IHUM Faculty Survey—Fall 2002—Summary

 

In fall of 2002, we sent out a questionnaire to all current and former faculty lecturers in fall and winter/spring IHUM classes. We received responses from 28 individuals, representing a total of 11 H&S departments, the Law School and the Medical School. The representation was as follows (a number of respondents have joint appointments):

 

Asian - 1

Classics - 6

Comparative Literature - 4

Drama - 1

English - 6

German - 1

History - 4

Law – 1

Medicine - 1

Music - 1

Philosophy - 2

Religious Studies - 1
Slavic – 2

Spanish and Portuguese - 2

 

Of the respondents, 14 identified themselves as having taught fall quarter classes, 15 taught winter/spring classes (one had done both). Only 5 were not teaching IHUM this year (2002-03), and, of those, 4 will certainly teach IHUM again in the future (3 next year).

 

We have substituted letters for professors' names and omitted the names of the specific courses they have taught, but we have left their departmental affiliations intact on the returned questionnaires. We have also, for each respondent, indicated in general terms what kind of course they have taught (fall or win/spr), how often they have taught it (once, twice, often), and whether they are teaching IHUM this year. These data have also been given in square brackets after the quotes below.

 

______________________

 

1. In what way has teaching in IHUM been different from teaching a regular course? Please outline both positive and negative differences.

 

All of the faculty saw IHUM classes, whether fall or winter/spring, as being quite different from their regular classes. Classifying these differences as positive or negative was not always easy. In the first place, these classes are required. Some faculty saw this feature as a negative leading to lack of interest on the students' part, attendance problems and the like, while others viewed it as a positive, making students think about issues that they might otherwise ignore, and challenging the faculty to articulate their positions more persuasively and interestingly. Secondly, the lecture classes are large, seen sometimes as a problem leading to insufficient contact with students, at other times as a challenge enabling one to reach a large and diverse young population:

 

I would describe the main differences as follows: the course is required and large and has additional layers of administration to it, because of how it is taught. I should add that none of these things are especially negative if we all agree that freshmen should do a required humanities course. . . I enjoy teaching freshmen, because it's all new to them and they're sponges, but I think most of us would say that teaching large impersonal classes to students who are not uniformly interested is a greater challenge and at times less rewarding than other aspects of our teaching. (Prof. G, [win/spr, twice, including 2002-03])

 

My other lecture courses -- mainly for music majors -- are much smaller. IHUM requires a large amount of planning, coordination and choreography compared with other kinds of teaching. Because of the size of the class and the heterogeneity of the students, it's hard to gauge the reception of the lectures, especially with regard to technical explanations. I rely on the fellows for feedback from the sections. On the other hand, it's both challenging and rewarding to prepare lectures for such a diverse audience. There are also rewards to be had from team teaching.

(Prof. J, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

I like the chance to address future scientists and doctors whom I usually don't get in my classes on a great range of questions -- ethical, philosophical, aesthetic -- that I consider important and which they may not otherwise be forced to consider here at Stanford.

(Prof. W, [fall, often, not currently])

 

By far the positive element cited most often by the faculty was the team-teaching aspect of IHUM (mostly, but not only, relevant to the Fall):

 

This is a team taught course (three faculty and three TFs), and to be successful, one has to pitch the course to both the Freshmen and your own colleagues. One does not face this problem in teaching any other class, and this is a tall order to be addressing two different audiences, but if it works, the satisfaction is great.

(Prof. H, [win/spr, often, not currently])

 

I have really enjoyed the team teaching aspects, getting to know colleagues and experience their teaching styles. I have also enjoyed the opportunity to read texts I otherwise would not have read.

(Prof. I, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

I really enjoy teaching with another person. I deliberately look for someone whose mental style or area of competence is at some distance from my own, so that I can learn to look at things in a new way and so that the students get two very different sorts of light cast on the subject.

