|
Compilation of Faculty Lecturer Questionnaire Responses
Questions Asked: 1) In what way has teaching in IHUM been different from teaching a regular course? Please comment on both positive and negative differences. 2) Overall, have you been satisfied with your participation in IHUM? 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? 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? 5) In your opinion, how well has the one-two structure of IHUM worked? 6) To what extent have you incorporated in your class works from outside the traditional Western canon? To what extent has this been or should it be a criterion for works included in IHUM classes? 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? 8) (Fall faculty) To what extent have you followed 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? 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, both for you and/or for the students. 10) Do you have any other comments that you think would be useful to the IHUM self-study?
Name: Prof. A Department: German Studies IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [win/spr, often, including 2002-03]
1. positive: challenge to articulate issues to large, beginning public. negative: the burden of teaching a required course = the sense that some, if few, are there against their will. also the shifting faculty requirements around the course. i dont think the various senate decisions really ever made much intellectual sense--they were more ad hoc responses to various pressures. 2. by and large yes. [Ours] has been a very good course. 3. 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. Sometimes there's tension insofar as the lecturers have their own agenda for their sections--they may want to minimize writing assignments (which they correct) or they want to bring in their own texts to teach. 4. I can't say that we reflect much on the autumn experience. 5. well, it's lightened up the pressure on our department to mount the [course], and give 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. 6. 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 probalby 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. 7. We've tried to keep a high level of writing, but, if memory serves, I believe there's been some implicit pressure to bring the writing level down over the years. It is surely lower in IHum than we were in CIV. Does this matter? Has the university figured out how it wants to handle the sense of a need for a humanities requirement AND a writing requirement? 8. n/a 9. n/a 10. I think there should be serious thought given as to what a "humanities" requirement means, in a context where courses seem to be growing that go beyond the humanities. Perhaps this is right, but it surely raises the question as to whether these are truly intros to the humanities or something else altogether.
Name: Prof. AA Department: Classics IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [win/spr, often, 2002-03]
1. Positive: Best of all is that the postdoctoral teaching fellows are fantastic to work with. They are so qualified and good and independent that they take a great load off the lecturer in terms of both tangible time and labor and in terms of worrying and being ready to jump in with support, supervision, encouragement etc. at any moment. It is much more like team-teaching than teaching with graduate students TAs. For Classics, Ancient History and Archaeology, this is obviously a great recruiting tool as well; we reach a lot of students through [our class] who might never otherwise take a course on the ancient Mediterranean world. Many of them have subsequently gone on Prof. X’s excavation in Sicily, have taken more classes, and in other ways have made the ancient world part of their undergraduate lives. Another positive is that we get to have all these postdocs join the community, young scholars who can contribute a great deal to the Classical and Archaeological community at Stanford. Negative: Partly because the TF's are so good, I have less interaction with the students in IHUM than I do in any other class I teach. That is my least favorite part of teaching in IHUM, but I don't know how that might be overcome in a meaningful way. And, between the lack of contact with students and the required nature of IHUM courses, 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. Also, the Classics Department's involvement in IHUM has meant that we currently offer fewer upper-level undergraduate courses than we would otherwise be able to, so we have a bit of a hole there that is related to the fact that our faculty is heavily committed to IHUM. 2. Yes! It's been a great experience. 3. See above; my experience has been mostly excellent. I meet with the fellows once a week to make sure we all know what's happening that week and to keep each other abreast of how things are going and how the students are doing. I set the syllabus and give general suggestions about the kinds of things I'd like the students to know and know how to do, but the postdocs make their own lesson plans and run their sections very independently. I observe each TF teach a section once during the term (meaning I don't visit every section but I visit at least one section for each TF); afterward I give feedback on what I saw. This also helps me write them letters of recommendation as needed. 4. No; I'm not very aware of what happens in the fall or what skills they are meant to have learnt in the fall. I do pay a lot of attention to the winter quarter of the course for which I teach the spring half; I build my syllabus and course goals on what they do in the first part of [the class]. 5. The fall courses are not "on my radar" as part of my IHUM thinking or experience, so that may be an answer. 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. 6. I teach the second half of a history course examining the empires that rose in the ancient Mediterranean and western Asia. This subject doesn't lend itself easily to the incorporation of works from outside the time period, beyond the limited theoretical reading we do about imperialism, empires, and social power. Some of the material and knowledge about it is part of what is usually considered the traditional Western historical canon; some of it is not, in that we look at Egypt and western Asia as well as Greece and Rome, and use very new methods and approaches to analyze it. I don't know if this answers the first question. As to the second question, I don't think this should be a strict criterion for works included in IHUM classes. There should be a range of approaches and material offered. 7. [Our] students do quite a bit with close historical analysis of texts and the development of a research paper. Close analysis and the construction of a historical argument--how we know what we know, how we can make a historical argument--are key tools in the study of history, so these assignments are woven into the fabric of the course. 8. 9. 10. No, but I'd be happy to answer questions or talk more about any of the above if that would be useful.
Name: Prof. B Department: History IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [win/spr twice, not currently]
1. I was used to teaching all-Frosh classes since I am an old (1994) CIV hand. For both CIV and IHUM, there is the advantage of teaching students for longer than a single quarter (too short for humanities). There is the appeal of dealing with the students when they are new to the academic life, so to have a chance to give them a lot and steer them towards the life of the mind. Frosh resent all mandated courses (in part because Stanford propagandizes "choice" and tells its entering Frosh that they are young gods who are perfect) -- this has led to systematic trouble year after year, and I doubt that the University can completely eliminate this particular resentment. So given that such resentment will always exist, we have to work to give the students very good courses; we should not shy to make them work hard; we have to convey to them as well that what they may resent is not necessarily bad for them; we have to tell them that this is as serious as Economics 1. And this is a message that has to come from outside IHUM as well -- at Frosh orientation and in the IHUM brochures. 2. 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. In fact, I think that our course ... may have been a little too ambitious and over the head of a good third of the students. My earlier CIV course aimed more towards the average and slightly above average, while not dumming down ideas, and this is the way it should be. So much for our course. The two-tier structure does not work. Many of the students we got from the Fall courses had no work habits to speak of, and were shocked by the amount of work we gave them. This is clearly owed to the 3-5 book load of the Fall courses. Also, I have severe doubts about the free-market atmosphere of IHUM with its bewildering panoply of choices of tracks. On what basis can students choose? Given the diversity, how can many of them not feel that this Frosh requirement is not serious? 3. This kind of course cannot work without weekly meetings with fellows, to keep them abreast of the general themes and the orientations -- where the course is going, where we are at at any given week, what the faculty who devised the list of readings intended the readings for. The faculty who selected the sources tends to know them well, and can also give a head start -- contextualizing and analytical -- to the fellows, which saves them some time that they can spend otherwise. The fellows tend to be very devoted and hard-working, and very smart. I appreciate that the IHUM staff has worked in consultation with us for recruitment -- teaching faculty tend to have a good sense of the profiles they ideally want for their team of fellows. 4. Given that the students have done a plurality of things in the Fall (several tracks without any textual intersection), this is impossible. 5. Very badly. It should be scrapped. Some Fall instructors may not feel too responsible for the later quarters. The students get into their head that a reading load in the humanities is three to five books, and get bad work habits. While faculty try to get students to read the same work twice, e.g., once for a literary read, and a second time for a historical read, this is very difficult to obtain. The average student's temptation is to pass. This is actually a disservice to all humanities departments. 6. We have done a good deal of this. 3/10ths of our weeks were devoted to cultural encounters outside the West. One should actually make sure that some really key works of the Western canon get taught. 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 (witness the reading list in SLE). It was not by luck that German philosophers could refer to the Gita or Sufis; that European theologians engaged the Qur'an and Islamic philosophy, or Neo-Confucianism. 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, a trap into which some of our students have already fallen ("where is the author from my group in this reading list"?). And by the way, lecturing faculty might be less enthusiastic about motley reading lists if they actually taught a section/seminar in the first year in which they lecture in the class. 7. We had three papers over the two quarters, and the finals were take-home. The assignments became progressively more complex. 8. 9. 10.
