Gender, Science, Technology, and Public Policy

Last Updated: Tue, 01/13/2026
Course prefix:
PUBP
Course number:
4214
Semester:
Spring
Academic year:
2026
Course description:

This class focuses on the importance of participation and performance in science and engineering, and factors that shape these.

Course learning outcomes:

1. This is a seminar/discussion class – that means our class revolves around active participation.

2. Everyone attends and participates in each session.

In order to participate, everyone reads the materials thoroughly prior to the session.

3. Each participant has more primary (as well as the collective, shared) responsibility for two sessions.

For these two sessions, the discussion leader(s):
a) organize issues,
b) raise questions,
c) identify “takeaways” on the topic, and
d) guide the discussion.

The session topics will be sent ahead by email, and each participant can rank-order preferences for topics on which they lead.

4. Each participant writes two short papers (8 double-spaced pages) addressing a given topic* and the accompanying readings:

a. central research issues posed on the topic/readings;
b. central methods involved (e.g., survey research, analysis of documents and/or text, interviews, participant-observation);
c. research controversies and areas of dispute;
d. leading questions for continuing research on the topic.

Topic is a subject corresponding to a given date/session.

The short papers cover each of the four areas (a–d) above, and the papers work most successfully when you divide the paper into each of the four areas to assure that each area is covered.

NOTES on short papers:

a. Short papers may be on the same topic/readings addressed as discussion leader (3. above) but do not need to be.
b. At least one of the short papers needs to be on subtopics ranging from Jan. 21 to March 4.
This gives earlier experience with the papers and the opportunity for feedback. The other of the two short papers may be on any topic ranging from Jan. 21 to April 15.
c. Short papers are due: the day/time for a session on a given topic/set of readings.
d. Please Note: You may rewrite and resubmit one of your short papers as a way to improve. The resubmission is within 10 days of receiving feedback on your paper.

5. In addition, each participant with class credit at 8813 level writes a third paper (10–12 pages, double-spaced) following the format above (4.) for one of the topics in the course outline, or on another topic of choice.

Or you may choose another format for the third paper. If you choose another format, please discuss ahead.

For class credit at 4214 level, the third paper is optional.

The third paper is due: Monday, May 4, 12 noon – send as an attachment via email.

Required course materials:

The following books may be purchased from your place of preference (good values are available—see buying options on sites), each is a classic – and we read parts/selections of these:
-Evelyn Fox Keller. A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock.
-Leslie Perlow. Finding Time. Cornell University Press, 1997.
-Yu Xie and Kimberlee Shauman. Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes. Harvard 
University Press, 2003

Grading policy:

For 8813 level and 4214 level, if you include the third paper:
Seminar/organization & facilitation of discussion (2) 20% each/40% total
Papers (3) 20% each/60% total
For 4214 level, without third paper
Seminar/organizer & facilitation (2) 20% each/40% total
Papers (2) 30% each/60% total

Attendance policy:

Everyone attends and participates in each session.

Academic honesty/integrity statement:

Students are expected to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity. All work submitted must be original and properly cited. Plagiarism, cheating, or any form of academic dishonesty will result in immediate consequences as outlined in the university's academic integrity policy.

Instructor First Name:
Mary
Instructor Last Name:
Fox
Section:
SS
CRN (you may add up to five):
35035
View PDF
Department (you may add up to three):
Public Policy

Statistical Analysis for Public Policy

Last Updated: Thu, 01/08/2026
Course prefix:
PUBP
Course number:
3120
Semester:
Spring
Academic year:
2026
Course description:

This course serves as an introduction to probability, descriptive statistics, inferential statistics, and spreadsheets. The

focus of the course is the application of basic statistical concepts to public policy and administration. It is intended

for students who have a wide range of methodological backgrounds (e.g. mathematics, statistics, econometrics, and

computer science).

Course learning outcomes:

This course introduces students to the foundational concepts of statistics. The primary emphasis will be on applying

statistics to applications in public policy. Throughout the semester, students will learn how to extract meaning from

statistical data and how to generate conclusions with a critical lens.

 

This course provides a basic introduction to:

 

1. Descriptive statistics

2. Probability

3. Inferential statistics

4. Regression

5. Research design

Required course materials:

Course Text

 

The primary textbook is Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences 5th Edition by Alan Agresti (previous editions co-

authored with Barbara Finlay). We will be using the 5th edition, but you can feel free to purchase an earlier version if it is more affordable. You may purchase this book in electronic format or in hard copy. More details on this will be provided on the first day of class.

 

Additionally, there is an optional book for this class: Naked Statistics: Stripping the Dread from the Data by Charles Wheelan. We will be using this book to gain intuition on the concepts we will be discussing in class. You may purchase this book in electronic format or in hard copy. Any additional readings will be made available through Canvas.

 

Additional Materials

 

You must bring a laptop to class. We will be using Microsoft Excel throughout the semester to conduct our

computer-based applications. Excel is made available by Tech via Microsoft 365.

 

Grading policy:

Grading:

 

         Participation:                    10%

         Problem Sets:                    40% (10% each)

         Midterm Exam:                 20%

         Final Exam:                      30%

There will be four problem sets spread throughout the semester, each worth 10% of your overall grade (40% total). They will be due on Wednesdays. These assignments will be a mix of statistical and conceptual questions. These problem sets will be due on the following dates:

 

 

Problem set #1: February 4, 2026 at 11:59pm

Problem set #2: February 25, 2026 at 11:59pm

Problem set #3: April 1, 2026 at 11:59pm

Problem set #4: April 22, 2026 at 11:59pm

 

There will be two exams in this class. The first exam, which will cover the material from the first half of the

semester, will be on March 4, 2026 and will count for 20% of your grade. Students will have the opportunity to revise their midterm exam and earn back up to half of the points lost on the original submission.

 

The second exam will cover material from the entire semester but will focus more heavily on the material that we learned after the midterm exam took place. This exam is worth 30% of your grade and will occur on the date and time assigned by the university (May 1, 2026 at 8 am).

 

Late work:

 

Late work will be accepted for 5 days following the due date. On each day that an assignment is late, 10% of the

grade for that assignment will be deducted. An assignment turned in one day late can receive a maximum of 90%,

while an assignment turned in two days late can receive a maximum of 80%, and so on. After 5 days, I will no

longer accept the late assignment.

 

Grading Scale

 

A 90-100%

B 80-89%

C 70-79%

D 60-69%

F 0-59%

 

Attendance policy:

Attendance is required for this class and contributes to the participation component (10%). You will be permitted 3

absences with no questions asked. After that point, only excused absences will be permitted with no cost to your

grade.

Academic honesty/integrity statement:

Students are expected to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity. All work submitted must be original and properly cited. Plagiarism, cheating, or any form of academic dishonesty will result in immediate consequences as outlined in the university's academic integrity policy.

Georgia Tech aims to cultivate a community based on trust, academic integrity, and honor. Students are expected to

act according to the highest ethical standards. For information on Georgia Tech's Academic Honor Code, please

visit the GT Policy Library. Any student suspected of cheating or plagiarizing on a quiz, exam, or assignment will

be reported to the Office of Student Integrity, who will investigate the incident and identify the appropriate penalty

for violations.

 

Instructor First Name:
Ryan
Instructor Last Name:
Anthony
Section:
EG
CRN (you may add up to five):
30379
View PDF
Department (you may add up to three):
Public Policy

Energy Policy

Last Updated: Wed, 01/07/2026
Course prefix:
PUBP
Course number:
3350
Semester:
Spring
Academic year:
2026
Course description:

This course examines the policies and technologies affecting the production and use of energy, focusing on secure, affordable, and sustainable energy, equity and innovation. It provides a fundamental understanding of energy systems, including trends and forecasts of supply and demand, and resources and technologies at local, state and national scales.

