I’ve started work on the second batch of assignments. They’re getting a week each, starting with Sociology. At this point, the optimal arrangement seems to be to use three evenings a week, plus about 4-5 hours one day of the weekend, for study. That can be new material, or assignment work, although I suspect that the assignment work may run long for Sociology.
This one comes in two parts; the first is a discussion section via Moodle with six contributions of 150 words each. Two new posts on a broad topic, and two responses to other people’s posts, with the last two of either kind. I’ve done one original and two responses by now. Responses are harder, because I need to make some sort of salient point about a subject I probably know little, if anything about, and back it up with references of some kind.
The other part is an essay, on how a person’s gender and social class limit their life chances. 2100 words, and normally, I can get my points across concisely enough, I fear the word limit on this one. Thus far I have a reference list – four papers, five books, apart from the course texts – an outline plan, and an introduction and conclusion written. Both written sections will probably change once the main content gets under way, but that’s ok.
It’s a very broad topic, so there’s plenty of reading available. Annoyingly, despite the thousands of online journals I can reach, one particularly useful looking article in Sociology (Oxford) seems only to be available in hard copy, and not on loan. I have a massive preference for etext of whatever kind, for three reasons: I don’t have to physically go to the library, I can cut and paste my quotes, and I can use text searches. I can probably get along without that article for now, or get a photocopy of it, but it’s frustrating to run into the limits of the online world. I suspect that this is only the first time, though.
History, Events vs. Thinking
I am having some disagreements with the structure of my history course. These come down, in essence, to the choice of textbooks. Our core text, pretty much, is John Merriman’s History of Modern Europe Vol 1. We also have a secondary text, a collection of essays on the same era edited by Beat Kümin, entitled The European World 1500-1800. The thing is that I find Merriman incredibly, unbelievably dull, and the essays in Kümin’s collection vastly more interesting and worthwhile.
In ploughing (and it’s hard work!) through Merriman’s chapter on the Renaissance, I took one single note, because it consisted of roughly categorised renditions of what happened, in more or less chronological order. There’s little thinking around why things happened, no attempt to illustrate thinking on general processes in the era – in short, all facts, no theory. Whereas the equivalent essay by the gloriously named Humfrey Butters in Kümin’s collection starts straight in to challenging the notion that the Renaissance was anything special, and does so by coming to general conclusions, theorising, and generally giving some shape to the thinking. I don’t agree with it as such – I think – but it’s fascinating nonetheless.
Result: two lines of notes from 30 pages of Merriman, and not much memory of what was in there, other than that the Sforzas were founded by a mercenary. And two pages of notes from 10 pages of Butters, with some considerable enthusiasm about the whole era and the processes and events therein.
Wouldn’t it be better to have the more enthusiasm-inducing text as the core one, and leave the other as a backup?