Name: Professor BB Department: Spanish and Portuguese IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [win/spr, twice, including 2002-03]
1. All positive: broader range of reference over disciplines Bigger group Fresh and ready to learn 2. Yes, very much so 3. We met regularly 4. Yes, as far as this is practicable 5. Fine 6. All are outside it except Montaigne, Voltaire, and Rousseau 7. Mostly at discretion of section leaders 8. 9. 10. It seems an excellent educational endeavour; just right.
Name: Prof. C Department: [Law School] IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [fall, twice, including 2002-3]
1. Team teaching. Generally I have viewed this as an extremely positive experience though "transaction costs" are clearly higher than if one has sole responsibility for a course. 2. I could not be more satisfied! 3. In [our class] we have tried to treat the fellows generally as colleagues. We meet once a week to discuss housekeeping and course-related intellectual matters. All three of us have also attended at least one section by each of the fellows. 4. 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. 5. If I only knew. 6. It should not be a criterion given the few texts that are read (fall quarter) and the fact that the readings should make intellectual sense for the particular theme that is the subject matter. Having said that, our course begins with the reading and detailed discussions of Mencius, before turning to Plato etc. It makes great sense and works beautifully. 7. Quite important, but mostly in the hands of the teaching fellows. 8. 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? 9. 10.
Name: Prof. D Department: Drama IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [Fall, often, not currently]
1. The collaboartive process of working with other fellows and faculty; The work with text that push the limits of your expertise and force you outside your conventional academic box; the focus on pedagogy over content in a course. Certainly because the lectures are a large, the contact with students is less than what I have in my regular teaching.
2. Very satisified ... What I think happened as a faculty member was a real sense of bonding with the other members of the teaching team for [our course]. We enjoyed the intellectual comraderie of preparing the course. 3. We meet regularly with the Fellows each week. We had sessions in which the Fellows informed us about what they were doing in section and we talked about methods and approaches that might help them. They also gave us insight into our lectures from the perspective of the sections. Since Fellows particpated in certain lecture discussions, we also discussed their role in these processes. There was always a good give and take in this collaboration. The key I think was respecting the Fellows expertise that they brought to the course. 4. 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 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. 5. I think it has worked well. It has allowed students more flexibility in what the chose to study in IHUM. From the first quarter, i think they carry with them a rigor, a sense of really examining and discussing a text closely. Then in the second and third quarter they can apply this rigor in diverse ways. 6. 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 as you know ... 7. We worked with the Fellows who did the grading to construct projects that focused on certain aspects of writing from close reading to critical analysis. So dissussion of writing and crafting writing projects was a collaborative endeavor. 8. We always had five texts This mandate enable us to really look at a text closely and to pursue and model diverse close readings. I think it really shows students the benefit of deeply confronting a text and seeing that it is an open nota closed system subject to different interpretations and points of analysis. The problem I see is in diversity. Not enough. 9. As a faculty member the interdisciplinary nature of the course broadened my own understanding of an approaches to a text. I learned from my fellow lecturers and form 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 at tone for the future work and research. the direction of students is becoming all the more interdisciplinary. the boundaries within the Humanities for faculty in their own work have equally become more porous and IHUM affords the opportunity to explore texts together.
10. I think it will be imprtant to note the evolution of a mindset. How the sense of dreading the requirement that was CIV and became IHUm has changes. Think about the great effort that goes into these courses, the brochure that the stundests receive and te luxury of having 9 Ph.D working with them on one course. Also talk about the hiring of lectures and the scrutiny that goes into this process. ... my one area of concern for the future is diversity. With the change to IHUM much has unfortunately been loss. I supported notions that our faculty colleagues would do this on their own but this has not sufficiently ben the case. Consequently, I do feel that at least one text outside the traditional Western canon needs to be mandated in the first quarter.
Name: Prof. E Department: English IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [fall, often, including 2002-03]
1. It's essential to remember that most of the students in the course are not planning to major in your department. Much of the information that you might take for granted in a regular departmental course has to be provided in the lectures. And since it is a required course you can't assume that all the students are passionately interested in what you're teaching. You have to engage them. 2. Yes, though I firmly believe that the faculty should sign the grade sheets. 3. [My teaching partner] and I meet with the fellows once a week, and visit every section they teach. At our weekly meetings we talk about such things as forthcoming paper topics, the questions on the final exam, problems in the texts we are teaching, etc. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. IHum can't do everything. It is hard enough to teach our students how to read and analyse humanistic texts. Writing instruction should be left to PWR where it belongs. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. I believe that the program is too worried about its popularity and runs the risk of being unduly affected by student opinion. We should worry less about pleasing the freshmen and more about teaching them. Visiting every section at least once should be part of the faculty job description and the students should be asked if it happened. The first quarter courses should have a clear principle of organization that provides a coherent intellectual framework for the texts being taught. It is my strong impression that the most rigorously structured courses are the most successful. Every IHum course, especially the first-quarter ones, should offer the freshman an intellectual justification for the IHum requirement, preferably at the beginning.