Students will be introduced to a practical and immediately applicable set of tools to analyze the decisions – technical, economic, political, and social – that arise every time an energy technology or energy system decision needs to be made. The class will demonstrate how careful framing and data wrangling turns a collection of tools into a distinctly powerful field.

Course learning outcomes:

Students will acquire a theoretical basis from which to assess energy policy options

Students will obtain an understanding of how energy markets work, as well as an overview of domestic and international energy policy. 

Students will develop their group project skills by having student teams produce an analysis of energy policy options for a State in the U.S.

Required course materials:

Required reading materials are 25 on-line chapters of a forthcoming (February 2026) textbook: Energy Technology and Policy Innovation (Springer-Nature), written by Drs. Marilyn A. Brown and Valerie M. Thomas.

Grading policy:

There will be three in-class assessments spaced approximately 3 weeks apart. Each assessment will cover the readings, lectures, and in-class activities completed up to that point and will include short-answers, some quantitative, and applied questions. Together, the three assessments account for 60% of the course grade (20% each). 

10% of the grade will be based on participation and attendance. Participation refers to being engaged in discussions in class, based on having read the relevant chapters. More than 2 unexcused absences will result in a reduced grade.

30% of the grade will be based on a team research project that will use the Energy Policy Simulator (EPS) to examine the energy policies of a state in the U.S. 

Attendance policy:

10% of the grade will be based on participation and attendance. Participation refers to being engaged in discussions in class, based on having read the relevant chapters. More than 2 unexcused absences will result in a reduced grade.

Academic honesty/integrity statement:

Students are expected to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity. All work submitted must be original and properly cited. Plagiarism, cheating, or any form of academic dishonesty will result in immediate consequences as outlined in the university's academic integrity policy.

Instructor First Name:
Marilyn
Instructor Last Name:
Brown
Section:
RNZ
CRN (you may add up to five):
28444
View PDF
Department (you may add up to three):
Public Policy

Sci, Tech & Human Values

Last Updated: Tue, 01/06/2026
Course prefix:
PHIL
Course number:
3127
Semester:
Spring
Academic year:
2026
Course description:

What is the relationship between developments in science, technological progress and changes in human values? Do new technologies imply changes in values or do changes in values drive the development of new technology? Focusing specifically on the current developments in artificial intelligence, how should we understand the way that the pace of technological development could precipitate changes in values. 

To answer these questions, this course will first introduce the current pressing issues with AI, ethics and social change: alignment, job displacement, our relationship with the idea of human intelligence and uniqueness. We will then look at the building blocks of value, what a worldview is and why we think the way that we do about value. We all have strong opinions on the state of the world and how technology is changing the world, but isn’t it strange that people in this culture are so similar with those values? We will then look at ownership of values and beliefs, where they come from and the possibility of intentionally creating new ones. While it may seem like no one can know where we are going, it may not be as much of a black box as you might imagine. We will look at theory lag and how philosophical thinking on the intersection of virtual and “real” content affects us and finally how even our conception of self is currently (and rapidly!) changing. 

Course learning outcomes:

Students will become conversant with the philosophy of tool use and how tools are integrated into our minds and affect our ways of being in the world. In doing so, they will become familiar with a number of major philosophers from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries who have been influential on these topics. They will learn how philosophers think about the changes now happening in artificial intelligence and how the new technological advancements can be understood in light of recent philosophical theory.

Required course materials:

Required Texts (eBooks available through GT library)

All articles and books are either made available on Canvas in the Files tab in the Readings folder or can be found electronically through the GT library website. 

 

Course Website

All electronic class materials are available through the Georgia Tech library as free eBooks/articles or on. All assignments should be submitted electronically in the Canvas assignment dropboxes. 

Grading policy:

The best way to gain insight and understanding in philosophy is through active engagement with the material: reading, reflection and conversation. We will accomplish this through group discussions that are fueled by the commentaries in your philosophical video journals. That ongoing dialogue will be supplemented by the other graded assignments. The final exam for this class is the final paper, which is to be submitted electronically no later than the class’ final exam time. All written assignments must be submitted on Canvas. All assignments are due by 11:59pm on the date listed above. In other words, if they have the correct day stamped on them, they are on time. Otherwise, they are late (see below for the late policy).

Graded Assignments

Weekly video recitation sections 

(top 12 grades of 14 count)

Total of 25%

Video journals and mind maps (3 total)

Total of 25%

Final paper and video discussion

25%

Final exam

25%

 

Recitation sections

The weekly recitation section meetings are meant to be elevated versions of the same discussions we would have in class. They are elevated because you are expected to prepare for them not only by reading and thinking about the assigned material, but also by finding additional discussions online that are relevant to the topics we’re discussing that week. That extra material can be from online lectures, forums, books, journal articles, magazine articles or even blog posts. The idea behind the extra material is to encourage you to go out and discover how people are thinking about this topic right now. What is the current “buzz” in the online culture. Your source is “good” if it helps you to wrap your mind around how people are thinking about the topic. 

In each video meeting, you will need to coordinate with your TA and log onto an online video service like Teams, WebEx, Zoom, etc. and record that interaction. Each person in the group should either speak or put text in chat about: 

  1. their understanding of the assigned readings, including any background they already had on the topic
  2. what resources they found online and their understanding of how people are currently thinking about the topic
  3. an informal discussion among the group, exploring the ideas

Not understanding everything that you read is completely fine. If you can pinpoint what it is about a particular writer’s idea that you don’t understand, that alone will help you to understand more and facilitate further insight. Success on this assignment means real engagement with the material, reflecting on it and working to try and find out what you think about it and what others think about it. Overly general off-the-cuff comments and not doing reading and research will, of course, proportionately lower your grade (see the rubric for details).  

Each person will be graded individually. There is no group grade.

 

Video journals and mind maps

  • Mind map:
    • diagram of all of the major ideas in the readings
    • Relationships between ideas are key! Use arrows, annotations, drawings or anything else to show how the ideas and people relate to each other
    • If it doesn’t make sense to someone who is not in the course, it needs more detail
  • Video:
    • 3-5 minute summary of all of the major ideas
      • It should make sense to someone who is not in the class
    • A casual conversation in addition to the summary (no time limit) describing:
      • Your reaction to and thoughts on the ideas, focusing on particular aspects of them: try to pinpoint what exactly is problematic or insightful about the idea(s) you discuss
      • Anything you don’t understand (you are not expected to understand everything you read the first time – please be honest!)

The mind map should be so detailed that it covers all significant ideas and people so that it will still make sense to you a year from now (when you’re in the middle of another class and realize that you’ve seen the idea before when you were taking philosophy…) or even to someone who is not in the class. Make it as clear and simple as you can. 

I am principally looking for engagement with the material. Videos communicate a lot of information about how you are thinking about the material and how much time and energy you have put into understanding them. If you read the material, summarize it clearly, and reflect thoughtfully on the ideas, you will do well on this assignment. This does not have to be a difficult assignment… but there are no shortcuts. 

The structure of the videos should be as follows (each section is equally weighted):

What you need to get an A, B or C on the assignment is listed under each section below

  1. Describe what the ideas are and how the arguments for them work

Rubric (letter grades correspond to the descriptions below):

  1. Clear, accurate and thorough descriptions of the ideas, describing the arguments for them and a discussion of how those arguments work.
    1. Good, clear descriptions of the ideas and the arguments, lacking in some details
    2. Descriptions of the ideas that are lacking in significant ways.
  2. Describe how they relate to other ideas and values
    1. Clear and accurate discussion of the relationship of the ideas to one another
    2. A good account of how the ideas relate to other ideas and values, but lacking in some ways
    3. An account of how ideas relate to one another that is significantly lacking or absent
  3. Tell me what you think about the ideas
    1. A carefully considered and detailed reflection on the ideas, including an agreement or objection that details philosophical specifics about why you agree or disagree (e.g., citing a particular passage or specific detail of the argument) that also makes use of additional external sources that were not part of the assigned reading
    2. A good, thoughtful reflection on the ideas, including an agreement or objection that details philosophical specifics about why you agree or disagree (e.g., citing a particular passage or specific detail of the argument)
    3. A simple summary that restates the ideas without clearly conveying your own understanding of them

 

Important note: The easiest way to do poorly on this assignment and have problems for the course is to not turn these in on time. They must be done on time to receive full credit. Please see the late assignment policy below for details.

