POL SCI 139
Special Studies in International Relations
Description: Lecture, three or four hours; discussion, one hour (when scheduled). Requisites: two courses in Field II, or course 20 and one course in Field II. Designed for juniors/seniors. Intensive examination of one or more special problems appropriate to international relations. Sections offered on regular basis, with topics announced in preceding term. May be repeated for credit with topic change. P/NP or letter grading.
Units: 4.0
Units: 4.0
4 of 5
Most Helpful Review
Spring 2026 - This class is good but not great, and I have NO IDEA why people pay more than $500 to get it. It's not an easy A by any means, as the weekly quizzes and midterm/final are quite difficult. Let's break it down: 1) Grading: Quizzes every week are each worth like 1-2% of your grade. Not that important, but they're hard. Pike gives you only a minute per question, and the questions often have 5 answer choices with 3 plausible answers so it is tough. I felt very rushed, although I still ended up only missing a few points throughout the quarter. And your lowest quiz grade is dropped, so that's nice. Midterm was 25% of your grade, and it was tough but I did well by studying for two or three days beforehand. It was 50 Qs multiple choice scantron, and similarly to the quizzes, many of the answers look right that are wrong. The analysis paper was my favorite part of the class, with the freedom to write on any event or topic you want under a Cold War IR theory lens. I wrote about the space race, and it was very enjoyable, the paper was only 5pg max so it was easy, and I got a good grade. I headed into the final with an A thinking it was ok, but it was not. The final (35%) was significantly harder than the midterm. The mean of the final ended up being a 77, and Pike did not curve. So I ended with barely an A- after the final went poorly. 2) Lectures: No discussion in this class so lectures are all you get, 2x a week. But they're very good lectures. Pike's slides are clear and organized with relevant pics, and he records audio. But I wouldn't skip class because the slides don't have a lot of info, they just have the larger topics. Pike is a great lecturer - he goes through all the content, makes it interesting and adds a lot of humor. Good guy, although he doesn't seem to care a whole lot (takes phone calls mid-class sometimes). I'd say 75% or so of the lectures were very interesting, which is above par for me. Super cool content and I genuinely learned a lot. 3) Professor: Pike is good and funny until it hurts you and it turns from funny to annoying. He always is willing to chat after class, yet seems as if he wants to go home and you're annoying him if you ask. Students often ask about the quizzes or tests (stuff in the syllabus) and it clearly annoys him so don't do that. He's a nice, chill guy so just meet his vibe and he should like you. That being said, I liked him for these reasons until he surprised us on the tests by making us choose between 2-3 answers that he had said in lecture. He emphasizes choosing the "best answer" but does not actually tell us what that means, leaving us confused. I am still unsure why some of my answers are wrong, because he said they were true and important as well. It all seems a little subjective, like he just chooses what he likes even though the other answers could be right too. But he's a nice guy and is fairly knowledgeable. Not the best Professor I've ever had, but definitely not the worst. I'd say he's solid but nothing special. So, do not pay $500 for his class. If you can get it, sure you should take it. I did and it was the first A- I've gotten so I do regret taking it for my GPA's sake, but it was fun and interesting if you care more about that.
Spring 2026 - This class is good but not great, and I have NO IDEA why people pay more than $500 to get it. It's not an easy A by any means, as the weekly quizzes and midterm/final are quite difficult. Let's break it down: 1) Grading: Quizzes every week are each worth like 1-2% of your grade. Not that important, but they're hard. Pike gives you only a minute per question, and the questions often have 5 answer choices with 3 plausible answers so it is tough. I felt very rushed, although I still ended up only missing a few points throughout the quarter. And your lowest quiz grade is dropped, so that's nice. Midterm was 25% of your grade, and it was tough but I did well by studying for two or three days beforehand. It was 50 Qs multiple choice scantron, and similarly to the quizzes, many of the answers look right that are wrong. The analysis paper was my favorite part of the class, with the freedom to write on any event or topic you want under a Cold War IR theory lens. I wrote about the space race, and it was very enjoyable, the paper was only 5pg max so it was easy, and I got a good grade. I headed into the final with an A thinking it was ok, but it was not. The final (35%) was significantly harder than the midterm. The mean of the final ended up being a 77, and Pike did not curve. So I ended with barely an A- after the final went poorly. 2) Lectures: No discussion in this class so lectures are all you get, 2x a week. But they're very good lectures. Pike's slides are clear and organized with relevant pics, and he records audio. But I wouldn't skip class because the slides don't have a lot of info, they just have the larger topics. Pike is a great lecturer - he goes through all the content, makes it interesting and adds a lot of humor. Good guy, although he doesn't seem to care a whole lot (takes phone calls mid-class sometimes). I'd say 75% or so of the lectures were very interesting, which is above par for me. Super cool content and I genuinely learned a lot. 3) Professor: Pike is good and funny until it hurts you and it turns from funny to annoying. He always is willing to chat after class, yet seems as if he wants to go home and you're annoying him if you ask. Students often ask about the quizzes or tests (stuff in the syllabus) and it clearly annoys him so don't do that. He's a nice, chill guy so just meet his vibe and he should like you. That being said, I liked him for these reasons until he surprised us on the tests by making us choose between 2-3 answers that he had said in lecture. He emphasizes choosing the "best answer" but does not actually tell us what that means, leaving us confused. I am still unsure why some of my answers are wrong, because he said they were true and important as well. It all seems a little subjective, like he just chooses what he likes even though the other answers could be right too. But he's a nice guy and is fairly knowledgeable. Not the best Professor I've ever had, but definitely not the worst. I'd say he's solid but nothing special. So, do not pay $500 for his class. If you can get it, sure you should take it. I did and it was the first A- I've gotten so I do regret taking it for my GPA's sake, but it was fun and interesting if you care more about that.