Name: Prof. F Department: English IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [win/spr, twice, including 2002-03]
1. ALL FRESHMEN! GREAT TF'S! 2. YES INDEED! 3. MET AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK FOR AN HOUR, TALKED AT LENGTH AND IN DETAIL ABOUT MATERIAL AND TEACHING AND STUDENTS. DID NOT VISIT THEIR CLASSES--WAS ADVISED AGST IT, I BELIEVE INVITED THEM EACH TO GIVE A LECTURE 4. I TRY TO HARK BACK, YES, THO THE BENEFIT OF [THE WINTER] COURSE MAY BE LARGELY TACIT FOR ME 5. HARD TO SAY... 6. NOT MUCH 7. WE TRY HARD TO MAKE IT INTEGRAL AND CHALLENGING, WITH A GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THEM 8. 9. 10.
Name: Prof. G Department: History IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [win/spr, twice, including 2002-03]
1. 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. The presence of the postdoctoral teaching fellows is a real plus, both for them and the students. 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. 2. Having only done this once so far, I'm not the best person to answer. The first time had its difficulties -- one technological, another regarding a teaching fellow who wasn't well suited to the class and didn't work easily with the group, and the others due, in retrospect, to the fact that I listened too much to other people's opinions of how different an IHUM course is from a basic history survey and adjusted accordingly in ways I otherwise would not have. This year I'm planning to teach it as I always have taught a history survey class and expect to be more satisfied with the results. 3. With one exception, my experience of the IHUM fellows has been very positive. Both years I have consulted with the group about the syllabus and we've met weekly to discuss how the class is going. I've invited them to make other contributions to the class, based on their knowledge, such as introducing films or selecting books for trips to Special Collections. I also tried to provide supplementary teaching materials to assist them in preparing sections. This year the main revision I'm going to make is to invite the group to rotate responsibility in designing materials for each week's discussion sections. Not yet sure how we'll do this since it's up to the TFs to set the format and decide what they want. But the goal is to make them share their expertise, hopefully making their teaching easier. 4. The problem with the 1-2 sequence is that it is probably unusual for there to be an 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. 5. 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). 6. I have always taught early modern European history in light of Europe's relations with other parts of the world and in light of the diversity of sources available from this time and place. This year 3 of the 7 books are non-traditional. 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. 7. Writing is fundamental to any history class. I emphasize essay exams and a significant paper. 8. not applicable 9. not applicable 10. I suspect that there may continue to be a tension regarding the fall courses, both in terms of staffing them and in terms of having this be a key part of the postdoctoral teaching experience for our TFs. In an ideal world, my own preference would be to have a 2-1 or 1-2 sequence that instead required all students to take a freshman seminar and a two-quarter lecture class. The TFs would be allowed to teach seminars in areas of their own choosing, mixed in with ones offered by regular faculty, and students would have the opportunity to get a "big picture" humanities class in relation to a small group seminar on a more focused topic. Of course there may be practical problems that mitigate against this structure, but it is the one that makes the most intellectual sense to me and makes the best use of our TFs's expertise. I guess I'm not a big fan of the idea of teaching far outside one's area of expertise, especially when you've just gotten a PhD and need to develop your teaching expertise in areas closer to home. But these comments are not specific criticisms of any individual classes, which surely work well for a wide variety of reasons, just a comment on my overall intellectual preferences about how to introduce students to the humanities. My only other comment regards the occasional perception I hear from students that it is not always clear to them why some of the classes being offered merit IHUM status. Of course they surely have a better answer to this at the end of the class, but I have occasionally asked the same question of a few classes that didn't, from the description, strike me as sufficiently broad or introductory to be the best point of entry into the humanities for freshmen. Again, there are surely multiple perspectives on this issue because some freshmen are ready for something more exciting and unusual and specific, while others really need and want a big, basic survey of something.
Name: Prof. H Department: Slavic IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [win/spr, often, not currently]
1. 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 is teaching any other class, and this is a tall order to be addressing two different audiences, but if it works, the satisfaction is great. Attendance is a problem. Some never come to the lectures, and this defeats the purpose of the Ihum, which I understand as a venue for exposing the freshmen to some of Stanford’s best faculty. Although [our class] has a very respectable class room draw, I wonder how one can do a satisfactory job taking this course wile missing most of the lectuers. This is not to disparage our TFs, who do a great job, but still having a sizeable group of students missing the most important part of the action is a serious problem. I am not advocating installing bar code readers and doing a roll call, but perhaps, we can advertise it better. The effort it has taken these kids to get into Stanford, not to speak of the tuition, should not go to waste. 2. Very much so – both satisfied and stimulated by it. 3. On the whole, we have had regular once a week meetings over lunch (Slavic dept. was generous enough to provide us with a lunch). The purpose was to have a venue for the TFs and faculty to trade questions and compare notes. It is crucial for the faculty to get feedback from the TFs – both their own impressions and the impressions from the sections. These regular repasts also serve to create a community among the teaching staff, an important factor in the undertaking. For this reason, I recommend that no sections be scheduled during the lunch hour. All of us also try to visit every section once or twice a quarter to get a direct sense of who our audience are. We also hold a part in the winter and spring for the class. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. I have been teaching these types of freshman courses on and off for the last 24 years. I like the Ihum best and, in fact, I have decided to develop a course – precisely because there was not a List A and List B approach here but some very general guidelines. Whether this is an individual faculty member or a team, one needs to be free – which is why we have academic freedom in the university – to devise the best possible course for freshmen, based on one’s own, individual understanding of the humanistic tradition. After all, this is an introduction to the humanities, and those who do not believe in the humanistic tradition or think it evil or a tool of oppressor should probably teach in a different track. But in any case, I believe that what we have is not a “Western canon” but many “Western canons.” In the philosophical sense, “Western” (as it is understood in the US) means European (including, of course, the US and Latin America), diversity, tolerance, difference, democracy, debate, change and continuity (not necessarily in this order). 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.” 7. The shape and content of the assignments are worked out in the discussions among the teaching staff and represent our consensus, in part, based on our experience. 8. 9. 10.