(Prof. U, [fall, often, including 2002-03], [win/spr, twice, not currently])

 

The next most frequently mentioned positive aspect of IHUM was the quality of the Teaching Fellows (only one Faculty member found them to be a negative factor; see quote from Prof. Q in section 3):

 

Great TF's!

(Prof. F, [win/spr, twice, including 2002-03])

 

The presence of the postdoctoral teaching fellows is a real plus, both for them and the students.

(Prof. G, [win/spr, twice, including 2002-03])

 

Great support - TF's who are seasoned

(Prof. N, [win/spr, often, including 2002-03])

 

The quality of assistance is strikingly good; the lecturers have been mature teacher scholars, with more time than most TA's, and the number of hours in section is a good thing.

(Prof. R, [fall, twice, including 2002-03])

 

The Fellows are genuinely colleagues and I learn from them as well.

(Prof. U, [fall, often, including 2002-03], [win/spr, twice, not currently]))

 

Other plusses, in descending order of number of times mentioned, were:

 

* Ability, even requirement, to break outside the bounds of one's own discipline (especially fall).

 

* Ability to teach a Humanities class over two quarters (winter/spring).

 

* Fewer lectures are delivered in team-taught classes; no paper correction: i.e. less work (only two said this, however, and others said teaching in IHUM is more work).

 

Associated with the negatives having to do with the required and large nature of the classes, documented above, two professors explicitly noted that their teaching evaluations tended to suffer when compared with their other classes.

 

My evaluations for IHUM, though good in relation to the IHUM averages, are in absolute numbers lower than they are for any other course I teach, and this can be demoralizing.

(Prof. AA, [win/spr, often, including 2002-03])

 

The teaching evaluations are a worry for pre-tenure faculty; it was a big, depressing shock to fall more than a full point lower than my usual numbers in my first IHUM year (though my numbers have gotten better since), and one wonders what that looks like on one's re-appointment file.

(Prof. X, [win/spr, often, including 2002-03])

 

One respondent felt there could be a better relationship between faculty lecturers and fellows:

 

One of the only "negatives" from my point of view is the hierarchical relationship between "faculty" and teaching fellows.  I would opt for ways of lowering boundaries, at least symbolically.  Perhaps there could be more encouragement of having TFs give course lectures, etc.  (I realize that these sorts of things can be done now, but it's hard when you don't know in advance -- for the fall courses -- who the TFs will be, and what their strengths are.)

(Prof. Y, [fall, twice, including 2002-03])

 

 

2. Overall, have you been satisfied with your participation in IHUM?

 

Out of the 27 faculty members returning the questionnaire, 24 answered yes or emphatically yes to this question:

 

Yes. I think it is a fantastic program--a great improvement on the old freshman CIV tracks.

(Prof. P, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

Yes, I've enjoyed it, felt well-compensated, and felt like I was doing something that was working pretty well and was appreciated by the students.

(Prof. R, [fall, twice, including 2002-03])

 

Yes. IHUM has been the most enjoyable teaching of my career at Stanford, I can say with no hesitation.

(Prof. U, [fall, often, including 2002-03], [win/spr, twice, not currently]))

 

I'm very satisfied, and have found it rewarding intellectually and personally.  In fact, the experience has motivated me to make changes in my academic life so that I may have more time for teaching.

(Prof. Y, [fall, twice, including 2002-03])

 

 

One answered no (see quote in section 3). Two can be characterized as divided, as in this example:

 

Some of us are satisfied when they do their duty, and there is nothing more important than teaching first-year students. But this does not mean that IHUM or any Frosh core curriculum cannot be improved.

(Prof. B, [win/spr, twice, not currently])

 

3. What has been your experience working with the post-doctoral Fellows teaching sections of your courses? Have you directed or supervised them in any way? How regularly have you met with them? What is the function of those meetings?

 

Though the answer to this question clearly depends partly on the qualities of specific Fellows, the vast majority of experiences described were positive:

 

The fellows tend to be very devoted and hard-working, and very smart.

(Prof. B, [win/spr, twice, not currently])

 

This has been a real pleasure (this year especially). They have by and large been very good to exceptional teachers, and their enthusiasm and energy is a big plus.