AD
Most Helpful Review
Summer 2018 - Radd is a tremendous professor. He's charming, charismatic, funny, and makes the material very interesting with his teaching style. I was fortunate to take his class -- he made it engaging and worth attending. He's the opposite of those unapproachable, cold and overly-serious professors who roam the halls of Bunche; he's what this school needs more of. Take his class if you can. Any one of them.
Summer 2018 - Radd is a tremendous professor. He's charming, charismatic, funny, and makes the material very interesting with his teaching style. I was fortunate to take his class -- he made it engaging and worth attending. He's the opposite of those unapproachable, cold and overly-serious professors who roam the halls of Bunche; he's what this school needs more of. Take his class if you can. Any one of them.
AD
Most Helpful Review
Winter 2026 - Genuinely the worst prof I have ever had. She can not form a complete thought. She pauses multiple times in the same sentence - she gets out a few words, stops, a few words, stops, etc. You have no idea what she's talking about. She also doesn't really explain the materials or readings. She just tells us what we already know from reading it or she lectures about a random case study or article. But even then, you can't follow her train of thought. She needs to start recording her lectures so people can rewatch it a million times to understand what she is trying to say. Going to lecture is pointless but unfortunately she makes attendance required (probably because no one would go otherwise). A lot of people just get the code for the attendance quiz and then leave (which is sooo valid). Honestly going to class is such a waste of time and I probably could teach myself more in the 1hr15min than she can. Let me give you a sentence as if she was saying it: "So Marx talks ....... about how strategy ..... caaaaan ummmmm........ foster resistance ......... among .......... among um........." and then by this point it's been too long and you don't know what point she's trying to get across.
Winter 2026 - Genuinely the worst prof I have ever had. She can not form a complete thought. She pauses multiple times in the same sentence - she gets out a few words, stops, a few words, stops, etc. You have no idea what she's talking about. She also doesn't really explain the materials or readings. She just tells us what we already know from reading it or she lectures about a random case study or article. But even then, you can't follow her train of thought. She needs to start recording her lectures so people can rewatch it a million times to understand what she is trying to say. Going to lecture is pointless but unfortunately she makes attendance required (probably because no one would go otherwise). A lot of people just get the code for the attendance quiz and then leave (which is sooo valid). Honestly going to class is such a waste of time and I probably could teach myself more in the 1hr15min than she can. Let me give you a sentence as if she was saying it: "So Marx talks ....... about how strategy ..... caaaaan ummmmm........ foster resistance ......... among .......... among um........." and then by this point it's been too long and you don't know what point she's trying to get across.
Most Helpful Review
Fall 2021 - This class is supposed to be a seminar class (30 students taught directly by Traeger). But due to a "department error", when I took it (Fall 2021), it was structured as a lecture with circa 100 students and 2 TAs. Traeger is a fairly run-of-the-mill UCLA Poli Sci Professor. He's clearly brilliant and accomplished, but he imbues the same “I have plenty of important things to do, this class is largely an errand” attitude as 80% of the tenured political-science faculty here do. Readings were heavy and didn't feel particularly well organized. Lecture consisted of him loosely ranting while slides were largely blank (containing of only a few words or unlabeled infographics). If you asked him a question that was related to something remotely logistical, his response was always “just ask your TA”. He also canceled class... twice. He'd make efforts to rile-up enthusiasm (he often posed open-ended questions to the class), but they usually fell flat. Grading-wise, the syllabus initially consisted of 2 prompt-less short papers (4-5 pages) that correspond to 2-week's readings of your choosing (basically you just discuss the readings or tie them together, not always easy). The final was originally a 12-15 page no-prompt research paper, later shortened to 10 pages by our TAs. This was pretty hellish and unclear. The guidelines were to develop an original international relations theory and devise a statistical test to see if it's legitimate. That approaches graduate-level work and was super difficult. Thankfully the TA's went pretty easy grading wise. I have a feeling that Traeger's grading would've been different. This class was fine in lecture-format (with TA's as graders), but I have a feeling it would be much harder and more unclear with Trager as it's main instructor. I would avoid this class in general-- especially if it's in a seminar format.
Fall 2021 - This class is supposed to be a seminar class (30 students taught directly by Traeger). But due to a "department error", when I took it (Fall 2021), it was structured as a lecture with circa 100 students and 2 TAs. Traeger is a fairly run-of-the-mill UCLA Poli Sci Professor. He's clearly brilliant and accomplished, but he imbues the same “I have plenty of important things to do, this class is largely an errand” attitude as 80% of the tenured political-science faculty here do. Readings were heavy and didn't feel particularly well organized. Lecture consisted of him loosely ranting while slides were largely blank (containing of only a few words or unlabeled infographics). If you asked him a question that was related to something remotely logistical, his response was always “just ask your TA”. He also canceled class... twice. He'd make efforts to rile-up enthusiasm (he often posed open-ended questions to the class), but they usually fell flat. Grading-wise, the syllabus initially consisted of 2 prompt-less short papers (4-5 pages) that correspond to 2-week's readings of your choosing (basically you just discuss the readings or tie them together, not always easy). The final was originally a 12-15 page no-prompt research paper, later shortened to 10 pages by our TAs. This was pretty hellish and unclear. The guidelines were to develop an original international relations theory and devise a statistical test to see if it's legitimate. That approaches graduate-level work and was super difficult. Thankfully the TA's went pretty easy grading wise. I have a feeling that Traeger's grading would've been different. This class was fine in lecture-format (with TA's as graders), but I have a feeling it would be much harder and more unclear with Trager as it's main instructor. I would avoid this class in general-- especially if it's in a seminar format.
AD
4 of 5
