979 Handbook Under Fire

I Would be interested to know who wrote course critique in the Handbook for Political [unclear: nee rather] think (s) the did not do Pols[unclear: to or I12] last year, or else has a rather poor me [unclear: ory] and an excellent imagination. I say this [unclear: cause] of utter rot which appears in this [unclear: crigue].

Let's have a look at a few examples. It is [unclear: it] of Pols 111 that: ".... in 1978 lecturers voted their time almost exclusively to over-[unclear: as] and often outdated examples. The major [unclear: crptim] to this being John Roberts, arguably [unclear: best] lecturer of an abysmal lot."

In fact most of the examples were revelant [unclear: new] Zealand ones, and John Roberts did not [unclear: en] lecture Pols III; the lectures being Or [unclear: defend], Mr Debnam, and Or Clark. Nor was assessment "on the basis that term work [unclear: old] raise the final mark but Not lower it." [unclear: ither] the two test and one essay were [unclear: includ] in everyone's final mark. Forty marks the final 100 were for the tests and 60 were [unclear: e] final exam.

The writer boobs in the very first line for [unclear: LS H2]. The course title was "Introduction Political Theory" not "An Introduction to [unclear: clitics] which was of course the title of [unclear: OLS II].

The author must have done more written [unclear: ark] than me, or anyone else I know who did [unclear: LS I12]. The required written work was two [unclear: as] and one essay.

The next sentence absolutely amazed me. [unclear: one] aspect that caused much dissent amongst [unclear: dents] but year was that they were required to [unclear: way] for the essay topics and the materials that [unclear: ent] with them...." This is [unclear: oure] fiction. The [unclear: ny] topics for the one essay were handed out [unclear: ce] gratis, and for nothing, and there were in [unclear: ct] no "materials" with them.

Are you sure the writer was writing about [unclear: political] Science at this university?