Extract of a lecture to a hundred students in the course "The Scope of Political Science" G53,1000, by Professor Alfred de Grazia, November, 1966 (laughter and groans omitted).

I said that I would deal with the curriculum of political science, and so I shall, talking first of the curriculum for the third and fourth year of college. Now newly appointed to the faculty of Red River University, (it used to be called Red River State Teacher's College, but is now a glass and stone mushroom of the University of California) we wonder what in the world we should teach to the hundreds of students who wish to major in political science. (Any resemblance between what we propose and the program of our own University, I trust you will observe, is strictly coincidental.)

We decide right off that we shall be very broad and shall build them up gradually for the awful descriptive detail that must come sooner or later in our discipline.

And first of all we would probably give them a course on Power in all its manifestations. Especially its manifestations in the state. For that we should probably use material such as Merriam's (Political power) Systematic Politics.1 Power should be analyzed as a factor in government as well as of government in particular universities, of labor unions, of churches and of other group as well as of government in particular. You may think that this is an old established sort of treatment, but still 80% of the Departments of Political Science in the country would look at you aghast if you suggested that political science be the study of power in all of its manifestations.

Only a few works and writers were mentioned in the talk. A formal list of 150 recommended works is in preparation.

However, you pluckily move along, you have not yet become bureaucratized, and suggest a set of courses to which you attach the label "political" but which deal really with the realm of the social sciences other than politics. Hence you suggest that there be a course on Political Anthropology. And this course on political anthropology would deal not only with the present day primitive tribes but with the origins of politics and would concern itself with works such as Sigmund Freud's Totem and Taboo. Is it true that authority originally consisted in the father of the horde, and that the brothers, when the father got weak enough, disposed of him and ate him? And that they introjected this cannibalism into their own souls and ever since have felt guilty about authority, etc.

Now you are really waking up your students with this course in political anthropology, and you give them Kluckholm's Mirror for Man to read. It is a fascinating as well as authoritative textbook in anthropology, Perhaps also some work such as Pritchard on African governments.

Then you would ask them to take a course on Political Geography.

There you would perhaps again introduce them to standard work in the field from the geographer's standpoint. N. Ginsburg's Atlas of Economic Development sets fourth all the dimension that the human geographer takes into account. But today also work such as Nicholas Spykman's Geography of the Peace convey the idea that a large of this discipline can be viewed from the standpoint of political science. You might give them some book on population problem; Philip Hauser's clear little book of a couple of years ago on that subject would do well.

And now who would be teaching all of this? As the junior teacher in the department, you would be. It would be one of several courses that you would be charged with. However, this would be an improvement from the day when a young college teacher had to teach seven or eight courses, sandwiched between advising students and managing the band, coaching the hockey team, and so on. But you will find another bright "interdiscipline" from anthropology or geography, and he would agree to help you teach the course, if you would put in appearances in his, until you both achieved tenure status and could insist that the budget include each of you in the other capacity. Improvise!

Then you would prescribe a course in Political Sociology." You might assign a work such as Robert McIver's Web of Government. Also useful would be Robin Williams American Society or Edward Banfield's Political Influence, which as about public opinion, and political movements and elites engaged in solving the problems of the modern city.