 

Research Synthesis

To help you prepare for the final paper and to ensure that you know how to do academic research in philosophy, you will submit a document that has a list of sources that you will use for your final paper. The document should have the following structure: 

  1. Statement of your thesis and a brief description of the steps you will follow in arguing for it
  2. A list of books and articles that you have found online and through the GT library. While you may use online blogs, magazines and websites like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as supporting sources, the bulk of your sources and research should be from academic books and journal articles. For each source, provide the following:
    1. The citation of the source in the Chicago style (see below)
    2. A brief summary of the article’s content, specifically focusing on those elements that are relevant to your paper. In other words, Semantic Scholar and other AI-based summary tools are great, but you need to craft your own summary of the content that’s tailored to your thesis
    3. A description of how you will use this source in the paper with a list of quotes with citations that you believe may be useful

The very last item there is especially important! If you can get in the habit of creating lists of quotes with citations like that, the process of writing a master’s thesis or dissertation will be much easier for you. I found that it was useful to organize my lists of quotes and citations by topic area. That way, when it came time to write the actual section of the paper or chapter of the book, I would start by pasting in my quotations and either writing text around the quotes or paraphrasing when I didn’t need the actual quote and leaving the citation. This made the process of writing a densely cited research paper much more enjoyable. 

 

Final paper and video

  • 20% Research Synthesis
  • 20% video
  • 60% paper

The paper: 

You will be asked to submit a paper on any substantive philosophical topic in the course. The papers should be at least 2000 words. You must use and cite external resources. Research is the key to succeeding on this assignment. Citations should be done according to the Chicago Manual of Style (https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/chicago_manual_17th_edition/cmos_formatting_and_style_guide/chicago_manual_of_style_17th_edition.html).

In the paper, you will describe a position of a particular philosopher or philosophers (not too many – depth is key!) and do the following: 

  1. Say what your topic is and what your thesis is. The essay should revolve around your original philosophical contribution. In other words, this is not a book report.  
  2. Introduce the problem in the context of the current philosophical discussion. This is the “lit review” section and you will need to DO RESEARCH FOR THIS!
  3. Describe the thesis in the context of that philosopher’s thought in general (e.g., Kant’s moral claims about duty fit neatly with the remainder of his philosophical system) You’ll want to use research for this too!
  4. Describe your objection, modification or twist on the topic
  5. Try and determine how that thinker would have responded to your objection (AI agents are excellent for this)

To do well on this assignment, you will need to understand the state of the current discussion and also the mindset of the particular person you are addressing, which means being very familiar with their work. Although this is not an English course, since philosophers cannot often lean on numbers to make the point for them, they are left needing to clearly articulate their ideas in words. Thus, clarity in writing and grammar are important insofar as they facilitate the effective communication of your ideas. 

The video:

Along with the paper, I will ask you to submit a short video. This is not a summary of the paper. I want you to casually describe the thought process of the paper, emphasizing points where you thought about going a different direction, didn’t quite understand something or were surprised by something in your research. I want to hear about the process of doing the research and writing the paper. If you put a lot of thought into your own original philosophical ideas in the paper, this will be easy. Those who have AI agents write the papers for them (which is not allowed, of course – see below) will find this much more difficult. 

 

Special note on using online AI agents like ChatGPT for the writing assignments

As we will discuss and demonstrate in class, I expect you to make use of online AI writing tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude. Using tools like this will be an important skill for you going forward. We will talk about how to use them and what the limitations are (viz., they are sometimes wrong and they haven’t necessarily read the academic journals). You are of course expected to submit only your own work for the paper and not copy and paste material from these agents. That said, they provide excellent starting points and can be used to find clear and concise ways of saying things. Since these tools are maturing rapidly and provide clear prose with a single click, the level of clarity and writing expected by this assignment has naturally increased in kind. Similarly, the bar will be set higher for getting the information right. That is, since I know how easy it is to provide Wikipedia-level content for your topic from these agents, the onus is on you to make sure that the arguments are represented accurately and provide citations and quotations that support that. This will make the process of writing much easier and better in a variety of ways. I hope that it will enable us as writers in philosophy to focus more on research and quality of argumentation and less on the craft of writing and editing. While some professors are concerned about assigning papers since it is now so easy for students to have these agents write for them, I am embracing the new technology and want to help you to learn how to effectively use it. 

Attendance policy:

Students are expected to attend and contribute to the recitation sections as described in the grading section above.

Academic honesty/integrity statement:

Students are expected to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity. All work submitted must be original and properly cited. Plagiarism, cheating, or any form of academic dishonesty will result in immediate consequences as outlined in the university's academic integrity policy.

Academic Honor Code

Speaking with other people about the arguments for your papers is helpful and, indeed, is expected. Submitting any work other than your own however is a violation of the Academic Honor Code. Quoting other authors, of course, is common practice. You must however distinguish clearly between your own work and that of others. If you quote or paraphrase an idea from someone else, you must cite them. All sources should be listed in the references section of your papers. I have a zero tolerance policy for plagiarism. It is the student’s responsibility to know what plagiarism is. Plagiarism will be dealt with according to the GT Academic Honor Code. That said, I have never pursued a plagiarism case for a student who did not properly cite by accident. 

For any questions involving these or any other Academic Honor Code issues, please consult me or www.honor.gatech.edu.

Core IMPACTS statement(s) (if applicable):

This is a Core IMPACTS course that is part of the Social Sciences area.

Core IMPACTS refers to the core curriculum, which provides students with essential knowledge

in foundational academic areas. This course will help students master course content, and

support students’ broad academic and career goals.

This course should direct students toward a broad Orienting Question:

  • How do I understand human experiences and connections?

Completion of this course should enable students to meet the following Learning Outcome:

  • Students will effectively analyze the complexity of human behavior, and how historical, economic, political, social, or geographic relationships develop, persist, or change.

Course content, activities and exercises in this course should help students develop the following

Career-Ready Competencies:

  • Intercultural Competence
  • Perspective-Taking
  • Persuasion
Instructor First Name:
Clint
Instructor Last Name:
Johnson
Section:
K05, K06
CRN (you may add up to five):
27193
27194
View PDF
Department (you may add up to three):
Public Policy

Sci, Tech & Human Values

Last Updated: Tue, 01/06/2026
Course prefix:
PHIL
Course number:
3127
Semester:
Spring
Academic year:
2026
Course description:

What is the relationship between developments in science, technological progress and changes in human values? Do new technologies imply changes in values or do changes in values drive the development of new technology? Focusing specifically on the current developments in artificial intelligence, how should we understand the way that the pace of technological development could precipitate changes in values. 

To answer these questions, this course will first introduce the current pressing issues with AI, ethics and social change: alignment, job displacement, our relationship with the idea of human intelligence and uniqueness. We will then look at the building blocks of value, what a worldview is and why we think the way that we do about value. We all have strong opinions on the state of the world and how technology is changing the world, but isn’t it strange that people in this culture are so similar with those values? We will then look at ownership of values and beliefs, where they come from and the possibility of intentionally creating new ones. While it may seem like no one can know where we are going, it may not be as much of a black box as you might imagine. We will look at theory lag and how philosophical thinking on the intersection of virtual and “real” content affects us and finally how even our conception of self is currently (and rapidly!) changing. 