Name: Prof. I Department: Religious Studies IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [fall, often, including 2002-03]
1. 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. The most difficult part has been to adjust my teaching style to the expectations of 1st quarter frosh. Things I could take for granted in other courses, simply do not work in first quarter IHUM. I have to connect the dots for them, and to anticipate the need to connect the dots, in ways a few more quarters here would eliminate. 2. Yes. We have seen real improvement in the students’ skills, in their writing ability and their sophistication about texts. So, at least in the courses I have been involved with, I believe the objectives of IHUM are being met. 3. 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. We have met weekly in each of the three IHUMs I have been involved with. The meetings take up questions about what to expect from the lectures, the need for hand-outs, brain-storming about interesting things to do in section, sharing props, and creating paper/exam questions. [My teaching partner] and I have also, the past two years, visited one section each of each of our TFs classes. We mostly observe, while putting in an occasional oar to contribute to the discussion. 4. I HOPE that what we are doing will transfer to the later quarters, not only of IHUM, but to all kinds of other courses that require close reading, analysis and good written work. We are trying to teach the students to read difficult texts, to appreciate them, to understand that texts can produce multiple interpretations (some better than others), and to get a taste of how faculty in literature and faculty in religious studies/philosophy think about things. 5. I’m not in a position to say, since I have only been involved in the fall quarters. 6. 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. 7. Writing has always been an important concern. In [previous fall course by same professor], we had three writing asignments, and devoted resources to tutorials on how to write a philosophical argument. In the past two years, we have also had 3 graduated writing assignments, and the TFs have given the students extensive feed-back. Last year we also had a take-home final, but this year it will be in-class to distinguish it from the paper assignments. 8. We have always had 5 main texts, which we have supplemented in the past two years with very short excerpts from other texts to create context. The texts are all primary sources. 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. (We have adjusted the paper load—they interpreted a take-home final as another paper—to eliminate a sense of inequity with the other courses.) 9. 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. 10. I think that in explaining what happens in IHUM to faculty who have not taught in it, the rationale behind the very disparate course offerings will be difficult to convey. Until people have a chance to dig into the rationale behind course proposals, they can seem strangely ad hoc. This will be particularly true for faculty outside the humanities, who may not appreciate what humanists do in the first place, or who have skewed perceptions about it.
Name: Prof. J Department: Music IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [fall, often, including 2002-03]
1. 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. 2. Yes. 3. Collaboration is close. We meet every week and also exchange e-mails between lectures. The lecturers try as much as possible to let the fellows know in advance what they're going to say in the lectures. At our meetings we discuss what's going on in sections and discuss ways of improving them. Writing assignments are also discussed. 4. I haven't been very aware of preparing students for particular courses so much as suggesting different ways in which texts can be approached. That said, there are a number of specific (albeit unplanned) connections between the fall courses I've taught and the ones in winter/spring. 5. As a "fall" lecturer I find this hard to judge. 6. [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). 7. Discussing writing assignments is also part of our weekly meetings. 8. [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. 9. One of the harder parts for a music historian is the vast range in the students' musical backgrounds. Some are highly literate, musically speaking; others not. Communicating to everyone is one of the main challenges. Since music is a part of everyone's lives, in one way or another, meeting the challenge is critical. 10. Ways should be considered to facilitate better contact between students and lecturers.
Name: Prof. K Department: Philosophy IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [win/spr, often, including 2002-03]
1. Two differences: (1) There is little direct contact with the students so it is hard to tell what they are getting from the lectures. (2) Many of the students treat the course as a requirement that they resent having been made to take. One has to do a bit more work to motivate them and keep them interested. 2. Yes, indeed. 3. We've met with them once a week to discuss adminstrative matters and substantive content. In general I have been quite impressed with their work. 4. It is hard to pay attention to what they have done in the fall. It's probably my fault but I just don't have a clear enough sense of what they've done in the fall. 5. 6. I don't think we've done too well on this so far. Du Bois was the only outside representative the last two times but he isn't really that outside anyway. We also had a contemporary woman philosopher but one who was writing fully within the mainstream intellectual tradition. So though we may have stepped outside the traditional canon a bit, we certainly didn't step outside the West. I'll be including Ibn Tufayl's "Hayy Ibn Yaqzan" this spring. That's a bit more outside I suppose, but it is still within the Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Greece-MiddleEast-Europe tradition. That's of course what makes it tempting to only go as far as the Muslim philosophers because they're still working within the same tradition of thought as everyone else we read and so it's all easier to fit together. What is much harder to do is to jump to a completely different river of thought and then jump back. It just seems too disjointed. And students understandably resent, for different reasons, what they take as the tokenism. For example, if I were to jump to certain parts of post 16th century Islamic thought one would really have something worthy of calling a different conceptual scheme but it would make no sense if we didn't systematically build up to the point at which later Islamic thought does in crucial ways break away from the mainstream western intellectual tradition. What one needs to do is to systematically follow another tradition (say the Far East or India or, as in my example above, the Islamic tradition) across two quarters. That's why, as I used to argue when I was an undergraduate here and still in the business of storming presidents' offices, we need a two year IHUM requirment (and the natural sciences should at the same time shift to a 5 year program to ensure that their majors are ready for graduate school). Oh well, I'll keep tilting at those windmills ... Additional time would of course also help make space for more non-traditional Western texts. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Name: Prof. L Department: History IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [win/spr, often, including 2002-03]
1. An IHUM course should have a foundational character; it is meant to introduce students to a body of material, but also to get them to think about a range of problems in new and different ways. If it works, this kind of course should alert students to issues that they can pursue later. 2. I found this course challenging and satisfying--in large part because I enjoyed teaching with my colleague. 3. [My teaching partner] and I would meet with the fellows each week to discuss the reading, plan exams, etc. I had the impression that the fellows, as a whole, were not as committed or as talented as was the case in earlier versions of this course--perhaps this was just the luck of the draw, but if you hear this from others, it is something to worry about. 4. In our track, there was considerable overlap with [one fall] course, very little with the others. My general impression was that students, while they may have liked their fall quarter course, did not really "get" what it was supposed to do. 5. I must say that I prefer the old three quarter sequence. But I am not sure how much weight my opinion should have--I would be much more interested in hearing student views. If the present structure is kept, then the program must do a better job explaining it to the students. 6. 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. 7. Some final thoughts: Stanford is not a congenial environment for required courses. Even when students like a course, many of them resist being compelled to take it. That is one reason why a negatively-charged cloud seems to hang over IHUM. I remained convinced, however, that such a course is a good idea and that the requirement should be retained. However, I think we must do a much better job of explaining why it is there and also make more effort to connect the different tracks--not with required texts or uniform subject matter, but with some articulation of common problems, methods, and themes.
