RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceAs I scurried into Henry House last Thursday for my afternoon precept for Humanities Sequence (HUM 216-219), I was absentmindedly trying to figure out my schedule for later that afternoon, debating whether or not it would actually be possible to ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
BORING. I take back my praise of the opinion section. There should be a training program (one-year long, preferably) in which freshman Prince writers learn to write articles that aren't disgustingly corny and trite. Seriously, I know you think HUM is great and that's fantastic and all, but I think there are better things to opine and write a column about.
You're just a dumb troll with nothing better to do than write mean comments on the prince. You suck. HUM rocks.
"I will no doubt remember the biweekly precepts as some of the best I had here at Princeton, not only due to how engaging and informative..."
I cannot describe how vehemently I disagree with this statement in the limited medium of the Prince comments section. It is literally anathema to me and the reality of what I endured for an entire year. I did not even have another class with precepts during my freshman year and I knew that my HUM precepts would be the worst precepts I would ever have. I think I am quite correct in this statement.
"The course evaluations still show that a majority of people who take the HUM sequence enjoy it greatly and would heartily recommend it. It would be an enormous fallacy to be persuaded by the few vocal malcontents who dropped the course for reasons other than scheduling problems that the HUM sequence is a substandard survey course that is no substitute for 'reading many, many Wikipedia articles.'"
It would also be an enormous fallacy to take a course because some anonymous tool wrote those three infamous words: "Take this course."
Here is how course evaluations work: people write a few sentences that often do not describe their true feelings either because they foolishly have expectations of a higher grade than they will get or because they do not desire to put much effort or time into the evaluation. I myself took a great deal of time writing out an evaluation for the Student Course Guide after I had finished the entirety of the course, but my comments vanished from the site for some reason. That's hardly a loss, though, for the same site contained only the highest of praise for a certain professor in the HUM sequence.
In short, I think that the HUM sequence ought to be abolished, or at least greatly reformed as I noted on the previous article of the same subject.
Also: "while trying to find supporting quotes for a paper three hours before it was due."
That is not how are you supposed to write papers.
I have to admit, that first paragraph was horribly written.
AH, I'm truly sorry you had such a negative experience. If you hated it so much, why did you continue? It further confuses me that, while I can accept that the class didn't work for you, you seem unable to respect that some people love or loved it. Precepts are the highlights of my week and I will consider myself very lucky if I ever have another precept that comes close to being as engaging and enjoyable.
I think the most revealing part of the course evaluations is not the written feedback to other students but the ranking statistics. For 217 (the section with the most responses), 41% gave the class a 5 for overall quality, 41% a 4, 7% a 3, 11% a 2, and 0% a 1. 59% would strongly recommend it to other students, 19% would recommend, 19% were neutral, 4% would recommend against, and 0% would strongly recommend against. Not everyone answered the survey and it therefore may not give an entirely accurate picture of people's opinions, but those numbers are still substantially better than those given for any of my other courses. I think it's hard to argue in the face of that evidence that the class is terrible for everyone, or even for all the people who dropped.
I rarely read the dailyprince any more, but as I procrastinate on yet another (post-princeton) paper, I will simply say this:
HUM is going be a very different experience for everyone involved; one that is heavily dependent on students' expectations, time commitment and camaraderie as well as the cohesion of the professors teaching the class during any given semester. If you find that none of the above are coming together in a positive way, you have the option of dropping the class early on or choosing to drop it one semester in.
In my experience, HUM set the stage for my time at Princeton and represented a continued academic dialogue that I was hard pressed to find again in such concentration. That dialogue continued from precepts to coffee breaks, from study sessions and eventually to fond reminiscing years later with some of my closest college friends.
If you have the opportunity to take HUM, give it a chance!
Thank you, Kelsey. While there are valid reasons to dislike HUM, I think the majority of people involved find it a positive and intellectually formative experience. Most people recognize, too, that the course is a survey that is intended to introduce students to some of the key works of western civilization rather than provide an in-depth study of any particular work. No lecture is going to do more than scratch the surface, and that's OK - although even so, some of my favorite lectures at Princeton were HUM lectures. I can't imagine my college career without it.
As for precepts? My experience during my four years at Princeton was that the quality of the precept was in large part determined by the quality of the students. A good professor or preceptor might help guide conversation, but if the students were great, even an uninspiring preceptor couldn't destroy the discussion, and if they hadn't read, were timid about speaking, or just didn't have much too say, the most dynamic professor couldn't turn it around.
@HUM '13. For whatever it is worth: I liked the works of the first semester and the lectures of the first semester well enough to suppose that it would be worth remaining in the course. Unfortunately, the second semester was quite poor and in my reflections after that year, I have become increasingly bitter about the course.
"You seem unable to respect that some people love or loved it." I know that some people really enjoy the course for whatever reasons they have. I disagree with their reasons for really enjoying the course. The fact that people enjoy HUM does not mean that the course is actually of any quality and, if I may infer an extended claim here, I wonder why you think that they would enjoy the course any less were it to be improved.
"It would be an enormous fallacy to be persuaded by the few vocal malcontents who dropped the course for reasons other than scheduling problems that the HUM sequence is a substandard survey course that is no substitute for “reading many, many Wikipedia articles."
Was this piece even edited? I have never read so many clumsy sentences in a row...anyway, I think the arguments here are overall pretty week. First of all, Course Evaluation are NEVER accurate representations of student opinion regarding a particular course. Especially in a class as small as Hum, people hesitate to express their true feelings, as many fear the professors will connect their writing style/personality with their comments.
Second of all, your attempt to dismiss the opinions of your peers ('the vocal malcontents), making them seem an inferior breed of student, is pompous and unwarranted. Those who disliked the Hum sequence are intelligent individuals who obviously had an interest in pursuing humanistic studies before they came to Princeton; there issue was likely not with the texts, but with the way the texts were being presented. You may have a different take, but don't devalue their concerns.
Thirdly, I really don't understand your allusion at the end of the article. Are you saying that the Hum sequence is folly because it has no depth, and yet there is a place for folly? What kind of ridiculous assertion is that? Perhaps your alluding to the satirical element of Praise of Folly? But then are you trying to imply that hum--a survey course--has great depth? Either way you look at it, this doesn't make sense and, as a whole, shows a certain inept approach on the topic.
Fourth, you have not taken the second semester of Hum which for many people is far less rewarding. I hope you can maintain your bubbly enthusiasm throughout the year...
"I think the arguments here are overall pretty week." Don't you mean "weak"?
"there issue was likely not with the texts..." Uhhh, "their"? Looks like you didn't edit your own post.
You would understand the reference if you attended today's lecture and precept on Erasmus.