people have no real political convictions at all!

This is the problem with TFA. TFA is a vehicle for 21- and 22-year-olds to break into politics, and/or grad school; it is NOT a quality teacher-preparation program. Real teachers (not the well-meaning but untrained pseudo-teachers churned out by TFA) generally say that it takes several years to become truly competent at teaching, and many more to be considered "good" or "great." TFA makes a mockery of the teaching profession by placing its pseudo-teachers into classrooms after just a few weeks of "training." The fact that TFA measures its pseudo-teachers' performance via the amount of improvement their students show on standardized exams is just icing on the B.S. cake. Stay away from TFA if you honestly care about being a good teacher--TFA will not give you the preparation you need to succeed at the head of the classroom, and its political agenda undermines the work that committed teachers do. TFA's done a great job marketing itself, but it is a sham and and embarrassment to teaching. Would you give someone a white coat and call them a doctor after a few months of med school, and let them perform surgery?

Thanks for the info! What is your subject emphasis? (Elementary, Single [science, math, etc.]). Any idea how competitive/selective the process is? I attended an information session but that part was not discussed. Of course, knowing the selectivity of the program will not help me at this point, but hey, morbid curiosity!

As a former poli sci PhD student, I'd like to add to this discussion. In my experience as both a poli sci undergrad and grad, the difference between undergraduate political science and graduate/PhD political science is so great that, pratically speaking, the two are entirely different fields. At the undergrad level, poli sci is basically a mix of history, philosophy, and current events. Some institutions include a token course in "methodology" which is basically introductory statistics, but by and large quantitative training is entirely absent. In contrast, poli sci at the grad/PhD level is dominated by quantitative methods and formal theories. It bears zero resemblance to undergrad poli sci. To be successful in poli sci, a grad student is better off having undergrad training in economics, mathematics, and/or computer science. I asked one of my grad school profs why undergrad poli sci programs tend to avoid quant, and his response basically boiled down to this: Many (if not most) poli sci undergrads are actually interested in law, education, or "politics" (not poli sci) as career fields, so were departments to add quant training at the undergrad level, they would lose lots of math-averse undergrads to the other social sciences and the humanities. Fewer undergrads = less funding = less influence/prestige.

I applied to UC Davis and CSU-Sacramento; they are local and I have a family, so moving isn't an option. Does anybody know how long the application review process usually takes at either/both of these schools? UCD's admissions are rolling; CSUS's deadline is March 1. I submitted both within the last 2 weeks. (Couldn't turn in my apps until I got more classroom observation hours, which took awhile b/c I have a full time job.)

I did not apply to Berkeley, but I did apply to UC Davis's MA/credential program. Does anybody know how long the review/decision process usually takes at UCD? It is rolling admissions, and I just submitted my application this weekend. I know there is an interview involved. Thanks for any input you can provide!