(Prof. I, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

With only one or two exceptions, I have loved working with these brilliant young scholars.

(Prof. W, [fall, often, not currently])

 

One faculty member, while positive about Fellows, questions the "resource sense" of having them:

 

It's nice to have these postdocs around, as younger colleagues. Yet I thought it made more resource sense to have these sections staffed by our grad students and by faculty.

(Prof. A, [win/spr, often, including 2002-03])

 

One faculty member clearly had a bad experience the one time she taught IHUM:

 

Our five were not very good but very arrogant and unlike one's own grad students wanted to do their own thing. They literally undercut half of what we taught.

(Prof. Q, [fall, once, five years ago])

 

It should be emphasized that this is not the normal experience, to judge from the vast majority of responses.

 

While practices vary somewhat as to the extent to which faculty get involved in designing writing assignments, test questions, and the like, on the whole they do not "supervise" the Fellows to any great extent. In almost all cases they meet with the Fellows as a group weekly, most attend the fellows' sections at least once, some invite them to give lectures. Many faculty see themselves at least partly as mentors helping further the Fellows' academic careers. Here is one representative quote:

 

They've been great. They vary, of course. I've worked with about a dozen, and they've nearly all been first-rate--well organized, committed to teaching, and good to work with. I've visited at least one discussion class taught by each of them, and usually two, and seen each of them give at least one lecture. Normally we've met as a group to discuss the progress of the course once a week, unless there was something special going on, when we would have an extra meeting. We'd discuss problems with students, then go over the texts to be discussed in the sections. I'd say what I would do with them, which they disregard if they want to. They meet separately to come up with paper topics and exam questions, then we circulate these by e-mail and have special meetings to discuss and finalize them. I also try to have lunch or coffee with each fellow separately as early as possible in the year to talk about their research and job hunting plans. How that goes has depended on the individual fellows. Some have been keen to talk and have joined in workshops and activities in Classics or the Archaeology Center, while others have kept pretty much to themselves the whole time. I've been happy with nearly all the teaching they've done, and my main worry has been that some of the TFs have let IHUM eat up their whole lives, and haven't got much writing done, which hurts them when they try to move on.

(Prof. O, [win/spr, often, including 2002-03])

 

4. To what extent has your course teaching been informed by the one-two structure of IHUM? That is, if you teach a Fall class, do you feel you are imparting skills which student can use in their Winter/Spring courses, and if you teach a Winter/Spring class, do you pay any attention to what students have done in the Fall?

 

This question addresses one of the most interesting and innovative aspects of IHUM, but also one of the most difficult to assess. Judging from the responses, we perhaps did not phrase the question as clearly as we might have. Many Winter/Spring faculty saw it on the whole as a question about content rather than skills, and answered it negatively:

 

Given that the students have done a plurality of things in the Fall (several tracks without any textual intersection), this is impossible.

(Prof. B, [win/spr, twice, not currently])

 

My sense is that [our] team treats the two-quarter sequence as a self-contained enterprise. In any case, both our winter and spring classes are fed from different streams, so it is not quite clear to us how we can take the fall Ihum class into account. We are of course grateful to the intrepid souls who perform the initiation rites in the fall.

(Prof. H, [win/spr, often, not currently])

 

As I have found it hard to keep up w/what goes on in all Fall courses (maybe I need to investigate – or perhaps IHUM could mediate) my winter course makes no explicit use of Fall student experiences. Hard to see how we might, given diverse incoming student knowledge.

(Prof. N, [win/spr, often, including 2002-03])

 

Some Winter/Spring faculty did address at least somewhat the notion that Fall quarter has a different function, namely to foster skills in close reading and critical thinking. Still, they see some problems:

 

The problem with the 1-2 sequence is that it is probably unusual for there to be any direct connection (especially for history where there are no fall classes). That being said, I'm sure students bring all sorts of skills and ideas to class that the TFs can see and understand better than I do, since they've usually taught both parts. For a history class, I suspect we are coping with their somewhat lower expectations of reading, based on the fall classes, since we tend to ask them to read more extensively rather than intensively.

