Joseph M. Parent
Summary of All Comments on Evaluations:
Easy to Approach.
Relaxed, easy-going. Could simplify complex terms.
He was organized, clear and concise. Easy to approach with questions, that he backed up with good feedback. Joe seems very down to earth and easy-going but disciplined and focused at the same time.
Very accessible and willing to help. [Should] Focus more on course material.
He was always willing to answer questions and was available to help us with our papers.
His enthusiasm and making the discussion sections very informative and enjoyable. He was always available for assistance.
He was very available and helped me think of ideas.
Very helpful on what we should take away from the reading.
Very personable and approachable. Knew his stuff, made section interesting and fun.
Used “common” language, not pretentious but very smart.
He explained things well and was responsive to the students. He was great.
He understood the material very well with good examples. Also was very organized with his outline of the section. He was a very big help, and also held a good review section.
[I liked his] informality and his grasp of both course material and outside information; ability to explain complicated concepts. [He should] hand back or go over quizzes in depth. Great job!
Was realistic about course material, i.e. would tell you what is and isn’t really necessary reading.
[I liked] his ability to move discussion along and his great grasp of the material. Joe really synthesized the information to the level of whoever needed it.
[I liked his] ability to simplify concepts from lectures and boil them down to outlines [and the] quality of on-the-fly analogies. The best TA I’ve ever had by far.
He was funny in a sarcastic way. Very down to earth. Your explanations tend to confuse at times. Remember we are intro students, our command of the subject is limited. Joe, you did a great job of organizing each section. The agenda was always clear.
Very relaxed and accessible; made info easy to understand; good sense of humor.
Since I am an international student, I have a hard time understanding every session. Every time I asked questions, he tried his best to answer in understandable language no matter what type of question I asked. Please speak more slowly.
Very friendly. Very smart. Understanding of students. Most intelligent TA I’ve ever had. Talk slower. Talk down to us a little, maybe. He could explain things better. He seemed to know it all. Overall, a very good TA. A little room for improvement, but good job. I think he was a little constrained by the material.
[I like the TA] a lot.
He was clear, concise, fun, entertaining, knowledgeable, and an effective teacher. Section was the only way to understand the material and Joe was great. Excellent TA.
Joe was very approachable and was always prompt in responding to questions. He was also very good at disseminating the course info and at facilitating discussion. I have no complaints.
He was well organized, clear, and effectively reviewed material from class lectures.
He was extremely nice and kept discussion interesting and fun.
Incredible grasp of the course material coupled with a great sense of humor. Joe is the man.
Great guy! Helped with all questions. Talk a little slower. Great discussion group. Helpful!
His concise answers and ability to simplify materials [unclear] better students’ outlook on IR.
Accessible, energetic, “cool”, extremely well informed. Could go a little slower sometimes, but I understand that there is a lot of material to cover.
Accessible.
He helped me greatly in my understanding of the readings. Joe was a really nice guy, I enjoyed his lively discussion of the topic and it greatly contributed to my experience in the class.
He was extremely clear and organized.
He used great analogies that really made things clear, and he prepared us for what was coming up in class as well as clarifying what we’ve been learning.
Clarified and streamlined the lectures. [He should] encourage more interaction in class.
He was able to simplify and explain the material and make the course less nebulous. Keep on doing what you do.
[I liked that he] outlined main points [and was] available outside of class. [He should] amplify his lectures.
Very comprehensible; perfect. He is great. Nothing more.
Joe was well-organized and concise in discussions. He also tried to make the section feel more relaxed. His comments on papers were also helpful and extensive. He might try to incite more discussion among students. Sometimes the sections felt a bit rushed.
Very clear and structured in his discussions.
Smart. Organized. [I want more] summaries of the readings.
[What did you like best about the TA?] Everything! Great job, Joe (especially on the midterm feedback – very helpful).
I appreciated his comments for my essay. His discussion section before the quiz was very useful.
Obviously understands the information, and is very good at clearly explaining it. More than willing to meet with students and help students out.
He was cute. Always clarified material in discussion course and made reading much easier to grasp. Everything was good. No suggestions.
He was approachable and very effective in covering class lectures. His comments on essays were impressively thought out! Very knowledgeable. Lay out clearer points for essays before we write them, rather than afterwards.