You would go on to a course in Political Economy where you would employ works such as Shumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. I was reading Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s The Vital Center last week (I won't describe it to you or even recommend it to you. It is rather humdrum history and journalism. It's not one of your lifetime's capacity of two thousand books, so far as I am concerned. But I had a special reason for reading it. Sort of paid to do it.) There Schlesinger expresses his philosophy which is not liberalism --well, it is liberalism, --well, you know, it is liberalism and it's not liberalism, it is socialism and isn't socialism, it's definitely not fascism not is it communism, in fact he is very anti-fascist to begin with and he gets more and anti-communist as he goes along. Anyway he reproaches Schumpeter in the new foreword of 1962, written when he had tasted the fruits of power, for having made him think too badly of the American businessman. It seems that in 1949 when he first wrote the book, he had been still under the influence of Schumpeter, who taught at Harvard and was sure that capitalism was going down the drain. So he favored socialism. But Schumpeter was a fine economist and would not necessarily be so corruptive of such hardened New York capitalists as you all are. You might find more readable books too. I think of Richard Tawney's The Acquisitive Society or Thorstein Veblen's The Engineers and the Price System, but, don't like the philosophy behind either of them. Both are against capitalism because of the "selfishness" of capitalists, Tawney preferring the gentlemanly bureaucrat, Veblen the no-nonsense engineer. "What of Davenport's The Permanent Revolution: Capitalism?" I ask myself, but am still dissatisfied. He is too sanguine. But there is Kenneth Galbraith's Countervailing Power; it could be used to countervail it. Robert Brady's Organization, Automation and Society, on the sociology of economics is well worth introducing into this course. So would be chapter II of Max Weber's Theory of Social and Economic Organization.

I suppose you would also get in one of the better and more readable books about government regulation of industry and the development of government intervention. Perhaps a case study such as green and Rosenthal's government of the Atom should do.

And then you would institute a course in "Political Psychology," where you would have an even wider range of reading material. You could read to begin with a standard text, like Krech and Crutchfield's on Social Psychology, or Ernest Hilgard's Introductory Psychology, or something on that order, and then go into books/as such Lasswell's on Power and Personality. (You thought I was going to say Psychopathology and Politics but I didn't, power and Personality might be a little better at this point.) You might read Sebastian de Grazia's Political Community or The Errors of Psychotherapy, which is an interesting book. Out-of-print it is. However, it probably will be back in print soon. That's book that he originally called Government of the Passions, which was a perfect name because it is a study of authority. It is really directed at the seizure of authority by psychoanalysts and psychiatrists from priests and pastors who seized their authority ultimately from medicine men, fakirs, and head-shrinkers (of the true type), nor does this long course of development ever get away from the basic fact that it is authority that is being dispensed by these people. Authority is a real medicine: that's the thesis of the book, so he called it Government of the Passions, but he went off on a trip to Europe and the Doubleday Company, thinking they might sell more books, renamed it Errors of Psychotherapy and that wasn't such a good title. Because the psychologists do not like to admit to errors to the general public, though the limits of therapy are quite obvious to themselves. It is reprinted as Government of the Passions, it becomes more of political science.

In "Political Historiography," which would be another one of our courses, you would use works such as Gottschalk's book on The Writing of History, or Langlois and Seignobos on the same subject. You might use Gaetano Mosca's Ruling Class to get across the idea of how to write general comparative political history, or you might take up some work such as Maude Clarke's Medieval Representation and Consent to get a tight study of an important document in the history of representative government, the Modus Tenendi Parlamentum. Perhaps Fusk's ancient city has value here in anything concerning authority and urban political sociology

It is unfortunate that practically all the law that political scientists earn, often all the way through to the doctorate is something about Introduction of the Study of History public law, which usually consists of classroom argument over civil liberties problems and a smattering of appellate cases of the Supreme Court. The enormous field of law, by which is meant the subjects of compulsion in society, judicial process, criminology, legal process, the nature of the lawyer as agent, the general sociology of this immense institution, escapes us all until it is too late to recapture. Comparative legal institutions area also slighted, with the exception that sometimes/ in a course on comparative government you get a certain amount of fact to remember concerning formal structure. You know--what is the Cour de Cassation, and what's the judicial function of the House of Lords, and a few other scratches on the mind.

But there you would want your students to read something like Edward Levi's Legal Reasoning (a University of Chicago type who is also the Provost there now), Roscoe Pound's Common Law in America, a lovely little book, or Benjamin Cardozo's Judicial Process, which is one of the foundations or the activist court of today.