(Prof. G, [win/spr, twice, including 2002-03])

 

In some ways, I think the structure creates difficulties for the winter-spring classes. It seems to me that the fall classes to such an extent emphasize skills and de-emphasize cultural and historical contexts that when the students get to a winter-spring sequence such as ours, which is based on a single, unfamiliar national canon and in which the lectures are inevitably full of cultural and historical information, the students are skeptical and turned off. .. I’m not suggesting here that the fall IHUMs are not valuable – I think they are very valuable. But I wonder if it could be made clear to the students early on that the fall classes offer one (or several) set of approaches to texts, and the winter-spring classes will offer DIFFERENT approaches.

(Prof. S, [win/spr, often, not currently])

 

On the whole, Fall faculty were much clearer on what the question meant, and many of them did feel that they were imparting skills usable in Winter/Spring classes, and for that matter in life:

 

I certainly hope we are imparting skills the students can use for the rest of their lives and therefore also in winter/spring classes. Otherwise the disconnect could not be more complete.

(Prof. C, [fall, twice, including 2002-03])

 

I can't say that I paid attention to what they would do in the winter/spring per se. What we did do was think about modeling methods or methodologies in our lectures. We provided them with diverse approaches to texts and close readings and analyses of materials. This sense of how to approach the text and how to engage it are skills that they brought with them to the winter/spring. The idea of using the lecture as a text was also something that carried over into the winter/spring. The professor/lecturers modeled ways to approach a text and to develop an argument and these are important skills that translate even beyond IHUM.

(Prof. D, [fall, often, not currently])

 

This structure is very interesting to me and I have been very concerned to deliver skills and an overall indication of the scope of the humanities

(Prof. V, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

At the end of fall quarter one of our students came to my office and told me that her experience of the fall quarter had made her "question" everything she read, even articles in the New York Times, to accept nothing at face value.  I found this very gratifying. 

(Prof. Y, [fall, twice, including 2002-03])

 

 

Some fall faculty still saw little connection between fall and winter/spring classes:

 

It seems to me there is a complete disconnect between the first quarter

courses and those that follow. The distinction between them is almost

completely artificial and should be abandoned.

(Prof. E, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

5. In your opinion, how well has the one-two structure of IHUM worked?

 

The largest group of answers to this question (11 out of 27) amounts to "I have no idea." Three faculty members think it works well (one sample quote):

 

I think it was a brilliant idea. There are some things that can be done in one quarter (say, method, a higher level of analysis, introduction to a select group of difficult and important texts, etc.). And it is an incredible luxury for both Stanford faculty and students to be taken on an extended 20-week tour of a culture or a field, with all the continuities that such a trip affords. In short, I think this is a brilliant arrangement, giving the students a taste of a single-shot course as well as having them experience an absorption into a discipline or a field.

(Prof. H, [win/spr, often, not currently])

 

Prof. Z hears from the fellows that it works well. Prof. X thinks it works moderately well:

 

Middlingly.  I think slower, less well-prepared freshmen tend to suffer in fall; they're confused and overwhelmed.  But the brighter, well-read, harder workers get bored in winter/spring, especially when they are thrown together yet again with a bunch of the, shall we say, less invested students in seminars.

(Prof. X, [win/spr, often, including 2002-03])

 

Three think it works poorly (one sample quote):

 

Poorly. When I taught in a second-third quarter sequence, it was my strong impression that the first quarter courses were completely isolated experiences which had no impact at all on the course sequences in the second and third quarters.

(Prof. E, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

The remaining seven answers are a little more complicated. Prof. A, for example, appreciates the fact that it's easier for departments to teach two quarters than three, but misses the extra time:

 

Well, it's lightened up the pressure on our department to mount [the class], and given our low level of staffing, doing three quarters was always tough. But I do regret losing the challenge of the three-quarter course. Too much at Stanford is too short.