Name: Prof. M Department: English/Comp. Lit. IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [fall, twice, including 2002-03]
1. I've only done joint teaching once before and that was a small course. This is a complex operation and demands a lot of coordination between the lecturers and between the latter and the fellows. I'm very happy working with a team like this and am willing to sacrifice the autonomy of a solo class for an enterprise of this sort. 2. Yes 3. I've very much liked the jointness of it all. I always attend at least one section of each fellow's class. And we meet for an hour each week. Last year one of the three fellows was a loner who seemed to resent participating, but the other two (both of whom are in this year's course) were wonderful. The two new fellows this year work well with all of us as a team and our weekly meetings have been not only practical (how does one word a paper assignment?) but we've engaged in serious intellectual interchange on the content of the course. 4. Since close reading is central to our fall IHum, I believe that the skills we are trying to give the students will transfer to the winter/spring,esp. to those in literature. 5. I can't tell since I don't see the students after fall quarter. 6. We have neglected non-Western works. 7. Student writing is central. I don't believe students could really understand what we are getting at without their writing assignments. And we put a lot of effort into designing paper assignments that will have pedagogical value.
8. I'm happy with the intensity you cna achieve with five texts (that's been our format). But I was equally happy when I did Western Civ and then CIV and did about 10 texts in a quarter. It's a different experience but also of great educational value. 9. I'm not sure to what extent the students understand our disciplinary differences, but [my teaching partner] and I (this year in particular) have tried to stress our differences and hope the students will see the difference between religious/philosophical analysis and literary analysis. Sometimes of course we are both simply interpreting a text and we don't always seem that different. 10. None at the moment.
Name: Prof. N Department: Classics IHUM classes and quarters taught: [win/spr, often, including 2002-03]
1. Positive – lots of energy from the students – it helps that they are all at the same academic level (though not intellectual level), and new to the university. – great support – TF’s who are seasoned, coordinator, curr. Assistant, staff in IHUM (esp Susan Rose, Greg, Victoria, & Tim, in my years). This means one can concentrate on lecturing. Not a negative I can think of – it’s just much more challenging than doing a classics–only course w/smaller group. 2. Yes – although it’s challenging & takes much more effort to think through & present this course, the payoff in seeing students get intellectually excited is worth it. 3. I met each week w/all TF’s to map out course strategy, talk of student reactions & progress, deal w/all the tasks, & present my overview of material. I tried to visit at least one section of each TF each quarter. I am always in informal contact by email or drop-in visits to office. It’s been a good experience. The TF’s are excellent. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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) 7. 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. 8. na 9. na 10. In one way, the truest test is what former IHUM students report after graduation – so the 5-year mark is still early. I’d like to know (such intangibles as) whether graduates pick up books they would not have w/out IHUM, or think more sympathetically or creatively. These we’ll never quantify – it’s part of the teacher’s faith that good humanities work does, however, make a difference to lives.
Name: Prof. O Department: Classics and History IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [win/spr, often, including 2002-03]
1. The 2 main things are first that it's less work than a normal lecture course, because the TFs do nearly all the grading and discussions classes; and second that teaching a winter-spring sequence gives a lot more time to develop ideas. Normally when I've offered multi-quarter classes I can't rely on students carrying through between quarters, but in IHUM I know they'll all be there. It's a really good thing. 2. Very. 3. 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. 4. I teach W-S. The fall courses vary so much that it's hard to take anything for granted about students' preparation. 5. 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've talked to quite a few students at dinners in their residence halls. I get the impression that a lot of them come to Stanford planning to be engineers, doctors, etc., and thinking that humanities are lightweight and flaky. The structure of some of the autumn courses makes them think they were right. 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. 6. Quite a lot. The winter quarter uses a lot of Persian, Assyrian, and Egyptian material. But I don't think this should be a criterion. Courses that need a broad range of materials should use them, and those that don't, shouldn't.
7. Very important. We have 4 essay assignments over the 2 quarters, that are designed to build on each other by posing increasingly challenging questions. 8. 9. 10. I think IHUM's good. The 2 things that I think could be improved are to make the autumn quarter more rigorous and organized, and to make sure that all the fellows understand they they have to carve out some time from their teaching to get writing done right from the day they arrive; otherwise they face big problems when they try to move on.
Name: Prof. P Department: Classics, Comparative Literature IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [fall, often, including 2002-03]
1. Team-teaching with a professor in another discipline has been wonderful! I also like working with Post-docs rather than TAs. My only criticism is that the classes are very large and it is hard to get to know the students (this problem is true of any large class, not just IHUM courses). The teams I have worked with have addressed that problem by creating events that bring the faculty together with the students, and by getting the students actively involved in lectures and panel discussions. This year, I have met alot of students already, and am really enjoying my course. 2. Yes. I think it is a fantastic program--a great improvement on the old freshman CIV tracks. 3. Meetings: We have met with the fellows at times over the summer (when they have been available), and in the week before class. In all of my IHUM courses, we have had a regular meeting with the fellows once a week for an hour; we also have had extra meetings whenever these seemed necessary (these usually deal with grading issues and any problems we are having with individual students). At our regular meetings, we discuss the texts we are working on, and explore different approaches to the texts. We also discuss practical matters such as paper questions, midterm exams, grading, etc. Supervision: It has been my policy not to insist that the professors come and visit the seminar discussions--the Fellows are not TAs and should not be treated as such. Instead, we have made it clear that we will be delighted to visit seminars if we are invited to do so. Generally, the fellows do invite us to visit sections (which I actually love to do, as it gives me more access to the students). Inclusion of Fellows in the Lectures: In all my IHUM courses, we have asked the fellows to give one mini-lecture (10-15 minutes) per term, usually at the beginning of a Panel Discussion. The fellow who lectures that day also joins the Panel and participates fully in the discussion. This has worked really well, as it gives the fellows a chance at the podium, and it also features them as members of the faculty (and full members of the teaching team). 4. I can't say that I have tried to tie my Fall courses to later courses. But we always focus on close reading, the development of verbal and analytic skills, and good writing, which inevitably prepares students for the later terms. 5. I don't know, since I have only taught in the Fall. 6. 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. 7. Student writing is extremely important. We design the assignments very carefully and work closely with students on outlines and paper-writing. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. I have come to think that 2 professors work better than 3. Three can be a bit too diffuse, and it also means that the professors give fewer lectures and therefore have less opportunity to communicate their positions and perspectives to the students.
