Read on Twitter
If I have fewer topics for my fall graduate seminar but we cover them more in-depth, and I rely on a large supplemental reading list to guide students toward topics we can't get to, am I "dumbing down" my grad syllabus? 1/X
If I think that some weeks we need to read an entire book but in other weeks two really well-chosen articles can give seminar participants a good working sense of the substance, range, and stakes of scholarship on a particular question, am I "caving in to student demands"? 2/X
Over the years I've learned the importance of having really strong boundaries and a very intentional approach to the way that work fits into the rest of my life. I'm happier. And *my work is better.* If I want the same for our grad students, have I gone soft? 3/X
I post these questions because as I'm prepping this syllabus I'm really thinking about all the unhealthy baggage I picked up (or that was handed to me) in graduate school, the stupid-macho-bootcamp culture, the insistence on "facetime" and "loyalty" as though it were a cult. 4/X
So, in case it wasn't clear - these questions are *rhetorical* and the answer is *heck no!* in each case. I just thought it might be useful to call out, to bring to light, all the unhealthy assumptions many of us may still be laboring under. In my experience, 5/X
graduate students are not lazy, they are not looking for shortcuts, they want to dive in, they are thorough and thoughtful and hard-working and curious and terrific conversation partners -- and damn smart. That suggests that what happens in seminar is a *guide* for them, 6/X
not the place where we try to "drill knowledge into" them or "make them be serious" or "test their dedication" whatever else people were trying to do under those older, harmful models of graduate instruction.
Besides -- my way is more fun, for everyone.
7/X
Besides -- my way is more fun, for everyone.
7/X