(Prof. A, [win/spr, often, including 2002-03])

 

While not being totally clear on how the fall classes work, Prof. AA notes that the 1-2 structure facilitates informed choice on the part of students:

 

The students clearly appreciate getting to choose a course with some lead time once they are on campus, so starting the longer course with the winter quarter seems to work very well.

(Prof. AA [win/spr, often, including 2002-03])

 

 

Prof. G, without explicitly faulting the 1-2 structure, would like more flexibility:

 

I'm going to leave this for others more experienced with the first part to say definitively. My personal preference would be to allow both models -- 1-2-3 and 1-2 -- to coexist because some subjects deserve year-long treatment, and some students will want this kind of unifying core, while other topics work best on a shorter model and other students prefer variety. For instance, I think it was preferable to have History be 1 2-3 and I could also imagine having at least one other sequence in literature or philosophy work this way (or simply Great Works).

(Prof. G, [win/spr, twice, including 2002-03])

 

Prof. N is unsure, but put a positive spin on the answer:

 

See above – it’s very hard to tell. I do think students are put off center by Fall work – that it destabilizes them enough & gets them ready to appreciate all sorts of approaches & media. So it’s a useful preparatory device, a fruitful de-centering.

(Prof. N, [win/spr, often, including 2002-03])

 

Prof. O's response may be taken the same way:

 

I think it's great in theory, but in practice I think the fall courses have been pitched too high and are sometimes a little disorganized . . . I think that having an autumn intro to the whole range of the humanities then 2 more focused quarters is good, but the autumn courses need to be better thought out, and perhaps to have a shared set of targets--teaching how to read closely, to criticize sources, to contextualize, to develop logical arguments and base them on evidence, etc.

(Prof. O, [win/spr, often, including 2002-03])

 

Since what Prof. O suggests here is what IHUM was originally designed to do, and is perhaps getting better at doing (see the summary of the Fall 2001 Web Survey responses) [make link], we will end the summary of answers to this question here.

 

6. To what extent have you incorporated in your class works from outside the Western canon? To what extent has this been or should it be a criterion for works included in IHUM classes?

 

The answers to this question were interesting, and revolve partly around what "Western canon" means. If it is understood as "dead white Western males," then a deviation from any one of these adjectives and nouns would be "outside the Western canon." These are effectively the terms understood and addressed by the present GER 4. But several of the faculty responding here assume explicitly a different understanding of "canon" and "non-canonical":

 

But in any case, I believe that what we have is not a “Western canon” but many “Western canons.” ... Practically, we all have different “Western canons:” Spanish and Portuguese has one, French has another, Slavic, yet another. As soon as we move beyond the classics and the Scripture, our canons begin to diverge.

Finally, to the extent that what we are teaching is a tradition, such courses will always have elements of the “canon” (what ever it may be). But to the extent that what we are teaching is a living tradition, such a course would, ipso facto, include materials that are not “canonical.”

(Prof. H, [win/spr, often, not currently])

 

[Our class] is about the "intersection between art and popular culture"; it is both highly canonic (Shakespeare, Verdi, Wagner, Strauss, et al.) and highly uncanonic (various movies).

(Prof. J, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

The whole idea of [our course] is to subvert the “canon” from within by showing how, even in the most traditional literature (“classics”) there are all sorts of texts that have been excluded by two dimensional & uncreative acceptance of a “canon” in the past, even by its proponents. I think attention to canon issues shd. be required but shd. be done in a less blunt way (no good guy/bad guy rhetoric).

(Prof. N, [win/spr, often, including 2002-03])

 

That said, most of the faculty responding did more or less assume the question was about "white Western males." Three stated that they did not include non-canonical works in that sense (though one such fall respondent does in fact have a female author on the syllabus):

 

The only criterion for works in IHum classes should be that the

instructors believe that it is important that the students be exposed to them. The "representation" argument that generated the demand for non-canonical texts has long been demolished (by Guillory among others) and there is no good intellectual reason for continuing to make it a criterion for text selection.