Name: Prof. Q Department: English IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [Fall, once, five years ago]
1. I only taught it once, with [Prof. X] and although I enjoyed preparing the classes and loved listening to [my teaching partner], I think, on the whole, it was one of the most negative experiences I've ever had as a professor in a 35 yr. period. The difficulty is (1) the class size--200 or so so that one never gets to know the students, and (2) the use of the post-docs which was sheer hell. Our five were not very good but very arrogant and unlike one's own grad students want to do their own thing. They literally undercut half of what we taught and --let's face it--they are people who can't get their own teaching jobs and that's why they're in the program!! We spent much time coaching them--to little avail. And they often hadn't read the works themselves or related works! When we did Joyce's "Portrait of the Artist," it turned out most of them had never read ULYSSES. The other problem is the terrible superficiality. 5 books in the quarter covering work across 20 centuries--I find the basic IHUM, no matter how cutely it's packaged, just absurd. 2. No. See above. 3. This is the real sticking point. But even if one could choose one's own TAs and they were better, the program still wouldn't work well. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. It is much too soft! Stanford students should work hard in this course and read many books of both Western and non-Western cultures. 9. It's not interdisciplinary because the freshmen know nothing about the individual disciplines. 10. Start over again and create a course like those at Columbia and Chicago. Real Civ courses.
Name: Prof. R Department: Philosophy IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [fall, twice, including 2002-03]
1. With two partners, only need to give about a third as many lectures. With two partners, syllabi etc. are cooperative decisions, which is, except for a few jointly taught seminars in the past quite new. 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. 2. 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. 3. The three faculty ... meet with the group of lecturers after lectures Wednesday for about an hour. Meetings are chaired by the Coordinating Lecturer (or whatever her title is). Set essay questions, other housekeeping duties, and, fairly often, engage in discussion of issues. I visit one section of each lecturer, and then discuss that (and other things) over a lunch. I would not say I have directed or supervised them; mostly commented positively on their teaching and made a few suggestions, and also asked about career matter and given advice---mostly in terms of campus figures they might want to meet---sometimes. 4. To tell the truth, my impression of the two part of the one-two structure is mostly from my colleagues ... who have had experience in it. It sounds like it is working pretty well. But I have to admit I have let [my teaching partners] and the IHUM Central Committee worry about whether our course is helpful in that regard. 5. I haven't heard much negative, but after 20 or so years of worrying about Area one in its different guises, I haven't put much energy into worrying about this one, so I haven't sought out much information about how it is going. 6. We use Mencius. It has worked well. I wouldn't call Mencius pushing the innovation envelope exactly, but it is non-Western. The rest of our books are in the traditional canon: Socratic dialogues, Locke's 2nd Treatise on Govt, Rousseau. However, the end of the quarter we look at a number of Supreme Court Cases which, while Western, isn't so traditional. If we can get by with encouragement, relying on the diversity of our faculty for this to happen, that would be wonderful, so I hope we can. It wasn't practical in 1978 or 1988, but it should be close to that now.
7. 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 folloiwng guidelines from the Central Committee which seem well thought out. So, I think just as important as it is supposed to be. 8. Absolutely to the letter. No disadvantages. Works fine. 9. Well it has given me an education in how [my teaching partners] look at things. I guess there are more to texts than arguments. I've enjoyed the exposure, the given and take, and if I were a more flexible person it would profoundly effect how I look at things. 10. The leadership from the top seems quite effective. Keep it up. Enjoyed the party at [the faculty director’s] house.
Name: Prof. S Department: Slavic IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [win/spr, often, not currently]
1. It’s fun to get experience lecturing: the creative work that goes into preparing a one-hour lecture for freshmen is very different from the work of preparing a seminar, and I find the change in pace stimulating. The teamwork aspect of IHUM is another big difference: I have for the most part enjoyed working with the TFs, though at the beginning I had a somewhat hard time adjusting to the idea that I had authority over these people who also have PhDs (and were all older than me, in one case very much so!). Once I got more comfortable with my role, the whole thing got easier. The hardest thing about IHUM is the feeling that the students would rather not be there (and often, indeed, they are absent from lectures). Because of my subject matter, I usually teach very self-selected groups of students who are extremely enthusiastic and involved in the material, so the shift is a shock. Of course, each year there have been a few students who seem interested, ask questions, come to office hours, and then often take more classes in the Slavic department. But they are clearly in the minority, which is depressing. I’m not sure how to deal with this situation. I’ve been working to make my lectures more accessible, friendly, varied, etc., with all sorts of visual materials, moments of class participation, etc., and next year when I come back to IHUM I will do even more of that. I’m also toying with the notion of requiring attendance at lectures – but I’m afraid that might alienate students yet further. This topic comes up at IHUM workshops every year, and no one seems to have the perfect answer. 2. Yes – the positives outweigh the negatives, and the experience is very valuable. 3. I’ve met with them once a week and we discuss the lectures and possible reactions to it in seminars. During the quarter when I teach, I take the lead in formulating the assignments and exam questions. I’ve also visited each seminar both to observe the TFs and to meet the students (last year, I brought along a Russian samovar and Russian chocolates and served tea to all the students, which was fun). With a couple of the TFs, I’ve also read their work in progress and discussed it with them, written letters of recommendation, etc. 4. I do think about the one-two structure a lot. 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. Talking to them and to the TFs, I get the impression that some of them are thinking, “We learned in the fall IHUM that college is all about analysis. Specific facts are stuff that you learn in high school – or, if you find you really need some, you can always get them on the Web. Why are these people insisting on telling us that we need to know all these details about how the Russians are Orthodox, not Catholic? Why do we need to know about the Revolution? Don’t they realize we’re already college students?” 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. 5. See above. 6. We teach Russian literature, which is on the border of the traditional Western canon. I think it’s important for the IHUM curricula to be intellectually coherent – the students shouldn’t come away with the impression of tokenism. 7. It is very important. I have had my students submit very short paragraphs to me directly (three times a quarter each) so that I will be in touch with their writing issues. The TFs and I discuss writing all the time as well.
Name: Prof. T Department: ENGLISH IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [Fall, twice, including 2002-03]
1. I HAVE ENJOYED AND BENEFITTED FROM TEACHING MATERIALS QUITE DISTANT FROM MY NORMAL AREA OF EXPERTISE. GETTING TO HEAR MY COLLEAGUES'S COMMENTS HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS LEARNING EXPERIENCE. 2. YES 3. WE MEET WEEKLY WITH OUR FELLOWS TO COORDINATE ASSIGNMENTS, PLAN FUTURE ASSIGNMENTS, AND TO GET FEEDBACK CONCERNING THE LECTURES. WE HAVE EACH VISITED THE DISCUSSION SECTIONS. 4. THE MAIN SKILL WE ARE HOPING OUR STUDENTS WILL CARRY INTO THE NEXT SEQUENCE IS CLOSE TEXTUAL ANALYSIS. 5. I REMAIN CONVINCED THAT IT IS A GOOD IDEA. 6. 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. 7. VERY IMPORTANT. OUR ASSIGNMENTS HAVE REFLECTED OUR DIFFERING CONCEPTIONS OF THE MEANING OF "CITIZENSHIP" AND "GOVERNANCE."