I am very hesitant to give “excellent” marks, but the TA was extremely helpful in all of the above areas. Also, he provided very useful comments on my papers, helping me write a more effective political science argument.
[I liked his] dry humor and detailed/dense commentary and discussion. [I also liked] the discussion section quiz.
He would present things clearly and tell us exactly what we would need to know to do well in this course – and in future political science courses we might take. [He should] be able to help us more with understanding the arguments of each author we read.
Joe was a good TA with a good grasp of the material and – more importantly – a gift for breaking things down into pithy, easily digestible, memorable chunks. He single-handedly made the course comprehensible.
He was easily approachable and he organized the material – all one million pages of it – in a concise and clear manner for the class. Please offer more individualized attention to the students for the papers. The advice is too general. Joe was funny – his discussions were enjoyable.
[I liked that he] clearly outlines objectives of each session [and his] comments on papers felt like he gave thought to every paper (really appreciate this). In the beginning he came off a little too arrogant. It made him difficult to approach. Perhaps more discussion relating theories to current controversial issues. Perhaps one on one meetings about paper some time in the semester. Overall, good job.
Interesting section, engaging and “to the point”. In-depth analysis of papers – excellent. Instruction on writing papers should be given before papers are due. Nice guy, sexy, and informative.
I liked his clear presentation and synthesis of the material covered during the lectures. The TA could spend more time on relating the different themes of the different chapters so that we get a more global vision of the course.
Amazing! Never had so many comments on a paper. [What did you like best?] Quizzes. Seriously, Joe was very organized and presented the material with clarity and humor. He was always willing to give extra help, and his comments always brought a smile to my face. Thanks Joe! [I would change] Not a thing.
Comfortable atmosphere for questions and discussions, enthusiastic TA. At least attempt to answer questions you don’t know the answers to.
Joe had a good sense of humor that made section fun and interesting. He was also clear and concise. [We needed] More talk about the readings.
Joe is very funny, very sarcastic. I don’t think the problem is with Joe… we just don’t need section every week in this class. Professor Marten is extremely clear in her presentation of the material. What do we have to discuss[?]. Plus, my section met at a bad time for me.
He outlined each section to make sure we covered all aspects, lecture, reading, papers, etc. Joe was extremely knowledgeable in all these areas of IP. I did think that the two papers were graded a little harshly.
It was entertaining, thought provoking, and helped clarify confusing topics covered in lecture. It was also very well organized. I would suggest more opinion-based discussion of topics to simple empirical discussion [unclear].
Great. Insightful comments that targeted the positive & weak points. Accompanied by suggestions that were helpful & critical to improvements. I felt Joe’s analysis of the subject matter was extremely clear & well presented. He was continuously helpful in untangling confusing topics, and his cursory manner was supplemented by a great sense of humor. No suggestions.
Joe knew a lot about the subject and taught it using his humor – made it extremely interesting – never missed one! [I would change] Nothing he’s great!
I thought Joe brought in a great understanding of the material from his immense outside knowledge and was sharp, witty, and helpful at clarifying necessary points. He did a great lecture and reading review and was a wonderful constructive criticizer of papers. Focus a little more on recapping the reading.
The TA knew what he was talking about and presented everything in a straightforward, easy way. We also played a game to get class started that was fun and relaxed everyone. Papers were graded fairly with many comments. TA was always available and willing to help with anything. Excellent. [I would change] Nothing, I really thought it was excellent.
Joe always made section interesting, enjoyable, and, most of all, fun. He has a great sense of humor, which really added to the section. I’d like to go over the lectures in more details & not just have specific questions answered about them.
Low-key. I never felt embarrassed to ask a question. [Be] More concrete. Provide us with more of a summary of material. Use chalkboard more.
It was informal, funny, and informative. Sometimes, perhaps due to time constraints, many of the material was brushed over. I specifically liked the help he gave us writing our papers, and structuring our arguments logically.
Summarized class very well – made it understandable. Gave 1 line summaries capturing essence of the reading – helped distinguish them from each other. Gave us important & useful tips on how to write a good political science paper – extremely helpful for this class and for future classes. Responded to everyone’s questions.