(Prof. E, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

A fairly large number did include "non-canonical" works in this sense, and considered it to be an important criterion for IHUM classes:

 

I think it must be a criterion in the future. The courses must have more diversity. This was always a part of the course I taught. This has not been true across the board ...

(Prof. D, [fall, often, not currently])

 

We have always had at least one text from outside of the canon. I think it should be strongly recommended (but not required) that the courses include one such text.

(Prof. P, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

We have included works from outside the traditional Western canon. I continue to believe that it should be a criterion for including works in IHUM classes.

(Prof. T, [fall, twice, including 2002-03])

 

have always done so and think it is very important

(Prof. V, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

An even larger number indicated that they had in fact included "non-canonical" works in this sense, but stated more or less explicitly that such inclusions had to make good intellectual sense, and should not be required per se:

 

In the winter quarter, I still do DuBois, who has a real link to the German material. Can one really say that DuBois is outside the 'traditional Western canon' any more? He is the probably the most canonized Afr-Am author. So does your phrase really mean "outside the canon" or does it mean "non-white plus anything non-traditional"? I think these sorts of requirements have outlived their purpose and should be dropped.

(Prof. A, [win/spr, often, including 2002-03])

 

A motley array of texts, whether culled from the West or elsewhere, does not necessarily coalesce into an intellectual structure. The non-western works should be canonical -- and a great number of these have long been recognized as such ... And there are good reasons why works become canonical -- it is not simply a question of what group is on top. Furthermore, a good teacher can teach gender, ethnicity and class using canonical works. We should not go for diversity for diversity's sake -- we shall fall into the trap of quotas ...

(Prof. B, [win/spr, twice, not currently])

 

I personally don't feel we should be imposing any sort of artificial criteria on introductory classes. The most important thing is to ask faculty to introduce students to significant and exciting domains and knowledge and do this in a way that is both interesting and informative. In other words, quality above all else, and this can be achieved through a course that is entirely traditional, entirely novel or somewhere in between.

(Prof. G, [win/spr, twice, including 2002-03])

 

We used Fanon's text on colonial violence because it fit our themes. I am opposed to requiring non-canonical works (which, of course, ends up by affirming that there is such a thing as a canon). I would like to see some non-western IHUMS, on Asia, for instance, or Islam.

(Prof. L, [win/spr, often, including 2002-03])

 

To do the kinds of IHUM classes mentioned in the last quote, of course, requires expertise. Several respondents mention this explicitly:

 

This has been difficult. We have used texts by women: Margery Kempe, Virginia Woolf. And this year we have used The Golden Ass, which is allowing us to develop a North Africa focus (Apuleius, Plotinus, Augustine, Flaubert’s trip to Egypt) and an Egyptian motif. But none of the faculty with whom I have taught, nor I, have the expertise to venture too far afield.

(Prof. I, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

I do that a lot, quite naturally since that’s what I ordinarily teach. I don’t think it needs to be a criterion, since it’s hard to ask people to teach books that they themselves are not sure they understand. Better a non-traditional reading of Homer or Shakespeare, I say, than an unoriginal and stereotype-laden reading of Shakuntala or the Bagre. However, IHUM as a whole should always seek to include this element of variety.

(Prof. U, [fall, often, including 2002-03], [win/spr, twice, not currently]))

 

 

7. How important has student writing been to your design of the course? How has this been reflected in the design of assignments for the course?

 

Almost all faculty members emphasized that assignments for the course were carefully thought out, with the fellows, to allow for the incremental acquisition of writing and argumentation skills by the students:

 

We try hard to make it integral and challenging, with a gradual development for them.

(Prof. F, [win/spr, twice, including 2002-03])

 

We take writing of literary analysis seriously & expect students to do two papers, w/consultation & feedback on each. If we had time, more writing instruction would be included. We try to connect students w/the writing center resources.

(Prof. N, [win/spr, often, including 2002-03])

 

Well, it seems to be our main form of evaluation, we put quite a bit of time into settling questions, the lecturers seem focused on writing and strike me as good teachers. We are apparently following guidelines from the Central Committee which seem well thought out. So, I think just as important as it is supposed to be.