8. WE HAVE FOLLOWED IT TO THE LETTER! FIVE TEXTS DOES SEEM TOO FEW. 9. THIS IS THE BEST ASPECT OF THE COURSE. 10. JUDGING FROM MY TWO YEARS' EXPEREINCE TEACHING IHUM, I THINK THAT THE COURSE HAS WORKED WELL AND MORE IMPORTANTLY HAS ACCOMPLISHED WHAT THE ORIGINAL DESIGN COMMITTEE HOPED THAT IT WOULD. ONE MORE 5 YEAR TERM, HOWEVER, MAY BE JUST LONG ENOUGH FOR THIS FORMAT OF THE COURSE.
Name: Prof. U Department: Comp Lit / Asian Languages IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [fall, often, including 2002-03] [win/spr, twice, not currently]
1. First, the students. They are new to Stanford, not yet jaded, haven’t yet figured out how much we faculty typically expect of them or how much they should expect from us—which means that sometimes they are disappointed when it’s not just like high school, and sometimes they’re disappointed that it’s not like Plato’s Academy. Also, they are “unfiltered” Stanford students: they haven’t yet specialized, and so we get all kinds of minds looking at texts in all kinds of ways, no sorting into techie and fuzzy (or whatever) streams yet. For me this is the best thing about teaching IHUM. Second, the organization of these courses is a bit freer, a bit less discipline-bound, than is usual. Even though I teach a lot of Comp Lit courses, which are intrinsically multidisciplinary, those courses tend to address an advanced, specialized public, and that makes the teaching situation less exceptional. Third, 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. Fourth, the Fellows are genuinely colleagues and I learn from them as well. These are all the positive things. On the negative side—I’ll have to strive to think of some negative things to say—all right, these courses involve a lot of work: you can’t just go in and ad-lib from your prior knowledge. And of course every class contains a fraction of uncommitted or downright uncooperative students, who wouldn’t be there if they had a choice. Sometimes the very things that make these courses great—the number of different voices we bring in and the range of different texts we read—defeat the students who were expecting a more easily packaged set of truths. And it’s hard to coax such a student along. 2. Yes. IHUM has been the most enjoyable teaching of my career at Stanford, I can say with no hesitation. 3. We have held a number of advance meetings and, during the quarter, weekly meetings with the fellows in all my IHUM courses. The purpose of the first is to hammer out the shape of the course: plan readings, lectures, discussion sections and web activities. In all these aspects of the course, the Fellows are full participants in decision-making, and I like hearing their frank (and sometimes devastating!) comments. The weekly meetings are meant to pick out problems arising with the understanding of the texts, to compare dynamics of the different sections and talk about ways to smooth over differences and keep discussion flowing. Generally, we try to agree on some basic ideas and directions, but not micro-manage each other’s sections. And of course the lecturing faculty visit sections in the course of the term. 4. I’ve tried to structure my classes with these imperatives in mind. My fall courses concentrate on methods and problems, my winter-spring ones try to present a field of knowledge in some breadth and depth, while still invoking skills and problem points. Of course, W-S classes are harder to teach, because the twenty-week format is long and it’s hard to sustain interest. Also, many departments see these as ramps leading toward a major, which is not a bad thing but necessarily makes for a different architecture. In w-s courses, it’s the section leaders who really need to know what fall courses students took, since their recent reading will bear on their discussion and writing. From the lecturer’s stand, that knowledge is less immediately useful. 5. Complex question! I think it’s a good compromise between the two objectives any introductory course is going to have to negotiate between: “coverage” and “appeal.” Every department has a course, or a few courses, that are supposed to serve as a gateway, and colleagues will either try to load them up with everything they want prospective majors to know, or tart them up with every age-old trick for attracting casual bystanders. The IHUM way is to make a dramatic and paradoxical statement with a short fall course on a big issue, followed by a longer course that deals with more dimensions of a smaller number of issues. Naturally, if the courses are poorly organized or if the texts to be read are not semantically “thick” enough, this effect doesn’t come off. And often students embark on two quarters of a subject that they soon feel they don’t want to stay with. But that is just to say that planning is necessary, while no plan will suit every user. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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.” 9. I think I covered this above. 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). 10. IHUM is unprecedented, really, and an extremely clever variation on the ancient design of an introductory humanities course. As we so often discover, the price of being out in front is that IHUM doesn’t compare in standard measures to similar-but-different things our sister colleges may be doing. And “success,” measured in consumer satisfaction or peer reports, may be hard to prove. But what IHUM does is exceptional and splendid. It should be recognized that this is a project Stanford people dreamt up to solve their own problems using their own resources. I would hope that reviewers and self-reviewers would keep that in mind: it shouldn’t be just like the courses they have at, say, Columbia or Williams, nor should it be judged by the same criteria.
Name: Prof. V Department: Classics IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [fall, often, including 2002-03]
1. a wonderful opportunity to let our pedagogical imaginations loose on a tremendous challenge (to explore the scope of the humanities) the best circumstances in which to team teach ( very interesting focus/structure of five works) excellent principle of support from post doc fellows, though they need to be good 2. yes - please let me have more! 3. I have had mixed experiences some fellows clearly find the fall quarter challenging and don't manage at all well - however many meetings it seems that some, maybe many, fellows are appointed because of strong support from departments promoting their winter/spring IHUM offerings - they are too specialized for the fall sequence and quite unable to think laterally - this ruined my first year with IHUM (and one fellow at least is still to my knowledge and in spite of my recommendation still employed in IHUM) but others have provided me with the most rewarding teaching experiences of my career 4. 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 5. don't know 6. have always done so and think it is very important 7. I have always been concerned to provide, with the IHUM fellows, opportunities for such skills acquisition 8. have always followed this and think it can work very well - it's a useful focus 9. this is a major attraction for me and I believe, from evaluations, that the students very much appreciate what they witness and explore 10. on the fall quarter - it is demanding and challenging for faculty, fellows and undergraduates
this is what delivers the rewards I constantly have had personal feedback of the most enthusiastic kind (that i do not get from other courses) - regularly referring to the life-changing experiences effected by the fall quarter sequence but yes it is mixed with anxieties from some students I think this is good - challenge is what it should be about it certainly challenges me and I know I have to work hard - and this is shared with the fellows and undergrads undoubtedly then, the IHUM fall sequence is, in my experience, one of the unique strengths and attractions of the undergraduate program at Stanford - keep at it please, monitor and address the weaknesses, improve accordingly, but keep up with the fall quarter component it is one of the reasons why I love teaching at Stanford it is one of the reasons I am at Stanford!