I liked the reading reviews that helped us understand the key concepts & what’s important for the exam.
Clarity in presentation & facility of discussion, enthusiasm for material.
It was really relaxed. Joe was really cool & made class interesting with his random quizzes. His paper advice was really helpful, too. [I would change] not really anything…
I liked the thoroughness of how it went over everything. [I would change] Nothing, the section was well taught and clear.
Joe kept it interesting & entertaining. I think Joe knows so much about these subjects that sometimes it’s hard for him to explain them in really simple terms.
[What did you like best?] His summary of the articles read, notes on the board, the quiz! Speak slowly please! It will also help to use simple terms instead of complicated terminology.
He was very entertaining. Great sense of humor. I liked the quizzes every session. [I would like] more discussion & not just questions clarifying information.
He was funny and enthusiastic about the course. His comments on our papers were so extensive. He often explains the material in an obscure way, which only makes the material more confusing.
Everything was very straightforward & he was very knowledgeable about the subject. He really helped me improve my writing, although he was a pretty… [continues on back of page which was not copied. Perhaps author meant “harsh grader?] Go into a little more depth about the readings. We don’t really talk much about them.
He went over the readings and lectures clearly to make sure we understood all the main ideas. We could have spent a little more time on the readings.
There was a good division of time spent between discussing lectures, readings, & tests.
[He] was organized. [I would like him] to be more clear and less sarcastic.
[The best thing about section was] The daily quiz. Be more understanding of the writing requirements for undergraduates. I found he was often too tough on the grading.
Entertaining, informative. Don’t try to be funny all the time. Answer people’s questions – don’t say, “I don’t know.”
Helped us understand the reading content and confusing aspects of the lecture. [He] was very knowledgeable and well-versed in the finer aspects of IR, so questions were answered fairly and considered other aspects. [I would like] more discussion of issues – I think it might make the concepts clearer if we talked about it.
Very concise and to the point. Clear objectives. Sometimes topics were covered too quickly. Slower explanations would have been better for note taking.
One day we discussed the war against terrorism and it was all student discussion and very little input from the TA. I thought it was interesting and exciting. At times I thought he was rather cocky. I also wish he wrote his comments in a legible handwriting.
Discussion was lively – entertaining review. More discussion.
[What did you like best?] Discussion – Q&A of course material.
It was very relaxed environment, you definitely got out of it as much as you put into it. Discuss the articles in a little more depth.
Outside of class and in small group meetings, Joe was extremely open and helpful. He clearly has a strong grasp of the material, and his ability to relate to students is excellent. He gave extensive feedback on drafts, both verbal and written. [Suggestions?] Honestly, none.
[What did you like best about the TA?] Helping me sort through research topic and making clear structure of political science paper – very helpful in laying it all out straight and clear. Great TA.
Joe is very good at having the students’ perspective in mind. [Suggestions?] None.
[What did you like best about the TA?] Snappy. [Suggestions?] Try not to be so “cool” & help us – be focused & come on time.
Extremely organized, with excellent knowledge of material. Helpful in answering my questions – he improved my understanding of the readings.
Very approachable – clear & direct. [Suggestions?] None. Thanks Joe.
[He had] A good sense of humor. Talks fast, assumes that students intuitively understand his mental leaps.
Clear, succinct, knows full well what it’s reasonable to expect from scatty [?] overworked undergrads. A little more combo of praise with his astute constructive criticism. Can make it sound like you have no chance of doing well because your topic is overly complicated, etc.
Smart, kind, good speaker. [Suggestions?] None. Outstanding.
Nice guy.
Laid-back, confident. Ask us more questions to start discussions in section.
Great guy, easy, approachable. [Suggestions?] None.
Helpful with paper writing process – helpful comments on the readings.
All of the TAs were really helpful in general – I very much regretted not being able to make it to more sections.
He has a quirky personality and a wide breadth of knowledge. [Suggestions?] Nothing.
Nice guy, very knowledgeable. [Suggestions?] None.
Parent was graceful yet clear in describing how best to improve our papers. [Suggestions?] None, frankly.
In group meetings was really helpful, very friendly. [Suggestions?] No. Joe rules.
(Course evaluations were not handed out in this class. All eight students were given the option of sending in comments after the class ended via email.)
