Comparing UCLA and UCL class content through IDS 191

A key development critique covered at UCL in last year’s GEOG2014 (Development Geography I) class was the neocolonial argument. Since joining UCLA I have revisited the topic in my International Development Studies 191 class: China’s Trade with Africa: Neocolonial or Win-Win? The class follows a question proposed by Howard W. French in his book China’s Second Continent (2014).

As discussed in a previous post this class aimed to answer the above question by examining and writing a group paper describing China’s relationship with a specific African country, in my case Tanzania. For the sake of brevity I will not delve too much into the details of this paper (which can be found here) other than to say that we found Tanzania, while having an asymmetrical trade relationship with China, not to be dependent on the Asian giant. In addition, while Chinese infrastructure projects in Tanzania may be evocative of neocolonial administrative power, we argue that these should instead be seen as investment projects in response to Tanzania’s promising pool of natural resources. Thus while China can be seen as benefitting from easy access to these reserves, Tanzania also benefits greatly from an efficient and reliable partner to monetise them.

As well as providing a chance to study a particularly salient issue in Geography, this class has also been an excellent opportunity to explore how Geography is taught differently here at UCLA compared with UCL.

The most interesting difference I came across was the structure and content of the class. In GEOG2014, neocolonialism was contained within a single lecture with Africa being given as a mere case study. IDS 191 on the other hand affords 10 weeks (thirty hours) to examining one question. This is not the only example: UCLA IDS 192 (Africa’s Changing Classes) and IDS 102 (Gendered Development) both focus on themes that are covered by UCL's GEOG2014 in single lectures. I believe this to be an exemplary difference between the two universities. Indeed UCLA IDS is an entire department devoted to studying a field that UCL Geography covers in only two modules. I must also add that, beyond a detailed understanding of Sino-Tanzanian trade, I do not feel this class has offered any more than what was covered in a single lecture on neocolonialism last year.

I therefore believe that, at least when comparing the two universities’ Geography departments, UCL teaches a greater breadth of content at a faster pace than UCLA. While UCLA’s lower division courses do offer more breadth than its higher division classes, for example GEOG 4 (Globalization: Regional Development and World Economy), comments made by students suggest this comes is at the expense of depth. Indeed such classes are mostly taken as a prerequisites for others such as IDS 191.

It is important to state that these observations are limited to this one class, complemented by other class syllabuses and student comments. I hope that next quarter’s GEOG 141 class (Uneven Development Geographies: Prosperity and Impoverishment in Third World) will add further insight into this comparison between the two universities and their Geography departments.

References

French, H.W. (2014) China’s Second Continent, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.