(Prof. R, [fall, twice, including 2002-03])

 

My experience is that students really learn only when they are writing, and the closer attention we can get them to pay to their own writing process (style, organization, commas, the whole darn thing) the more they learn from it. So we try to develop assignments that are keyed into the basic ideas of the course and that lie along a line of progressive skills (summary leading to commentary leading to close reading leading to reading for context leading to argumentative essays). We use web exercises to stimulate some of these skills too.

(Prof. U, [fall, often, including 2002-03], [win/spr, twice, not currently]))

 

Two faculty members expressed somewhat divergent views. Prof. A, who considers writing to be important in his course, feels that its writing level is lower than that of its CIV predecessor. Prof. E feels that writing instruction should be left to PWR.

 

8. (Fall faculty) To what extent have you followed or fudged the mandate to study 3-5 primary texts in your class? Have you seen any advantages or disadvantages to this mandate? For you, for the students?

 

14 fall quarter instructors answered this question. Of these, all but three taught classes that strictly met the requirement of 3-5 texts (basically 5). One of the three pointed out the difficulty of defining “text”:

 

The problem is what to call a "text."  We actually use a video of a ritual as a key text, but I'm not sure how we count it. I think flexibility is key, rather than strict counting.

(Prof Y [fall, twice, including 2002-03])

 

Another class had a more complex structure in which one could argue that there were either three texts, or nine:

 

[Our class] expands the notion of text to include music and film. We have three primary texts on the syllabus and various transformations of these texts into other media. One of the central themes is the instability of text in the traditional sense of some kind of Urtext. With opera, for example, we seek to study the work as an event, taking into account the various factors that comprise the event and which affect the form of the text over time. Even with Shakespeare, as a writer for the theater, similar issues obtain.

(Prof. J, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

The third had six texts, but in some ways a similar structure (three texts in some sense answered by three other texts):

 

Given our organizing principle, it was impossible to restrict the texts to 3-5. The number is totally arbitrary and serves no useful purpose. It creates false expectations about course content and frequently leads to complaints from the students in second and third quarter courses that they are being asked to read too many texts.

(Prof. E, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

Of the other eleven respondents, one echoed the worry about students found in the preceding quote:

 

We have gotten some mixed information back. Some students seem to think 5 texts is a light load—particularly if they are slacking and reading superficially. And apparently some find it a shock when they get to winter and spring and have a different reading load. But we have also heard that students have thought our course to be one of the harder IHUMs—so they would seem to be working at it.

(Prof. I, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

Three found the prescribed number of texts somewhat or very restrictive on the instructor:

 

We have followed it. The advantage is that the students can focus (as they should) on close readings. I have found the mandate somewhat stifling at times (but then I have found the one quarter, two 50 minute class hours restrictive). Should we think more explicitly about a possible supplemental reading list and its function?

(Prof. C, [fall, twice, including 2002-03])

 

5 books in the quarter covering work across 20 centuries--I find the basic IHUM, no matter how cutely it's packaged, just absurd.

(Prof. Q, [fall, once, five years ago])

 

Seven respondents found the prescribed number of texts to be just right:

 

In the three courses I have taught, we have always had 5 texts. I like this format, as it forces students to read much more carefully and to engage fully with each text. I don't think that forcing students to read a major text every week (as we did in the olden days) is effective: the students did not always finish the reading assignments and, if they did, they did not read with much comprehension.

(Prof. P, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

Strictly. I always do 5 texts, sometimes with a few brief extracts from other texts supplied as an “expansion pack.” I think the need to concentrate on a few texts, but to get the maximum out of each, is good for everybody. If I could condense my image of IHUM into a few words, maybe it would be “NOT A SURVEY COURSE.”