I'd say the greatest quality in your favor is that you are not too polite, too afraid, or, most importantly, too aloof, to challenge your students to come up with better ideas, to fill holes in their arguments, to have a complete and well-organized thesis. You're direct. You don't pull your punches. If something needs improvement, you say so. [New paragraph] From my perspective anyway, I thought that you were careful to really push hard with those students who particularly wanted to write a good paper, or who were starting at an intellectually higher point than other students. Similarly, you recognized when students were not as motivated, and adjusted your comments accordingly. It's sort of like in elementary school, when a teacher has to figure out how to challenge the kids in the Gold reading group and the kids in the Brown reading group. Even though the Honors Seminar took the upper level of students only, there was still a disparity in interest and/or ability, and I think you did a good job of helping everyone. [New paragraph] That said, I do know of one person who considered your directness harsh. Without getting into whether that person's feelings are justified, I guess just take it as a cost of challenging people, and decide whether or not to change as a result. [New paragraph] On a personal level, I think the general opinion of the group, and mine as well, was that you're a fun person, an approachable person. At social functions, one usually wanted to talk to you more so than Professor Gartzke… [ellipsis in original] I know we didn't exactly bond, but I respect the job you did a great deal.
Joe did a great job of helping me identify and think through the most important issues in my thesis. Both in his written comments, and when we met, I found him to be particularly insightful. He managed to be challenging without being adversarial. One couldn't have asked for a better TA.
Joseph Parent possesses that rare combination of intelligence, analytical skills, and energetic commitment necessary to succeed at the highest levels of any profession. While writing on my senior thesis, I turned to several experts in the fields of political science, law, and counter-terrorism for advice. More than any other advisor, Mr. Parent consistently forced me to sharpen my arguments and question my assumptions; yet, at every turn, his constructive criticism instilled confidence and encouraged me to work harder. [New paragraph] Speaking with Mr. Parent outside the classroom context, I gained a profound appreciation for his intellectual curiosity, insight, and wit. I am proud to consider him not only one of the finest instructors I had the pleasure of studying with at Columbia University, but also a mentor whose advice has proven invaluable. I strongly endorse his application, and invite you to contact me with any further questions. [The contributor is Jonathan Reich, Columbia Law School, class of 2007]
Joseph
Parent was invaluable in improving my thesis at every step and in
its final product, providing detailed feedback and even inspiration.
Throughout the writing process, he helped me to critically
develop and fine-tune my argument. He provided texture and
refinement to my thinking. From initially disparate ideas and
rough edges, Mr. Parent helped me mold a strong and multi-faceted
end-product. When my thesis advisor somewhat informally
abandoned his role due to other commitments and responsibilities, I
relied entirely on Mr. Parent for guidance. He surpassed his
responsibilities and truly served as an advisor and mentor. [New
paragraph] With each chapter that I turned in, Mr. Parent provided
timely and detailed comments to each draft. It was clear that
Mr. Parent had dedicated much time, effort, and critical
consideration in providing his recommendations. He balanced general
criticisms in terms of the overall direction of my work with
specific suggestions referring to page numbers and paragraphs. He
provided theoretical grounding to my work, offering ideas for
further research, distilling analytical and theoretical
distinctions, and enabling coherence and consistency for my argument
throughout. He seemed to have a knack for unveiling subtleties
that could truly shift and redirect my writing into an improved and
more critical direction. In addition, he pointed to specific
sections and even sentences for revamping, editing, and
strengthening. While some of his hints were sometimes a bit
blurred and could have benefit from more directness, they were
always extremely helpful
and supplied aim to my work. [New
paragraph] Mr. Parent demonstrated a strong handle of the field of
Political Science broadly as well as in-depth knowledge of history
and current affairs. Moreover, it was clear in Mr. Parent's written
feedback, that he holds a great talent for words and quips. It
made for entertaining and witty emails that lightened the pressures
of deadlines and the felt enormity of one's work. In personal
interactions, Mr. Parent displayed good humor, a sense of care and
concern for the student's work, and respect for his students whom he
treated as equals. I am truly grateful for Mr. Parent's
contributions, as I realize that my thesis would have fallen far
short of the polished product it became had it not been for him.