Course learning outcomes:

Students will become conversant with the philosophy of tool use and how tools are integrated into our minds and affect our ways of being in the world. In doing so, they will become familiar with a number of major philosophers from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries who have been influential on these topics. They will learn how philosophers think about the changes now happening in artificial intelligence and how the new technological advancements can be understood in light of recent philosophical theory.

Required course materials:

Required Texts (eBooks available through GT library)

All articles and books are either made available on Canvas in the Files tab in the Readings folder or can be found electronically through the GT library website. 

 

Course Website

All electronic class materials are available through the Georgia Tech library as free eBooks/articles or on. All assignments should be submitted electronically in the Canvas assignment dropboxes. 

Grading policy:

The best way to gain insight and understanding in philosophy is through active engagement with the material: reading, reflection and conversation. We will accomplish this through group discussions that are fueled by the commentaries in your philosophical video journals. That ongoing dialogue will be supplemented by the other graded assignments. The final exam for this class is the final paper, which is to be submitted electronically no later than the class’ final exam time. All written assignments must be submitted on Canvas. All assignments are due by 11:59pm on the date listed above. In other words, if they have the correct day stamped on them, they are on time. Otherwise, they are late (see below for the late policy).

Graded Assignments

Weekly video recitation sections 

(top 12 grades of 14 count)

Total of 25%

Video journals and mind maps (3 total)

Total of 25%

Final paper and video discussion

25%

Final exam

25%

 

Recitation sections

The weekly recitation section meetings are meant to be elevated versions of the same discussions we would have in class. They are elevated because you are expected to prepare for them not only by reading and thinking about the assigned material, but also by finding additional discussions online that are relevant to the topics we’re discussing that week. That extra material can be from online lectures, forums, books, journal articles, magazine articles or even blog posts. The idea behind the extra material is to encourage you to go out and discover how people are thinking about this topic right now. What is the current “buzz” in the online culture. Your source is “good” if it helps you to wrap your mind around how people are thinking about the topic. 

In each video meeting, you will need to coordinate with your TA and log onto an online video service like Teams, WebEx, Zoom, etc. and record that interaction. Each person in the group should either speak or put text in chat about: 

  1. their understanding of the assigned readings, including any background they already had on the topic
  2. what resources they found online and their understanding of how people are currently thinking about the topic
  3. an informal discussion among the group, exploring the ideas

Not understanding everything that you read is completely fine. If you can pinpoint what it is about a particular writer’s idea that you don’t understand, that alone will help you to understand more and facilitate further insight. Success on this assignment means real engagement with the material, reflecting on it and working to try and find out what you think about it and what others think about it. Overly general off-the-cuff comments and not doing reading and research will, of course, proportionately lower your grade (see the rubric for details).  

Each person will be graded individually. There is no group grade.

 

Video journals and mind maps

  • Mind map:
    • diagram of all of the major ideas in the readings
    • Relationships between ideas are key! Use arrows, annotations, drawings or anything else to show how the ideas and people relate to each other
    • If it doesn’t make sense to someone who is not in the course, it needs more detail
  • Video:
    • 3-5 minute summary of all of the major ideas
      • It should make sense to someone who is not in the class
    • A casual conversation in addition to the summary (no time limit) describing:
      • Your reaction to and thoughts on the ideas, focusing on particular aspects of them: try to pinpoint what exactly is problematic or insightful about the idea(s) you discuss
      • Anything you don’t understand (you are not expected to understand everything you read the first time – please be honest!)

The mind map should be so detailed that it covers all significant ideas and people so that it will still make sense to you a year from now (when you’re in the middle of another class and realize that you’ve seen the idea before when you were taking philosophy…) or even to someone who is not in the class. Make it as clear and simple as you can. 

I am principally looking for engagement with the material. Videos communicate a lot of information about how you are thinking about the material and how much time and energy you have put into understanding them. If you read the material, summarize it clearly, and reflect thoughtfully on the ideas, you will do well on this assignment. This does not have to be a difficult assignment… but there are no shortcuts. 

The structure of the videos should be as follows (each section is equally weighted):

What you need to get an A, B or C on the assignment is listed under each section below

  1. Describe what the ideas are and how the arguments for them work

Rubric (letter grades correspond to the descriptions below):

  1. Clear, accurate and thorough descriptions of the ideas, describing the arguments for them and a discussion of how those arguments work.
    1. Good, clear descriptions of the ideas and the arguments, lacking in some details
    2. Descriptions of the ideas that are lacking in significant ways.
  2. Describe how they relate to other ideas and values
    1. Clear and accurate discussion of the relationship of the ideas to one another
    2. A good account of how the ideas relate to other ideas and values, but lacking in some ways
    3. An account of how ideas relate to one another that is significantly lacking or absent
  3. Tell me what you think about the ideas
    1. A carefully considered and detailed reflection on the ideas, including an agreement or objection that details philosophical specifics about why you agree or disagree (e.g., citing a particular passage or specific detail of the argument) that also makes use of additional external sources that were not part of the assigned reading
    2. A good, thoughtful reflection on the ideas, including an agreement or objection that details philosophical specifics about why you agree or disagree (e.g., citing a particular passage or specific detail of the argument)
    3. A simple summary that restates the ideas without clearly conveying your own understanding of them

 

Important note: The easiest way to do poorly on this assignment and have problems for the course is to not turn these in on time. They must be done on time to receive full credit. Please see the late assignment policy below for details.

 

Research Synthesis

To help you prepare for the final paper and to ensure that you know how to do academic research in philosophy, you will submit a document that has a list of sources that you will use for your final paper. The document should have the following structure: 

  1. Statement of your thesis and a brief description of the steps you will follow in arguing for it
  2. A list of books and articles that you have found online and through the GT library. While you may use online blogs, magazines and websites like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as supporting sources, the bulk of your sources and research should be from academic books and journal articles. For each source, provide the following:
    1. The citation of the source in the Chicago style (see below)
    2. A brief summary of the article’s content, specifically focusing on those elements that are relevant to your paper. In other words, Semantic Scholar and other AI-based summary tools are great, but you need to craft your own summary of the content that’s tailored to your thesis
    3. A description of how you will use this source in the paper with a list of quotes with citations that you believe may be useful

The very last item there is especially important! If you can get in the habit of creating lists of quotes with citations like that, the process of writing a master’s thesis or dissertation will be much easier for you. I found that it was useful to organize my lists of quotes and citations by topic area. That way, when it came time to write the actual section of the paper or chapter of the book, I would start by pasting in my quotations and either writing text around the quotes or paraphrasing when I didn’t need the actual quote and leaving the citation. This made the process of writing a densely cited research paper much more enjoyable. 

 

Final paper and video

  • 20% Research Synthesis
  • 20% video
  • 60% paper

The paper: 

You will be asked to submit a paper on any substantive philosophical topic in the course. The papers should be at least 2000 words. You must use and cite external resources. Research is the key to succeeding on this assignment. Citations should be done according to the Chicago Manual of Style (https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/chicago_manual_17th_edition/cmos_formatting_and_style_guide/chicago_manual_of_style_17th_edition.html).

In the paper, you will describe a position of a particular philosopher or philosophers (not too many – depth is key!) and do the following: 

  1. Say what your topic is and what your thesis is. The essay should revolve around your original philosophical contribution. In other words, this is not a book report.  
  2. Introduce the problem in the context of the current philosophical discussion. This is the “lit review” section and you will need to DO RESEARCH FOR THIS!
  3. Describe the thesis in the context of that philosopher’s thought in general (e.g., Kant’s moral claims about duty fit neatly with the remainder of his philosophical system) You’ll want to use research for this too!
  4. Describe your objection, modification or twist on the topic
  5. Try and determine how that thinker would have responded to your objection (AI agents are excellent for this)

To do well on this assignment, you will need to understand the state of the current discussion and also the mindset of the particular person you are addressing, which means being very familiar with their work. Although this is not an English course, since philosophers cannot often lean on numbers to make the point for them, they are left needing to clearly articulate their ideas in words. Thus, clarity in writing and grammar are important insofar as they facilitate the effective communication of your ideas. 