(Prof. U, [fall, often, including 2002-03], [win/spr, twice, not currently]))

 

9. (Fall faculty) Please comment, if you have not already, on the interdisciplinary structure of the Fall-quarter structure (team-taught by faculty from different disciplines). Please note any advantages or disadvantages to this structure. For you, for the students?

 

Not everyone answered this question, having already responded to question #1. But in their answers to this question, nobody characterized the team-teaching itself as a negative. On the contrary, some were quite ebullient:

 

Team-teaching is the single greatest benefit of teaching a first quarter IHum course. It has been a most rewarding experience which I am eager to repeat.

(Prof. E, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

This is a major attraction for me and I believe, from evaluations, that the students very much appreciate what they witness and explore.

(Prof. V, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

As for its interdisciplinarity, here again respondents were generally very positive:

 

As a faculty member the interdisciplinary nature of the course broadened my own understanding of approaches to a text. I learned from my fellow lecturers and from the IHUM Fellows in the course. What it does for students is to model for them different disciplinary approaches and boundaries, different ways of seeing and knowing. I am very much in support of this approach as it brings Humanities faculty together in ways that do not necessarily occur in other venues. For students it sets a tone for their future work and research.

(Prof. D, [fall, often, not currently])

 

I think the interdisciplinary element of IHUM is one of its greatest strengths. It gives the students a much better sense of Humanistic Study. It is very lively, and adds to the intellectual rigor of the course.

(Prof. P, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

One respondent, though happy enough with the team-teaching, expressed doubt about the interdisciplinarity:

 

It's not interdisciplinary because the freshmen know nothing about the individual disciplines.

(Prof. Q, [fall, once, five years ago])

 

Even respondents who liked the format expressed some caveats:

 

It has been a delight for me, but the students have not always understood how it works. They seem to choose a track because they have an interest in one or another of the disciplines advertised, and sometimes have trouble seeing how the other disciplinary approaches matter. We keep working at it.

(Prof. I, [fall, often, including 2002-03])

 

Please do continue to sponsor teams that are relatively far apart in home fields—if we could do more work across the famous sciences/humanities divide, that would be wonderful, but there’s also the danger of getting superficial and survey-like. (On which, see above.) And while I’m on the subject, let’s swear not to have courses where people “represent” their disciplines in predictable ways (the religious historian standing up for values while the biologist stands up for facts; the literature prof exalting enjoyment while the history prof exalts getting the dates straight, etc).

(Prof. U, [fall, often, including 2002-03], [win/spr, twice, not currently]))

 

 

 

10. Do you have any other comments that you think would be useful to the IHUM self-review?

 

Respondents used this question to make suggestions, raise concerns, or express admiration for the program. Here it struck us as appropriate to simply list the various ideas mentioned at least once (most of them in fact only once).

 

*Scrap IHUM and do a course like those at Columbia and Chicago.

*IHUM is a Stanford jewel, and should not be judged by the same criteria as similar-but-

different classes like those at Columbia and Williams.

*IHUM should have a 1-2 or 2-1 option in which the 1 is a Freshman seminar. Teaching

Fellows would teach seminars in their own fields.

*Fall classes as they are now are challenging and rewarding for faculty, Fellows and

students, and should be kept.

*2 professors works better than 3 in the Fall.

*Fall IHUMs should have coherent and rigorous organizational principles.

*Each IHUM course should articulate an intellectual justification for the requirement, and

show how it fits in.

*Connect the different tracks, not with required texts or uniform subject matter, but with

some articulation of common problems, methods, and themes.

*Faculty should be required to visit each section.

*Facilitate better contact between students and lecturers.

*Set up a confidential website where faculty and fellows could put up a list of their "10 Ways to Improve IHUM" suggestions.

*Fellows should be urged to carve out their own scholarly time.

*Get Fellows more integrated with the intellectual life of the university.

*We should talk about the implications of non-humanists teaching in IHUM.

*It'll be interesting to assess IHUM's influence after students graduate.

*One more 5-year term may be enough for this format of Area 1.

*IHUM needs more diversity, it should perhaps be mandated in the Fall.

*We should worry less about student opinion, just teach them.