- The distinction between "seminar" and "lecture" is, per my understanding, that in the former a group of people discusses something they all ostensibly have some knowledge of, typically a shared reading, while in the latter a group of people listens to an informed person share his or her knowledge about a subject. The advantage of the seminar format is that, assuming that the group is intelligent, prepared, and engaged, all participants are able to come to a richer understanding of the subject than they would have through passive absorption alla the lecture format. So: if you're leading a "seminar," kids, DON'T LECTURE FOR TWO HOURS. IT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF CALLING IT A SEMINAR.
- On the other hand, if you're a graduate student taking a seminar, and you've ostensibly done all of the reading, WHY NOT SAY SOMETHING DURING DISCUSSION?! I'm just saying. In the blog-post-inducing seminar I just got out of, 6/13 of the I'm-sure-very-smart grad students present didn't say DICK the whole time. It felt at times like an unsuccessful undergraduate discussion section; glaze-over eyes, the people who weren't speaking diligently scribbling notes but being sure not to make eye contact, the works. I'm pretty sure Ms. Rossi and I carried about 50% of the discussion between us, and that's just because it would have been even more boring if we hadn't.
- I've talked about this before, but this experience brings it to mind once again. Why the disjunction between book smart and everything-else smart? Why the inability of brilliant people to read time? It's actually inspiring me to be less of an idiot at home; while it's not as bad as it used to be, Becky has been forced over the years to remind me about things that should be obvious (check the calendar, be careful, don't do stupid shit all the time). I now recognize this as symptomatic of an odious and pitiful condition, absent-minded-professorism, that I now categorically reject.
P.S. At least it rained for a little while this morning. That was nice.
4 comments:
A former UO professor used to conduct just the seminar you described. I remember bathroom breaks and 20 minutes for discussion out of a 3 hour seminar. All said, listening to him talk for 2+ hours was worth it. The "seminar" was fabulously informative.
So, how many of the 6 mutes were women? And how many were in a seminar outside their "field"? And how many were first or second-year grad students? (By the way, how much did you talk your first year as a graduate studnet. Frequently, I imagine.) I agree that this is as annoying as hell. At the same time, there is a lot going on behind the scene.
I agree, listening to a professor explain a a topic is well worth the time not talking. There are times when they can imbricate those difficult theories and what not. And of course they help break up the down right awlful and goofy monolouges so many gradute students feel entitled to lay on the rest us. Like a blog troll.
I agree with Dolce Vita, you don't know what is going on behind the scenes, perhaps the silent student can't believe that you are going to talk the entire time and if they say anything you will simply either ignore their comments and keep on going or worse yet try to be the authority over them. They are around you all the time, they know what you will say. Besides you don't get a great job and a filed dissertation by performing in class. But I do wish Jonathan Richaman was in my seminars..or at least one of the Jackie-O members.
Uhm, yeah. When I took Beecher's class with you two in the fall... I felt really out of the loop as a first year. I learned a lot just listening to you two talk. It isn't that I don't have anything to say, I just don't have anything brilliant to say, and I usually forego saying it so that I don't come off looking like a moron. Ok, so I really am a moron. But you get my point.
Look, give me some credit. I'm well aware of the various factors that go into more- and less-talkative people in a class. But here's the thing:
1. The non-talkers were 4/2 female/male. But the class overall is overwhelmingly female, so I'm not sure how the percentages break down. Most people are second or third years, none of us "in our field" because it's a history of consciousness class, which isn't a field.
2. The prof was NOT usefully explaining things, mostly. He was rambling and piling tangent upon tangent. I, too, have had various seminars in which I appreciated the semi-lectures because I learned a lot. There was some of that going on, but the ratio of good-useful and rambling-not useful was way off.
3. There's more to talking in a seminar than "performing." It's not verbal masturbation. If the seminar is well run (note: that's a condition on the following argument) you're held accountable for what you claim, and the process of working through ideas as a collective is ultimately more useful than passive listening. That was the whole point of my post.
I know I talk a lot in class, but I'm also very self-conscious and very aware of the various class/race/gender componenets to talking in academic settings. I don't seize the floor and I'm not a dick about it. What I want is the active participation of more people in this specific class. Yes, that's naive. But I don't give a shit. A kind of careful, muted universalism is STILL the moral stance riding behind what most of us regard as a responsible stance toward discourse in the academy in general. The fact that it's not actually universally available is a PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED, and having smart people of all backgrounds contribute is, in my mind, a good thing.
Finally, A, you're not a moron and you don't (and didn't) sound like one. We ALL got a lot out of the Methods seminar precisely because it was a critical, engaged, but safe place for everyone to contribute.
--end rant--
Post a Comment