The video:

Along with the paper, I will ask you to submit a short video. This is not a summary of the paper. I want you to casually describe the thought process of the paper, emphasizing points where you thought about going a different direction, didn’t quite understand something or were surprised by something in your research. I want to hear about the process of doing the research and writing the paper. If you put a lot of thought into your own original philosophical ideas in the paper, this will be easy. Those who have AI agents write the papers for them (which is not allowed, of course – see below) will find this much more difficult. 

 

Special note on using online AI agents like ChatGPT for the writing assignments

As we will discuss and demonstrate in class, I expect you to make use of online AI writing tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude. Using tools like this will be an important skill for you going forward. We will talk about how to use them and what the limitations are (viz., they are sometimes wrong and they haven’t necessarily read the academic journals). You are of course expected to submit only your own work for the paper and not copy and paste material from these agents. That said, they provide excellent starting points and can be used to find clear and concise ways of saying things. Since these tools are maturing rapidly and provide clear prose with a single click, the level of clarity and writing expected by this assignment has naturally increased in kind. Similarly, the bar will be set higher for getting the information right. That is, since I know how easy it is to provide Wikipedia-level content for your topic from these agents, the onus is on you to make sure that the arguments are represented accurately and provide citations and quotations that support that. This will make the process of writing much easier and better in a variety of ways. I hope that it will enable us as writers in philosophy to focus more on research and quality of argumentation and less on the craft of writing and editing. While some professors are concerned about assigning papers since it is now so easy for students to have these agents write for them, I am embracing the new technology and want to help you to learn how to effectively use it. 

Attendance policy:

Students are expected to attend and contribute to the recitation sections as described in the grading section above.

Academic honesty/integrity statement:

Students are expected to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity. All work submitted must be original and properly cited. Plagiarism, cheating, or any form of academic dishonesty will result in immediate consequences as outlined in the university's academic integrity policy.

Academic Honor Code

Speaking with other people about the arguments for your papers is helpful and, indeed, is expected. Submitting any work other than your own however is a violation of the Academic Honor Code. Quoting other authors, of course, is common practice. You must however distinguish clearly between your own work and that of others. If you quote or paraphrase an idea from someone else, you must cite them. All sources should be listed in the references section of your papers. I have a zero tolerance policy for plagiarism. It is the student’s responsibility to know what plagiarism is. Plagiarism will be dealt with according to the GT Academic Honor Code. That said, I have never pursued a plagiarism case for a student who did not properly cite by accident. 

For any questions involving these or any other Academic Honor Code issues, please consult me or www.honor.gatech.edu.

Core IMPACTS statement(s) (if applicable):

This is a Core IMPACTS course that is part of the Social Sciences area.

Core IMPACTS refers to the core curriculum, which provides students with essential knowledge

in foundational academic areas. This course will help students master course content, and

support students’ broad academic and career goals.

This course should direct students toward a broad Orienting Question:

  • How do I understand human experiences and connections?

Completion of this course should enable students to meet the following Learning Outcome:

  • Students will effectively analyze the complexity of human behavior, and how historical, economic, political, social, or geographic relationships develop, persist, or change.

Course content, activities and exercises in this course should help students develop the following

Career-Ready Competencies:

  • Intercultural Competence
  • Perspective-Taking
  • Persuasion
Instructor First Name:
Clint
Instructor Last Name:
Johnson
Section:
CJO, K01, K02, K03, K04
CRN (you may add up to five):
27188
27189
27190
27191
27192
View PDF
Department (you may add up to three):
Public Policy

Data Science for Public Policy

Last Updated: Tue, 01/06/2026
Course prefix:
PUBP
Course number:
3042
Semester:
Spring
Academic year:
2026
Course description:

PUBP 3042 Data Science for Public Policy. 3 Credit Hours. This course introduces fundamentals of data science, tools, and quantitative methodologies and ethical implications for public and social applications. Topics for policy applications vary by semester.

Course learning outcomes:

Upon successful completion of this course, you should be able to:

  • Identify social and administrative data sources to address policy issues;
  • Distinguish between research designs for prediction and causal inference;
  • Collect, pre-process, and analyze data programatically;
  • Gain experience in presenting and defending data-driven evidence;
  • Consider ethical issues related to the protection of human subjects and responsible data use in organizations;
  • Evaluate how decisions impact the sustainability of communities.
Required course materials:
  • Required Course Textbook: Kosuke Imai, Quantitative Social Science: An Introduction. Princeton University Press. Online resources and datasets associated with the textbook are available online. The course textbook website is here: http://qss.princeton.press  
  • Course website: All relevant course materials, readings, discussions and announcements will be uploaded and available on Canvas. Be sure to turn on your Canvas notification preferences to receive electronic updates to your phone or by email. If you encounter any technical issues with Canvas, you may get help from the Canvas support hotline at (877) 259-8498 or via email support@instructure.com. You can also simply click the “Help” button within canvas to reach support or visit the Canvas support team here: https://canvas.gatech.edu
  • Library Support and Resources: To assist with your projects, we will hold class sessions on library resources including R and Python bootcamps in partnership with the Georgia Tech library. Participation in all library sessions will be required. My personal desk copy of course textbook will also be available on reserve at the library or upon request.
Grading policy:

Your final grade will be determined as follows:

Assignment, Points
Problem Set 1, 10 points
Problem Set 2, 10 points
Problem Set 3, 10 points
Midterm, 25 points
Final Policy Brief (written), 20 points
Final In-Class Presentation, 15 points
Active Course Participation (lectures, office hours) and Peer Review, 10 points

Grade points will be assigned to a letter grade according to the following scale:

Grade, Score
A, 80+
B, 70-79
C, 60-69
D, 50-59
F, less than 50

To provide flexibility, please be on the lookout for extra credit such as bonus questions appearing on problem sets or the midterm. These questions could be drawn from lectures/readings and provide additional opportunities to demonstrate that you’ve absorbed the material covered in class.

Attendance policy:

Absences

A student may miss class on occasion due to health, personal emergencies or Institute-approved absences. Georgia Tech has a web page that describes the expectations, rights, and responsibilities of students, instructors, the Office of Student Life, and health care providers. The information is intended to give students better direction as to how they should proceed to notify instructors when they are ill and need to miss class and what kind of documentation they should provide and to whom. For information about expectations regarding student absences from class due to illness or personal emergencies, visit: http://www.catalog.gatech.edu/policies/student-absence-regulations.

For information regarding Institute Approved Absences (IIA) and to download the required form for students, visit the registrar at: https://registrar.gatech.edu/info/institute-approved-absence-form-for-students 

Academic honesty/integrity statement:

Students are expected to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity. All work submitted must be original and properly cited. Plagiarism, cheating, or any form of academic dishonesty will result in immediate consequences as outlined in the university's academic integrity policy.

For information about Georgia Tech student-faculty expectations, visit: https://catalog.gatech.edu/rules/21. We abide by Georgia Tech’s academic honor code. Any student suspected of cheating or plagiarizing on a quiz, exam, or assignment will be reported to the Office of Student Integrity, who will investigate the incident and identify the appropriate penalty for violations.

