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