Then you would move on into your senior year, this having been the work of the junior year, and take up there a course on political doctrines. "Political Doctrines" would be your typical course on the history of political philosophy, where you would study Sabine's History of Political Theories, which is known to a number of you, I suspect, or a similar work. I won't pause to name others, but would suggest an approach to this course. You should avoid making of the chronological ordering more than it is; it is a convenience; it helps to explain how ideas grow and spread. That is, we shouldn't imply that there is somehow a sort of historical, chronological, date-and-fact-remembering mold that freezes the whole world of philosophy. But, no matter how organized, the course should reveal the great variety of political ideas, and stimulate the political imagination. It should inspire, comfort, insinuate, and correct one's beliefs.

In all of this disputation over doctrine, some people are better than others. And some people are real philosophers, as opposed to tract-writers and journalists; one of the reasons for the present abominable taste in judging political writing is the absence of any exposure to great political argumentation of the past. Thus a C.P. Snow essay or Drury's Advise and Consent are placed on a par with the Federalist Papers or Voltaire's Candide.

You must beware, though, of the tendency to teach that, in the clash of doctrines throughout history, the better philosophers win out. (I am using "better" in both senses: as more virtuous and as mote skilled.) They usually don't. But political scientists often tell you to forget about all those other bad philosophers despite the fact that they usually won the political struggles. So we have to take the view here that doctrine to the political scientist include both good and bad and are to be judged for their effectiveness in persuading people as well as not. And, further, that doctrines are only one element in the struggle in which everything goes -- or as Machiavelli put it, unarmed prophets fail, armed prophets prevail. There is a kind of continuity all the way from the grunt type of political doctrine -- you know, the blood and soil, Blut und Boden fantasies, through all the propagandistic doctrinal presentations of the type of Tom Paine, the great pamphleteer, to the lofty doctrines of Immanuel Kant, Hegel, Aristotle, or Plato. Political Scientists should know not only what political writing is good philosophy but what is effective propaganda, and why in each case.

Then would come a course on the Applications of Power. Now here we take up our distinction between applied and pure political science. This course might perhaps use a book such as Machiavelli's Prince or Lasswell's Politics: Who Gets What, When, and How? So many books might be used here: lots of how-to-do-it books, -- you know, How to run a Campaign, How to Win Wars, How to Get Ahead in a Bureaucracy, How to Bribe Public officials -- this sort of question should be involved in a course on applications.

And the purpose is to tell your students that politics, like any other art of influence, involves knowing how to manipulate symbols, how to handle money and material resources, and how to use coercion. Hopefully less of the last than of the others, because we dislike violence, and hopefully too the application of logico-empirical methods to human affairs. That's the way politics is usually taught than thou rational commentaries; this must be only a small part of our course, because this course is talking about politics as you find it and how to win in politics and so on, and the course will undoubtedly end on a peroration in which you are enjoining everyone, for God's sake, to try to add some smidgin of reason to politics, and let that be their gift, their departing gift, to the political scene, but stress that they may not win many political engagements by the over-employment of rational method and reason. Else you will be a liar, which is a poor posture for a teacher, even though your students, thoroughly ideologized, may never find you out, or if they did, would never dream that you should have been anything but a liar.

Then would come a course on "Political Epistemology." Here one would toss off works such as Dewey and Bentley's The Knowing and the Known and Hans Vaihinger's Philosophy of ~As If', a study of fictional and mythical thought. You could keep your feet on the ground with Berelson and Steiner's large compendium of scientific findings called Human Behavior. This is a work of several hundred propositions culled only from empirical studies of the last generation. Ask in each case, what does the study really tell us? And the intent of this course on political epistemology is to tell us what it is possible to know, how do we know it, what is a fact, what is political logic, and what are the semantics of political science.

Then would come a course on Techniques of Study in Political Behavior. And you can be sure that, by this time, even though the student is only a senior in college, he is already far more sophisticated than are most PhD's and he would therefore be a good candidate for rather difficult works and you could really give him a course in epistemology and you could give him a course in the techniques of studying political behavior. The reading for such a course could be a series of manuals on working "in the field" -- Hyman on interview Jennings on sociometry, Berelson on content analysis, and a forth. Document research would be part of it and also library research.

