{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013875123885034688, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.0843373493975905, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A National Status Report on Outcomes Assessment by Departments of Political Science

fields of technical arcana, but rather engaged exemplars of civic virtue who have secured a comprehensive vision of the political world and their responsibilities within it. To ward off internal incoherence, must we now choose between these rival self-understandings? The first is at bottom an anachronism which entails our belief that epistemic order, like that of the self, can exist only if each possesses a "core" whose power radiates into and unifies its various members. That essentialist myth forfeited its plausibility when we lost our ability to refer in good faith to man as a being with a determinate telos. The second seeks to compensate for this existential crisis via the bureaucratized surrogate that is a specialized discipline. Since complete realization of that ideal would require expelling the politics from political science, it is not clear why we should find this option more palatable than the first.