Name: Prof. W Department: English IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [Fall, often, not currently]
1. 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. 2. Yes -- I like the students and my colleagues. Overall, I consider that my contribution has been valuable, even if some of the students don't think so now. 3. We meet atr least once a week and also visit their classes. With only one or two exceptions, I have loved working with these brilliant young scholars. 4. Don't know. Hope so! 5. Don't know. 6. We use only one such text, Chuang-Tzu. We probably should use another. 7. 8. We have followed it pretty closely. It has its drawbacks of course but it is more important to look deeply into a text than to cover a lot of ground, so on balance I think we're doing the best thing. 9. 10.
Name: Prof. X Department: Classics IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught:[win/spr, often, including 2002-03]
1. Positive: a chance to give some snazzy, interesting "show" lectures that will intrigue large #s of students and bring them to Classics and/or the humanities; an opportunity to meet freshmen and encourage their humanities interests in a direct way. Our course has not only opened up a new area of teaching/research interests for me, it's helped me see new ways to make Classics, gender studies, and political issues in literature interesting to undergrads. IHUM has also enhanced my general understanding of the Stanford student body and its needs. Negative: the standard problems of a big lecture, mainly the lack of a reliable sense of what keeps students ticking or turns them off through the term. This improves slightly -- but not much -- as I spend hours and hours visiting seminars. Specific to IHUM is the strong dislike of the program evinced and discussed by many students, from the excellent to the struggling, which leads to some serious attitude problems in lecture and seminars. I've never encountered such a hostile audience as in my first month teaching IHUM. Many students seem to want older male authority figures to talk to them about "big ideas" and can be surprisingly uncivil when their expectations are not met. Lastly, 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. 2. I'd say yes at this stage. It took a full year to adjust (see above). I've spent an enormous amount of time preparing and finetuning IHUM and my research/writing suffered a bit. But I do enjoy the big lecture format and the chance to speak to a broad variety of students. 3. The fellows are superb. I read and discuss the research of three out of the five in my team, and have written letters for them. I visit at least one section of every fellow and discuss their teaching strategies later. This has a "supervisory" feel for some but not others (for instance, one fellow was teaching college students when I was in high school and the learning vector is definitely the other way round!). We meet once a week during spring term, about 2-3 times before spring to do advance planning. In weekly meetings, I present briefly what I plan to talk about in lecture the next week; we discuss possible seminar discussion topics; paper/exam themes; problem students; general issues related to our material. 4. Not really an issue for me. 5. 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. 6. I read graffiti, works of "low culture" etc. that I assume would not be included in a "traditional" intro to Classics course. I also emphasize the invented or constructed nature of western Europe's claim on the classical tradition in terms of ancestry and intellectual/cultural primacy. But I must say this question gets under the skin of a postmodern classicist! Most of my IHUM students find ancient Athens and Rome about as alien as non-western modern cultures when it comes to doing close reading and cultural analysis.
7. Very. With the Fellows I designed a creative writing option for one of the papers that the students uniformly single out as one of their favorite projects of the year. They write in the poetic voice of one of our authors, and follow it up with a short prose analysis "review" of their own job. 8. 9. 10. The efforts of the administrative staff are impressive, and I hope they get kudos for their work. I'd also love a confidential website where faculty and fellows could put up a list of their "10 Ways to Improve IHUM" suggestions, since I learn so much from colleagues who have done this for years.
Name: Prof. Y Department: Medicine IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [fall, twice, including 2002-03]
1. I'm not the best person to answer this, since I've only taught upper division and graduate courses before. It seems to be a considerable time commitment, but that has to do with the size of the course and the team, plus the need to provide guidance and mentoring for the teaching 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.) 2. 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. 3. Yes, I've met with the TFs who have areas of disciplinary overlap, and occasionally others. The meetings have been mostly informal, such as taking them to lunch. This fall I spent a fair amount of time helping two fellows with job interviews, strategies, etc. I always want to do more than I have time for. 4. 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. I think our … class provides some useful tools for thinking about very broad issues such as the nature of relativism. I like to think that our class in particular shows the students how a humanities' approach is relevant in many domains of life, such as science and medicine. That's one of my personal goals. 5. Can't comment. 6. All of the texts I teach are from outside the canon. I'm not sure about formal requirements, but this should be encouraged when it makes sense in terms of a specific course. 7. As "faculty" I felt a bit cut off from the students' writing, because of not doing the grading. But as a team we give a great deal of attention to this. 8. 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. 9. The interdisciplinary structure of the course is THE main advantage, from my point of view. Although it makes the teaching hard, and makes working with the teaching fellows harder still. (They are often insecure about teaching outside of their main expertise.) It is particularly difficult when the "interdisciplinarity" is greatest, such as our course that combines cultural anthropology with philosophy. So may assumptions of the fields are fundamentally different, that it makes for rich and lively exchange. My hunch is that this is a less intense problem when one combines fields that share more basic tools and assumptions, such as literature and art history. 10. Fundamentally, I think it is a strong program that should continue, and constantly evolve. RE infrastructure: More flexibility in the use of the course funds for student engagement and faculty "bonding" would be helpful. Also, because of all faculty and TFs being in different buildings, we had some problems with exchanging materials. Perhaps the course coordinators could get some help in solving this small barrier.
Name: Prof. Z Department: Spanish & Portuguese IHUM class(es) and quarter(s) taught: [win/spr, twice, including 2002-03]
1. More students, not able to recognize them individually. On the other hand, there was more exchange with colleagues (co-teacher & fellows). It is a big performance, therefore it is exciting and at the same time a bit nerve-wrecking. I do like working with freshmen a lot. They are fantastic. 2. Yes, I love it. 3. Last year we met rarely. This year we plan to meet at least every 2 weeks. It was good last year. I don’t feel I did much supervision – just explanations about the lectures and the readings. 4. I don’t feel I am aware of that, since I don’t really see the students too closely. 5. The fellows say it works very well. 6. We have, quite a lot. I think it should be one criterion, not by any means the only one. Even when teaching non-canonical texts, as we do, we do it in a frame that takes into account comparisons with canonical texts. We try to see how the works we read are philosophically different from dominant western ideas. In the Spring quarter, we explicitly make those comparisons, as we incorporate passages from the Bible, Montaigne and Rousseau. 7. We did not take that into consideration. But the fellows do. 8. 9. 10. The basis of our work is the fellows’ work. Last year I noticed our fellows did not feel they were involved enough in any intellectual environment at the university. I do not know what I-HUM should do in order to solve that problem. |
Stanford University, 2003
http://www.stanford.edu/group/vpue/ihumrev