Core IMPACTS statement(s) (if applicable):

PUBP 3042 is a Georgia Tech Core IMPACTS general education course in the social sciences. Core IMPACTS refers to the core curriculum, which provides students with essential knowledge in foundational academic areas. Course content, activities and exercises in this course should help students develop Career-Ready Competencies such as critical thinking, inquiry and analysis, ethical reasoning, intercultural competence, perspective-taking, problem solving, teamwork and persuasion. Students will effectively analyze the complexity of human behavior, and how historical, economics, political, social, or geographic relationships develop, persist, or change. This course should direct students toward the broad Orienting Question: “How do I understand human experiences and connections?”

Instructor First Name:
Omar Isaac
Instructor Last Name:
Asensio
Section:
OA
CRN (you may add up to five):
32836
View PDF
Department (you may add up to three):
Public Policy
Economics

Science, Technology, & Human Values

Last Updated: Mon, 01/05/2026
Course prefix:
PHIL
Course number:
3127
Semester:
Spring
Academic year:
2026
Course description:

Science and technology are human activities that are intricately intertwined with values. This course examines these interconnections. It begins with an overview of scientific institutions, scientific reasoning, and the role of science in society. The next section examines prominent moral philosophical frameworks, which provide tools for thinking critically about the place of human values in scientific and technological practice. In the third section, we discuss case studies at the intersection of science, technology, environment, and society that particularly affect the Pacific region. The course concludes with group projects on problems at the intersection of science, technology, environment, and human values.

Course learning outcomes:
  • Ethical Awareness: This course should help to cultivate your ethical awareness – that is, your ability to identify ethical issues in specific contexts in which they are relevant, especially in science and technology.
  • Ethical Knowledge: This course should help you to develop and deepen your knowledge of important ethical theories, frameworks, and concepts – including welfare, liberty, autonomy, equality, privacy, fairness, and others – and how these relate to science and technology.
  • Ethical Reasoning: This course should help you to identity, construct, and evaluate ethical arguments that are based on the theories, frameworks, and concepts mentioned above.
  • Communication: This course should improve your ability to communicate, both orally and in writing, in a way that is clear, precise, and supported with reasons. You should improve your ability to do this even if the issues in question are controversial and subject to disagreement.
Required course materials:

None

Grading policy:

Course Requirements:

  • Perusall Reading Assignments (20%)
  • Quizzes (40%)
  • Final Project (40%)

Grade Scale:

[90, 100]   A

[80, 90)     B

[70, 80)     C

[60, 70)      D

[0, 60)         F

 

Attendance policy:

This class includes a strict attendance policy. For every unexcused absence, your overall course grade will be reduced by 3 percentage points. An unexcused absence is any absence for which I do not receive appropriate documentation or is not cleared by me in writing. Absences arising from personal travel are not excused. You will be considered absent for any class period in which you miss 30 minutes or more. 

Academic honesty/integrity statement:

Students are expected to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity. All work submitted must be original and properly cited. Plagiarism, cheating, or any form of academic dishonesty will result in immediate consequences as outlined in the university's academic integrity policy.

Core IMPACTS statement(s) (if applicable):

PHIL 3127 is a USG Core IMPACTS course that is part of the Arts, Humanities & Ethics area. Core IMPACTS refers to the core curriculum, which provides students with essential knowledge in foundational academic areas. This course will help students master course content, and support students’ broad academic and career goals. 

This course will direct students toward a broad Orienting Question: 

  • How do I interpret the human experience through creative, linguistic, and philosophical works?  

Completion of this course should enable students to meet the following Learning Outcome: 

  • Students will effectively analyze and interpret the meaning, cultural significance, and ethical implications of literary/philosophical texts or of works in the visual/performing arts.  

Course content, activities and exercises in this course should help students develop the following Career-Ready Competencies: 

  • Ethical Reasoning 
  • Information Literacy 
  • Intercultural Competence

 

Instructor First Name:
Justin
Instructor Last Name:
Biddle
Section:
NZ
CRN (you may add up to five):
35272
View PDF
Department (you may add up to three):
Public Policy

Applied Political Economy

Last Updated: Mon, 01/05/2026
Course prefix:
PUBP
Course number:
3020
Semester:
Spring
Academic year:
2026
Course description:

There are two different conceptions of political economy. The first is the effects of politics on the economy. The second is the use of economic incentives and models to study politics. We will use both. This is applied political economy, meaning that we will be looking at how these approaches inform our understanding of public policy and the world around us.

Course learning outcomes:

Part 1: Property, Markets and Institutions 101 

This part of the course introduces students to the study of political economy as a discipline and to the foundational concepts of property, markets, and institutions. We also review different theories for defining (and measuring) social welfare. At the end of this section, students should be able to: (1) define (and distinguish between) property, markets, and institutions; (2) specify the social functions of each; and (3) articulate three different ways of defining social welfare.

Part 2: Classical Political Economy

A relatively small group of intellectuals have played a pivotal role in theorizing about the forces that shape the political economy. In this part of the course, we discuss their theories in depth. At the end of this section, students should be able to: (1) describe the context in which each wrote (the events each theorist was reacting to); (2) summarize the main assumptions and assertions of each theory; (3) identify at least one major limitation (or unfulfilled prediction) of each theory.

Part 3: Governance and Market Failures

In this part of the course, we study four classes of problems that arise when individual interests and collective goals do not align. At the end of this section, students should be able to: (1) identify and provide examples of each problem; (2) relate the problem to a kind of game and use game theory to specify the interests of the parties involved; (3) describe how certain institutions that surmount the problem and facilitate cooperation.

Part 4: Political Institutions and Economic Performance

Markets are embedded in polities, and political institutions shape economic development by influencing voters, structuring political conflict, and shaping the economic agenda. In this part of the course, we study these institutions and mechanisms. By the end of this section, students should be able to: (1) describe the major theories about what motivates voter behavior; (2) explain how political parties and electoral rules structure political conflict and bias policy in favor of certain interest groups; (3) compare the U.S. with another democracy in terms of its political institutions and market structure.

Part 5: Applications

A political economy approach can give us deep insights into different policy challenges. In this part of the course, we examine how the dilemmas and challenges covered earlier in the course manifest in contemporary issues. Students should consider how the broader themes of the course explain or elucidate the essential conflict driving each policy challenge.

Required course materials:

Heilbroner, Robert L. The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers. Revised Seventh Edition. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999.

Grading policy:

Perusall #1 - 10%

Perusall #2 - 10%

Take Home Essays - 10%

Political Economy Problem Set - 10%

Applied Political Economy Paper - 30%

Paper Presentation - 20%

Attendance and Participation - 10%

All assignments will be due at the ended of the day listed above. Each assignment will have a separate entry in Canvas that explains in more detail what is expected and what criteria are used to grade it. To complete some assignments, students will upload a file in the relevant assignment place in Canvas. Collective readings are done within the Perusall app. Assignments should be graded with feedback within one week of submission.

For the Reading (Perusall) assignments, there is no grace period; the Perusall access shuts down when the time expires. For the other two assignments, there is a 3-day grace period but for every late two percentage points will be deducted from your overall score. This policy will be applied regardless of the reason for your lateness.

Attendance policy:

Attendance and participation are mandatory and count for 10 percent of the overall grade.

Academic honesty/integrity statement:

Students are expected to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity. All work submitted must be original and properly cited. Plagiarism, cheating, or any form of academic dishonesty will result in immediate consequences as outlined in the university's academic integrity policy.

Core IMPACTS statement(s) (if applicable):

Students will effectively analyze the complexity of human behavior, and how historical, economics, political, social, or geographic relationships develop, persist, or change.

Instructor First Name:
Nicholas
Instructor Last Name:
Short
Section:
1
CRN (you may add up to five):
31317
View PDF
Department (you may add up to three):
Public Policy

Organizations & Policy

Last Updated: Mon, 01/05/2026
Course prefix:
PUBP
Course number:
2030
Semester:
Spring
Academic year:
2026
Course description:

This class provides foundational knowledge about organizations and management. The instructor will present materials to facilitate discussions, while students are expected to contribute their own experiences. Together, we will co-construct the learning environment. The goal of this class is for students to be able to draw on the shared knowledge when they enter the workplace, helping them navigate their organizations and make better decisions. 

