Development of political science courses on the college level is discussed in light of bureaucratic and disciplinary constraints. Bureaucratic constraints are interpreted to include clearance from institutional superiors, adequate student enrollment, adequate personnel and research resources, and relevance to undergraduate political science study. Disciplinary constraints mandate that the content of a proposed course meet generally accepted criteria for what constitutes a course in political science. It is hypothesized that bureaucratic constraints are more familiar, more confining, and have less legitimacy in the eyes of most political scientists than disciplinary constraints. Data used to test these hypotheses are based on personal experience developing a political science program for a six-week intensive summer school for academically gifted high school students (the Governor's School of South Carolina). Objectives of the program were to minimize bureaucratic constraints and to encourage faculty and students to pursue their chosen disciplines. Despite the lack of bureaucratic constraints, faculty encountered problems developing courses. Problems included selecting the most appropriate subject matter and placing disciplinary criteria above personal or student-centered criteria. On the basis of this case study, it is suggested that political scientists are so accustomed to bureaucratic constraints that they may be at somewhat of a loss to proceed when these constraints are absent. (DB)