Agnew was extremely passionate about the subject matter. Over the course of lecture, he would gradually raise his voice, until about 45 minutes in he would be roaring about the importance of protecting infant industries or the effect of containerized shipping on the geography of production. In my view, this made him a great professor. His excitement during lectures made me enjoy the material a lot. His tests were un-thought-provoking and easy (too easy imho), but on the whole I would highly recommend taking a class from professor Agnew.

Lectures were interesting at first but as the course went on they started to get duller. I was expecting more "economics economics" than "historical economics" Chapters are assigned weekly to read but after I realized the test only comes from the lecture, I just skimmed through them. The midterm was relatively easy but the final really had unexpected questions, the format was unlike the midterm. Overall, easy B if you basically copy the notes and try to stay attention, but I studied really hard to end up with a B+.

Professor Agnew himself was nice and helpful, although he would repeat things in different words over and over again.

this class is horrible.
- there's a ridiculous amount of reading each week; one week it was 90 pages. and it's all extremely dry
- there's about 200 people in this class, but agnew refuses to use a microphone
- the above wouldn't be a problem for me, except that the students in this class have severe saving-seats-itis, so on days that i go early i still have to sit in the back as i glare at the rows in front of me, where there are more saved than occupied seats. but then again this may just be a quarter- specific issue
- the discussion/ my TA are useless
- the lectures are boring
unless you really like econ or history or you need to take this class, DON'T TAKE IT.

I was not a fan of Prof. Agnew. His lecture style was very disorganized (he just scribbled random thoughts onto the chalkboard) and he had a very holier-than-thou attitude. By this, I mean that his disdain was extremely apparent for students who did not inherently know or understand the concepts he taught. He would get upset when students asked him to clarify his points in the lecture which fostered an environment that did not invite students to ask questions or seek help outside of class. And the amount of material we were expected to memorize for this class was ridiculous! And many of the concepts and trends were very similar and difficult to distinguish between. In the end his tests covered the relatively basic points from his lectures, but I still definitely had to bs on a couple of questions. Ultimately, I think that this course is a bit hard for a simple GE. If you get Nicholas Lustig for your TA, keep in mind that his weekly section assignments can be difficult and can take a long time to complete, but they are pretty effective in forcing you to get to know the material.

Agnew is a awesome professor who cares a lot about his students.

If you get Ford as a T.A, drop his section.

I'm guessing the person below me didn't read/attend lecture much/care about anything related to geography, because Agnew is a great, caring professor. It's true that he didn't always get through everything he said he was going to- there were a few times that he'd outline three points and then end up squeezing in the last one in the last ten minutes of class, but throughout all the lectures it was clear how enthusiastic he was about the material. All of his exam questions were things he had discussed in class, so in terms of reading, the book (which he co-wrote) is helpful in clarification, but you don't need to try to learn the concepts he didn't cover. My TA was AWFUL; he would ask if people had questions and then spend the entire discussion on a tangent about one question, and he would give different definitions each time you asked him. It seemed like there was some discrepancy between TA grading harshness, because mine was super lenient on the midterm and the other one a little harsh. The other one was a lot more helpful in prep for finals though, so I would have gone for her overall.
All in all, even though I wasn't really interested in economics, the class was pretty interesting because Agnew made his lectures amusing and threw in some fun facts that kept it from getting dry. I thought he was a really caring professor, and I'd for sure take another one of his classes.

Honestly, this was one of THE most dry and boring classes I've ever taken. But it was also, really easy. Professor Agnew is a nice guy, but he is absolutely unorganized. He has two lectures a week, at an hour and fifteen a piece. In this time, he probably gets through a quarter of what he outlines at the beginning of the lecture, leaving you to fill in the pieces from the reading. The good thing is he only writes exam questions from his own lectures, so this works in your favor. The discussion sections are also pretty pointless. The class is very dry, and he makes you a read a book about the Shipping Container, 10th week, and it's entirely pointless. I wouldn't recommend taking this class if you don't have to, but if you do have to, it's pretty easy.

Agnew is a really great guy. He is very easy to approach and always willing to chat. He is also really smart and his mastery of the subject is evident -- he doesn't use notes and he wrote both of the texts that the class uses. His Geog 4 class was pretty interesting, and very reasonable as far as the work goes. There is a short-answer midterm, a short-answer final (that is twice as long as the midterm and worth twice as much), and a section which has a short weekly response. Granted, he can tend to get off topic and ramble in lecture and the readings are many and dense. Nevertheless, I'd still recommend the class.

geog 4 was the biggest mistake of my academic career. i got a not so decent grade and above all i don't really remember learning anything in this class.. think about it, GLOBALIZATION and the WORLD ECONOMY in a quarter is pretty unbelievable if you ask me. this topic is not meant to be a quarter class, so just take my advice and try to avoid as much as possible. agnew is a great guy, very, very intelligent, but i'm one who has a problem with the course not the professor. plus, for the exam, we didn't really have a heads up on what we were going to be tested on, sure we had a "sample" exam/mid-term but the range of material you learn for the course is just too superfluous, that you can't really grasp what to study for. and note: the KNOX textbook is dreadful.

This class was such a horrible mistake. I suppose I took it as an alternative to 8 AM econ, but I wish I could reverse the decision. It is NOT actually Agnew who corrects the tests, it is the TAs, and they grade very harshly, without giving much partial credit, and their grading is erratic. The lectures make the material seem easy, but what he actually tests you on is barely mentioned in lecture. The reading consists of two books, one of which is his and the other he co-wrote, and even the TAs admit that they are painfully verbose and excessively long. DO NOT BE FOOLED and think you're taking an easy class! Seriously, think about another professor.