Course learning outcomes:

Completion of this course should enable students to meet the following Learning Outcome:

• Students will effectively analyze the complexity of human behavior, and how historical, economic, political, social, or geographic relationships develop, persist, or change.

Required course materials:

There will be weekly reading assignments for both Monday and Wednesday class meetings. Monday will focus primarily on theoretical foundations, while Wednesday will be applied cases. A schedule of the readings is below. 

Week 1 — Introduction: Organizations as Policy Actors

Monday (January 12):
Course introduction and short diagnostic quiz (no readings)

Wednesday (January 14):
Simon, H. A. (1946). The Proverbs of Administration. Public Administration Review, 6(1), 53–67.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/972148

Week 2 — Bureaucracy & Scientific Management

Monday (January 19): NO CLASS

Wednesday (January 21):

Fry, B. R., & Raadschelders, J. C. (2013). Frederick W. Taylor: The man, the method, the movement. In Mastering Public Administration. CQ Press. (Book chapter; library access)

Case: DOT — Transportation Safety & Oversight Failures

Week 3 — Bounded Rationality & Organized Anarchy

Monday (January 26):
Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1974). Leadership in an Organized Anarchy.
In Leadership and Ambiguity. Harvard Business School Press.
Mintzberg, H. (1990). The Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/1990/03/the-managers-job-folklore-and-fact

Wednesday (January 28):
Case: EPA — Flint Water Crisis

Week 4 — Data, Bias, and Expertise

Monday (February 2):
Lewis, M. (2018). The Fifth Risk (selected excerpts). W. W. Norton.
https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393357455
Lewis, M. (2016). The Undoing Project (Chapter 6). W. W. Norton.
https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393354775
Kahneman, D., et al. (2021). Bias Is a Big Problem. But So Is “Noise.” The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/opinion/noise-bias-kahneman.html

Maltz, M. D., Gordon, A. C., & Friedman, W. (1991). Detective Use of the Mapping System.
In Mapping Crime in Its Community Setting (pp. 91–106). Springer. (Library access)

Wednesday (February 4):
Case: DOE — Grid Reliability & Emergency Response

Week 5 — Organizational Wrongdoing

Monday (February 9):
Barboza, D. (2013). Coin of Realm in China Graft: Phony Receipts. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/business/global/coin-of-realm-in-china-graft-phony-receipts.html
Weaver, G. (2019). How to Scandal-Proof Your Company. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2019/07/white-collar-crime

Wednesday (February 11):
Case: SEC — Disclosure, Enforcement, and Liability

Week 6 — Informal Structure in Organizations

Monday (February 16):
Blau, P. (1955). Consultation Among Colleagues. In The Dynamics of Bureaucracy.
Dalton, M. (1959). Men Who Manage (selected excerpts).

Wednesday (February 18):
Case: FTC — Antitrust & Consumer Protection Backlash

Week 7 — Paper 1

Monday (February 23):
Writing workshop (no new readings)

Wednesday (February 25):
Synthesis discussion (no case)

Week 8 — Red Tape & Reengineering

Monday (March 2):
Stinchcombe, A. L., & Heimer, C. A. (1985). Three Origins of Red Tape.
Hammer, M. (1990). Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/1990/07/reengineering-work-dont-automate-obliterate

The Robots Are Coming for Phil in Accounting. The New York Times (2021).
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/06/business/the-robots-are-coming-for-phil-in-accounting.html

Wednesday (March 4):
Case: FDA / USDA — Food & Drug Risk Regulation

Week 9 — New Public Management

Monday (March 9):
Gen, S., & Kingsley, G. (2007). Effects of Contracting Out Engineering Services.
Public Works Management & Policy, 12(1), 331–343.
Ramesh, M. (2008). Autonomy and Control in Public Hospital Reforms.
The American Review of Public Administration, 38(1), 62–79.

Wednesday (March 11):
Case: World Bank — Project Governance & Accountability

Week 10 — Paper 2

Monday (March 16):
Writing workshop

Wednesday (March 18):
Reading synthesis (no case)

Week 11 — Spring Break

Monday (March 23): no class

Wednesday (March 25): no class

Week 12 - Institutional Theory

Monday (March 30):
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2778293
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2095101

Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R., & Shortell, S. M. (1997). Customization or Conformity?
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 366–394. (Library access)

Wednesday (April 1):
Case: UNFCCC / COP — Consensus Governance

Week 13 — Power in Organizations

Monday (April 6):
Hickson, D. J., et al. (1971). Strategic Contingencies Theory.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1974). Power in Organizational Decision Making.

Wednesday (April 8):
Case: WTO — Dispute Settlement & Institutional Strain

Week 14 — Organizational Networks

Monday (April 13):
Krackhardt, D., & Hanson, J. R. (1993). Informal Networks.
https://hbr.org/1993/07/informal-networks-the-company-behind-the-chart
Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and Creativity.

Wednesday (April 15):
Case: WHO — Crisis Response & Legitimacy

Weeks 15/16 — Paper 3 & Course Synthesis

Monday (April 20):
Final paper due

Wednesday (April 22):
Course integration and wrap-up

Monday (April 27): LAST CLASS
Course integration and wrap-upWEDNESDAY CASE READINGS

The following readings support Wednesday case discussions. These materials are primary, public institutional sources. Students are expected to browse these sources strategically to understand each organization’s mandate, decision authority, incentives, and failure modes. Students are not expected to read every document in full. Students may focus on one organization or incident per case unless otherwise noted.

 

We will discuss these organizations and incidents in class using the following standard discussion prompts:

  1. What is the organization’s mandate, and who defines it?
  2. Where does decision-making authority sit (formally and informally)?
  3. What incentives and constraints shape behavior?
  4. What organizational failures occurred, and what caused them?
  5. Who faced consequences, and why?
  6. What reforms might reduce the likelihood of recurrence?
  7. What might a career path look like in this organization, and how could an individual influence policy from within?

Week 2 - Department of Transportation (DOT)

• National Transportation Safety Board. (n.d.). Accident investigations. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/default.aspx

• U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General. (n.d.). Audit and investigation reports. https://www.oig.dot.gov

• U.S. Government Accountability Office. (n.d.). Transportation safety. https://www.gao.gov/transportation
 

Week 3 - Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Flint drinking water response. https://www.epa.gov/flint

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General. (2016). Management weaknesses delayed response to the Flint water crisis. https://www.epa.gov/oig

• U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Reform. (n.d.). Flint water crisis investigation. https://oversight.house.gov

Week 4 - Department of Energy (DOE)

• U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General. (n.d.). Reports and reviews. https://www.energy.gov/ig

• U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity. (n.d.). Grid reliability and resilience. https://www.energy.gov/oe

• North American Electric Reliability Corporation. (n.d.). Reliability standards. https://www.nerc.com

Week 5 - Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

• U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (n.d.). Enforcement actions. https://www.sec.gov/enforcement

• U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (n.d.). Litigation releases. https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases

• U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (n.d.). Investor bulletins. https://www.sec.gov/investor

Week 6 - Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

• Federal Trade Commission. (n.d.). Cases and proceedings. https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings

• Federal Trade Commission. (n.d.). Policy statements and guidance. https://www.ftc.gov/policy

• U.S. Government Accountability Office. (n.d.). Competition and consumer protection. https://www.gao.gov/competition

Week 8 - Food and Drug Administration (FDA) / Department of Agriculture (USDA)

• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Recalls, market withdrawals, and safety alerts. https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts

• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service. (n.d.). Recalls and public health alerts. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Week 9 - World Bank Group (WBG)