Then there would be a course of Case Studies in Americans Government A variety of good case materials exists. For example, Stephen Bailey's study of the Full Employment Act of 1946; Congress Makes a Law it's called, and it is clear and excellent; Harold Stein's casebook in administration offers several possibilities. But there are may materials here: intensive studies of a congressional committee, of how the President makes up his mind, or of how hobbies operate, and how agencies fight for their budgets.

This course is not going to regurgitate the descriptive kind of political science that your students have had in their first year of college or in high school. Nothing can turn away promising political scientists more in college that having to read the typical textbook in American Government and to take the first course in American government not once but twice. This has been generally voted the least popular course on campus wherever anybody has dared to take polls on the subject.

Now we have electives for our students but we don't give them too much rope. We have one elective in the second half of the senior year and this elective course must be on the principles of administrate pure and applied. But we are most generous, so we say that these principles need not be learned solely in reference to public administration and national government, such as actually constitutes the course almost everywhere today. He may take such a course if he wishes, but we are not interested in protecting the size of classes of our colleagues so we tell him that he can take this course in educational administration, he can take it in business administration, he can take it in psychology, industrial relations, church administration, whatever area he pleases as long as it is a pretty good course in the principle of administration. We would hope that they would get into such books as Dimock and Koenig's text on administration, but even more into Rensis Likert's George Homans, Peter Blau's Victor Thompson's and Simon and march studies.

Then in the latter part of the year we would grant them two elective course. We tell them that they must take a course on Western Europe. An elective? Yes. Any elective, after all, is only within the limits of the college catalog. You've seen the programs of some of these new "Freedom Schools" haven't you?, you know: how to mix molotov cocktails, and how to take LSD, and so forth. So no course in the last analysis is quite elective; ours will be even less elective in one sense, but more so in another because we are not saying that students have to take comparative government, which almost always means the government of France and England with perhaps dribs and drags on Switzerland or Germany and Italy, depending on the prejudices of the instructor, or something on Russia or Sweden if he is a great cooperator and so on.

No we say that a student may take an intensive course on one government; let that government however be a highly developed government, with a highly developed economy.

And we say that he must take another course but this course may deal with any poor country. It can be on India, it can be China, it may be on Indonesia or Ghana, but it must be a poor country. Call it a course on Dystopia.

So you leave him, happy senior, with a diploma in hand, waving good-bye, and hardly, of course, have we turned our backs on him than he is back to register for his graduate work.

(Question from floor: "Do you have any suggestions about the freshman and sophomore years, any ideas about preparation for the above two years?)

The first two years? If you are all interested, then I could talk about the meaning of liberal education, but not tonight. I have a lot of ideas on that score because I think the term "liberal arts" is a most abused term; it should be dispensed with. There are many, many things to be said about the first two years. However, I would say that in practically every university a student in his third year could fit into this program without much trouble. (Question from floor: "With all this, would anything be needed in the first two years?")

You are being sarcastic. You would be doing something in the first two years and a lot of that should be English composition, aesthetics of are and music, a foreign language, or linguistics, an introduction to philosophy, surveys in the biological sciences and physical sciences, and so on : plenty of room for excellent courses. This is what would be called a broad curriculum, by the way, very broad. It should be imparted by occasional lectures, much reading and some serious discussions, and lots of laboratory work in both the arts and sciences.

Now, we come into our first year of graduate study. Look, our guy hasn't had four courses in international relations, has he? And he's gotten an AB. In fact, he has had no course in international relations, yet I would bet that he would do better as a graduate student in international relations than most students do. Most courses in political science in college are simply journalistic courses. You can read the New York Times and pass them all with a "B". Now I'm counting on everybody reading the New York Times in his spare time, not on class time, and reading popular magazines and engaging in dialectics or soap-box agitation in their spare time. Those are for recreational hours.

