At this time of the dialogue, I believe we should dedicate a syllabus analysis teaching breakfast to the topic - Dante has Virgil as a guide through hell - and is rather happy with him, but I hope my classes are nor hell... Teh negotiation is possible if one thing is understood: students have no contract with the teaching professor...
As we speak, I am finding consensus on changes of the syllabei - re. "soft" items; rules such as minimum attendance or time of final (see university policy) are not up to debate, yet they seem to invite the most controversy. In a democracy, Rousseau hoped for free flow of discussion - and final agreement. Little did he know... He did know that the larger groups would not be fit for what he called a republic - and I expereince that the (not awakened) 80 8 a.m. students cannot engage in the same meaningful discourse as the 25 at 4 p.m.
your Achim
 
 

Dear Jim and all syllabus-users:
when I came long time ago from far shores, the addiction to syllabei struck me - we didn't need them in old Europe...
Indeed, they give the flase impression that all is written in stone - and thus prevent true dialogue, that allows for changes due to needs of both parties; but mutual TRUST is required - and somehow this legalized society trusts only what could stand the ordeal of a hearing or a court of law.
Syllabus distribution is good, I believe today, because it serves as an outline; if it nails rules on walls, it is less good: it ommitts the dialogue function of teaching, which in a socratic method means that all and everything can be questioned - even the wisom of the professor.... And with 78 students in my 8 a.m intro, I am not ready to enter into such open dialogue.  Any suggestions?
your Achim