• World Bank. (n.d.). Inspection Panel. https://www.inspectionpanel.org

• World Bank. (n.d.). Environmental and social framework. https://www.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/environmental-and-social-framework

• World Bank. (n.d.). Project database. https://projects.worldbank.org

Week 12 - UNFCCC / Climate Governance

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (n.d.). UNFCCC process and COP portal. https://unfccc.int/process

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (n.d.). Nationally determined contributions registry. https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/Pages/All.aspx

• United Nations. (2015). Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement

Week 13 - World Trade Organization (WTO)

• World Trade Organization. (n.d.). Dispute settlement system. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm

• World Trade Organization. (n.d.). WTO legal texts and agreements. https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/legal_e.htm

• World Trade Organization. (n.d.). Trade policy review mechanism. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tpr_e.htm

Week 14 - World Health Organization (WHO)

• World Health Organization. (n.d.). Health emergencies programme. https://www.who.int/emergencies

• World Health Organization. (n.d.). Governance and constitution. https://www.who.int/about/governance

• World Health Organization. (n.d.). Independent evaluations and reviews. https://www.who.int/about/accountability

Grading policy:

Assessments

Three Papers (15% per each) 

Participation (35%) - including class discussions and occasional low-stakes “pop” quizzes

Case contributions (20%) - weekly to bi-weekly case exercises (some individual, some group)

Attendance policy:

Students are expected to attend class each week and contribute productively, as participation is a major portion of the semester grade. Excused absences will be tolerated when there is an advance notice (ideally at least one class meeting ahead of reasonable absence). Students are expected to keep up with work assignments even when they are required to miss class.

Academic honesty/integrity statement:

Students are expected to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity. All work submitted must be original and properly cited. Plagiarism, cheating, or any form of academic dishonesty will result in immediate consequences as outlined in the university's academic integrity policy.

Core IMPACTS statement(s) (if applicable):

This is a Core IMPACTS course that is part of the Social Sciences area.

Core IMPACTS refers to the core curriculum, which provides students with essential 

knowledge in foundational academic areas. This course will help students master course 

content, and support students’ broad academic and career goals.

This course should direct students toward a broad Orienting Question:

• How do I understand human experiences and connections?

Completion of this course should enable students to meet the following Learning Outcome:

• Students will effectively analyze the complexity of human behavior, and how historical, economic, political, social, or geographic relationships develop, persist, or change.

Course content, activities and exercises in this course should help students develop the  following Career-Ready Competencies:

• Intercultural Competence

• Perspective-Taking

• Persuasion

Instructor First Name:
Benjamin
Instructor Last Name:
Jordan
Section:
Public Policy
CRN (you may add up to five):
31831
View PDF
Department (you may add up to three):
Public Policy

Engineering Ethics

Last Updated: Mon, 01/05/2026
Course prefix:
PHIL
Course number:
3109
Semester:
Spring
Academic year:
2026
Course description:

Engineering is a profession, but what exactly does that mean? What is it that engineers are supposed to profess? 

On one account, to be a professional is to have an exclusive claim on authoritative judgment in some domain, which brings with it a certain social standing and a higher degree of autonomy than is generally possible for those who merely have jobs. That acknowledgment of authority is conditional, however: for the public to accept and to trust such an exclusive claim of expertise, professionals must strive to be worthy of trust.

In short, to become a professional is to make a commitment to practice well and responsibly; it is to be accountable to the public. 

In this course, we will examine the ethical commitments at the heart of engineering through attentive reading, lecture, active discussion and writing.

Course learning outcomes:

The overall goal of any ethics course worth its salt is to foster the development of mature and adept moral practice, the ability to respond well to complex problem situations as they arise. 

The more modest goal for this course is to make a few changes in how you perceive and think about the work of an engineer and about the responsibilities you take on when you become a professional. 

For our purposes, these goals should be enough for us to go on. For administrative purposes, though, the syllabus must include some more determinate “outcomes” which align with our aims.

Required course materials:

There is one required text for the course, available through the Georgia Tech Bookstore: Harris, et al., Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases, Sixth Edition (paperback: ISBN 978-1-337-55450-3). There are also electronic versions of the book available but, whatever you do, be sure you get the Sixth Edition!

Grading policy:

With the exception of the Engagement assignments, all grading for the course will be done by the Teaching Assistants, with the guidance and supervision of the Instructor.

Also with the exception of the Engagement assignments, written assignments will be assessed on a 3-point scale, built around the expectations of each assignment as specified above: 3 = exceeds expectations; 2 = meets expectations; 1 = does not meet expectations; 0 = not submitted.

To meet expectations, accomplish the basic work of the assignment or exam prompt, demonstrating a solid understanding of the matter at hand, making the necessary distinctions and/or connections, and no more. 

To exceed expectations, do more than just put in effort: take a risk; reach for some new connection among ideas; try an unusual angle, a shift in perspective; or, really, just do anything that demonstrates full engagement with the process of inquiry aimed at understanding.

The final grade will be determined by an accumulation of points, up to a maximum of 74:

  • 12 Engagement Assignments, dropping the lowest two for a total of 10 points;
  • 9 Exercises, dropping the lowest one for a total of 24 points;
  • 2 Exams, up to a total of 50 points. 

Final grades will then be determined by the following scale:

A = 66-74 

B = 57-65

C = 48-56

D = 40-47

Please note that the gradebook on Canvas will be of limited use to us: while it may provide a record of how many points you have earned on each assignment, it will attempt to calculate your final grade as a weighted average. Ignore that.

Attendance policy:

N/A

Academic honesty/integrity statement:

Georgia Tech aims to cultivate a community based on trust, academic integrity, and honor. Students are expected to act according to the highest ethical standards.  For information on Georgia Tech's Academic Honor Code, please visit http://www.catalog.gatech.edu/policies/honor-code/ or http://www.catalog.gatech.edu/rules/18/.

Any student suspected of cheating or plagiarizing on a quiz, exam, or assignment will be reported to the Office of Student Integrity, which will investigate the incident and identify the appropriate penalty for violations of the Honor Code.

Take this seriously. All suspected instances of academic dishonesty will be dealt with immediately, according to Institute procedures.

Core IMPACTS statement(s) (if applicable):

Core IMPACTS: Humanities

This course should direct students toward a broad Orienting Question:

  • How do I interpret the human experience through creative, linguistic, and philosophical works?

Completion of this course should enable students to meet the following Learning Outcome:

  • Students will effectively analyze and interpret the meaning, cultural significance, and ethical implications of literary/philosophical texts or of works in the visual/performing arts.

Course content, activities and exercises in this course should help student develop the following Career-Ready Competencies:

  • Ethical Reasoning
  • Informational Literacy
  • Intercultural Competence

Ethics Requirement 

Many of you are taking this course to fulfill the Ethics Requirement of your degree program.  You may get more out of your experience with the course if you know the background of that requirement.

Degree programs in engineering are evaluated and accredited by a non-profit organization known as ABET, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. In the current version of the criteria for accreditation, Criterion 3.3 specifies that students should come away from a degree program in engineering with “an ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts.” 

In April 2023, The Academic Faculty of the Institute specified outcomes for courses that fulfill the Ethics Requirement. Students should come away with:

  • An ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in real-world contexts.
  • An ability to assess actions or decisions based on established ethical principles and theories, or through deliberative processes.
  • An ability to consider the implications of actions, both broadly (e.g., global, economic, environmental, or societal) and for individuals.

This course is designed to foster the kind of moral imagination that is a prerequisite for these three “outcomes.” 

Instructor First Name:
Robert
Instructor Last Name:
Kirkman
Section:
RK
CRN (you may add up to five):
33619
33620
View PDF
Department (you may add up to three):
Public Policy
Subscribe to Public Policy