Well, what would we offer in the graduate curricular. In the first year (this would be the year of the master's degree, we would give Logic and Quantitative Method for Political Scientists." This is a critical study for one's intellectual development, yet there all too few persons qualified to teach it. The typical course in Mathematics for political scientists (or social scientists) commits at least two basic errors: It gives a frightened and awed glance at what graduate students in physics are studying and heads straight for the most special and abstract kinds of mathematics. It plunges into one or two techniques that are au courant -- say, factor analysis or FORTRAN computer programming -- and leaves behind a shattered group of students and most of the problems of political science.

The course proposed here would begin with the forms of logic used in the solution of problems in political science. The logic would be Aristotelian and non-Aristotelian (Dewey and Korzybski). It would evolve into symbolic logic and half-way through the course would transform itself into mathematics. Therefore it would branch into a case in political statistics, one in decision-making, and one in content analysis. (Other possible branches exists.) Throughout the course, we should prefer "gut-understanding " to mechanical technique.

We would at the same time offer a course on "Librarianship and Information Retrieval for Political Science." What do you learn from such a course? Is it a drudgery? Well even if it were a drudge course it might not be such a bad idea because it is surprising how many people can't look up a book in a card catalog. But it is more than that. It is classification theory, it's the problems of defining fields, it's the problem of hunting material, it's the practice of vocabulary translation, it's the introduction to computer technology.

You know how much of your time is devoted to searching titles; the only difference between you and me is that I can pay people to search for titles. So my time isn't spent so much on that, but I still spend a great deal of time on bibliography, finding the right work, to save myself embarrassment, true but also and most by to find my way to the point as quickly as possible.

There would be a course on the Literature of Political Science to reveal the great variety of books, articles, and documents that are considered to be good political science. So hundreds of books would be thrown at one; there would be an open-shelf arrangement and everyone would be dashing about opening books, seeing how people handle problems in political science, tasting a hundred styles, seeing how the age determines the characteristics of a man's mind and so on. All materials would be available in the joint workshop of the courses in the literature of political science and librarianship and information retrieval. It would be part of that fine physical establishment in political science which no university has yet set up but is long overdue. We need prompt access to our libraries, we need to put a good part of the tuition of the student into making it possible for him to get what he wants -- and more than that, to get it quickly! It is absurd that one should spend a fifth of his time in a course looking for relevant books, often not finding them. But let us go on.

"The Scope of Political Science" would be the name of the last course of the first semester of the graduate curriculum. It would describe the history of political science, explain the curriculum, present and analyze critically the psychology, sociology, economics and ethics of the profession, and point out the traits of the several "schools" of political science, trying not to make more of such schools than they are that is, not much.

Then we would move into the second semester where the first course would be on "Ideology, Political Doctrines and Political Formula. This would be more sophisticated material related to the earlier course on doctrines. Thus one might use both Lasswell's World Politics and Personal Insecurity and his national security a individual freedom. We would read Tawney's Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, and Roberto Michel's Political Parties, both of which concern themselves with movements of ideas and their material and psychological determinants. This course would like the others emphasize studies of original materials. Probably content analysis would be worked into the proceeding for it is by this technique that the inquiring mind is buttressed on matters of documentary analysis.

Political Behavior and Political Organization

Then we should often a course on Comparative Political Cultural Systems. Historical and contemporary culture would be surveyed in developing the meaning of culture, the destruction of various cultures, and the relation between the political aspects of any culture and the rest of the culture. We would give a course on Comparative Political Parties and Public Opinion. Where books by Duverger, Key, Rokkan, Lipset and Cantril apply, and a course on Comparative Governmental Institutions, where we would come to grips intellectually with the organs of the state, legislative, executive judicial. In this course we should engage Wheare on Legislatures, Riggs on Administration and Mills on Representative Government, to name a few.

Notice my emphasis upon the comparative method. That's the way to stretch people's minds so as to make them aware of differences, to make them generalize, to make them flexible when it comes to solving problems by themselves handbooks of comparative statistics of the structure of nations by Banks, Textor, Russett are valuable sources of information, generalization and quantitative testing for this course; the data of these books is now available in punch-card form for student projects, a practice newly initiated but prognostic of the future.

Our student is ready for his Master's Degree, if only we would decide whether to require a thesis of him. I am inclined to favor an option either to present for approval three term-papers from his graduate or senior-year courses (which would permit an excellent honors thesis to qualify), or to write a thesis that displays theory and technique in brief scope.

And while I am about it, I should add an opinion with respect to linguistic qualifications. As you know to your regret, the so-called language requirement in most universities is hidebound by cultural habits of a half-century ago. Foreign languages remain useful tools for many purpose but it should be up to the student and his advisor to determine whether he must know a language other than English, what it should be (it could be any language or dialect), whether only one is sufficient, or whether, indeed, his interests are such as to require alternative and equivalent practice of a given skill, say, statistics, linguistics and philology in general, computer theory, or a type of field work of apprenticeship. For that matter, considering the stress that our new curriculum lays upon "tools" this kind of quid pro quo only remained to symbolize illogically the resolution of the struggle of the new against the traditional approach to political science.

Granted the MA degree, our student commences his final year of formal work in a course called Political Society I. But this is really an elective, because he may take up any general area of politics and government. That is, he may take a course in international politics or international organization. In the associational area he may study the government of welfare associations; he may also study corporation government, the government of schools and colleges, or religious government. He may take up one of the major political cultures of the world or become an expert on American national government, Mexican government, Chinese government, Russian government and so on. Or he may immerse himself in municipal government or provincial and state government.

He would follow that in the second semester with more work of the same kind in the course "Political Society II"; preferably he would continue in the same topical area. Then he would take courses in analysis. He would take "Advanced Principles of Organizational Behavior and Applications." There he would begin to get into problems such as the human relations movement in administrative management the dynamics of organizational behavior, group dynamics, how to make reports, and how to do research within organization.

Yet another requirement would be the study of "Conflict and Negotiation Behavior and Applications." Conflict after all is not something that you find only in international affairs. You have it throughout society, in every institution; its all over the place, and it has positive as well as negative aspects. There is growing up a general theory of conflict and a vast literature on it. The journal Conflict Resolution is worth your perusing in these respects. Negotiation includes not only diplomacy, but all other forms of negotiation -- arbitration, mediation, collective bargaining the customs that control disputes, political deals such as for presidential nominations and agency, appointments, and so on. There is a negotiating aspect which, like the conflict aspect, is part of all political process.

And then we would have a course on "Participant Observation and Reporting." Participant observation and reporting constitute a widely accepted and yet unsystematized and untaught part of the repertoire of the political scientist. He must always be prepared to study an organization from within. He must take part in politics or hold a post in administration, and then be able to extricate himself from it and tell what went on.

It is not a seat that anybody can perform. There is something ridicules in the belief of many people that they don't need to be instructed on how to draw up a questionnaire, that they can somehow go out and draw it up well. I could tell you much about the examinations that I have given in the past, in which I have simply asked people who were supposed to know a body of theory and facts to ask questions about the material. When asked to give back a good set of questions on what they are supposed to have learned, they are nonplused.

What holds for a questionnaire holds for every part of this process. Interviewing? -- well, you just go over to somebody and you ask them, you know, what you wanted to learn, or anything that's on your mind. I was just reading a Ph. D. examination where in the victim had been asked to design a research project, so he said, "and I would have my students, go out and ask questions of these judges to find out whether they are liberal or conservative." Ugh! You can imagine what will happen if they ever get in to see a judge (problem of access are considerable), and they start asking directly "Well judge, just tell me, are you a liberal or are you a conservative?" Reply: Hm m..... "Where did you say you go to school, boy?" Reporting is, of course a very important part of political science. We need to borrow books from journalism for this part of the course: Chilton Bush once wrote a handy one for local government reporters.

Now the remaining courses that I would recommend would include another course on legal processes, called the Analysis of Law and Sanctions." Here we come back in the final semester to what we had something of in undergraduate work; we had the great problems of sanctioning behavior. And remember that power implies sanctions, which is one reason why we are so mixed up mentally most of the time: we are the specialists on authority and sanctions; there isn't anything hotter to handle, they are hotter than fissionable materials. You can stand away from the nuclear furnace, put lead in the way, wear asbestos suits and do a lot of other things, but you can't do so with your political materials. You have got to construct these barriers mostly in your mind through discipline and study. And therefore, the study of law and sanctions, the sanctioning process, what can be gotten out of people by any one of a thousand different modes of persuasion and reward or punishment and incentive is neglected in political science. When Congress passes a law, it usually throws in whatever sanctions anybody happens to think about at the moment, or what the old law had, or whatever similar laws use. T don't know what the effect of sanctions are. We don't know for example what stops people from taking drugs or alcohol. Most crimes we have no conception of sanctioning. The science of sanction is very young, -- guess who wrote a book on the subject? Harold Lasswell, of course. He has a confounding instinct for important subject matters and, by virtue of being a bachelor of impeccable study-habits and self-discipline, he manages not only to think of a good thesis but to do something about it. So pick up his book on sanctions sometime.

Then there would be a course on "Pedagogy of Political Science." Begin this with a philosophy of the educative process. Use the American pragmatists as your guide; the classical educators cut down the innocent from an austere distance, letting only the agile self-teachers escape, wounded. Ask now "How do you present the materials that you have learned up to this point, how do you advise students to get in or to get out of the field, and what techniques do you use in examining them?" Considering the obsession with grades throughout American education, it is stunning to realize the ignorance of examining technique. And finally a course in "Research Design." In this course the student spends his time proposing and drawing up different kinds of projects to solve specified problems. Here you may become as sophisticated as you please. He may go so far as to design a project with a pre-set budget in mind (because we always are dealing with fixed and limited resources) and then applying that project. One could initiate pilot projects whereby the student goes out and tests his questionnaire, tests his design, tests the response, tests his tools of analysis, and comes back and reworks the design and says, "All right , this design is ready to go."

And if he can do a good study design, a really sophisticated study design, in some ways it is better than a thesis in showing that he is ready for full professional status as a social scientist.

The conclusion of his formal education is then near at hand. The curriculum has taken him up to the point where he is ready to write his dissertation. He should know exactly how to go about it. The factual content of the dissertation should cause him very little trouble because he is so splendidly equipped to find it wherever it may be and whatever form it may be in. He is ready to handle it, to put it into the right shape and form. He will be a veritable Modigliani, artist of a masterpiece between cocktails and supper. And from that point on, you will be Lord of the Flies at Red River U.

END OF LECTURE.

Appendix

Synopsis of Recommended Curriculum for Concentration in Political science Junior Year to Doctoral Preliminary Examinations

Junior Year

1. Power

2. Political Anthropology

3. Political Geography

4. Political Sociology

5. Political Economy

6. Political Psychology

7. Political Historiography

8. Legal Process

Senior Year

1. Political Doctrines

2. Applications of Power

3. Political Epistemology

4. Techniques of Study in Political Behavior

5. Core Studies in American Government

6. Principle of Administration

7. Western European Government "X"

8. Dystopic Government "X"

Master's Year

1. Logical & Quantitative Method for Political Scientists

2. Librarianship & Information Retrieval for Political Scientists

3. Literature of Political Science

4. Scope of Political Science

5. Ideology, Political Doctrines and Political Formulas

6. Comparative Political Culture

7. Comparative Political Parties and Public Opinion

8. Comparative Governmental Institutions

Doctor's Year

1. Political Society I

2. Function or Area "X"

3. Advanced Principles of Organization: Behavior and Applications

4. Conflict & Negotiations: Behavior and Applications

5. Participant Observation and Reporting

6. Political Society II

7. Legal Analysis and Sanctions

8. Pedagogy of Political Science

9. Research Design