ANTH V3041

An intense amount of reading; you do need to do some of each reading because lecture won't usually be a substitute, but you don't need read all of each book or article to be able to understand the theory at work. Tests are reasonable; there is also a paper which is not long.

Very manageable for a theory based anthropology class. Two shorter papers (5 pages), one final paper (8 pages). About three different articles per week, along with chapters in the ethnography from time to time.

Four essays scattered throughout the semester (4 pages each) and a final 6-8 page paper. Fairly light, and she's not a harsh grader.

Not that much work in terms of assessments I think there were 2 in class essays and 1 take-home?

Weekly 1-2 (single-spaced papers), weekly readings (which can be pretty intense), no midterm, final.

The reading is heavy, but it is possible to cut corners while still being able to particpate. There are no tests or quizes besides the final. An ungraded one-page paper is due at each weekly recitation meeting, but the TA (Karman Rastegar) is leniant and will accept work late. It is important to check in with the professor one on one from time to time after class, as each student is given a "discreationary" grade based, largely, on whether Nichanian can remember who you are. Three papers are assigned over the semester, one to be delivered orally. All paper topics are at students' chooseing, though the lecture must relate directly to one of the works read in class. The lecture is ungraded and the first paper has a letter grade attached that doesn't factor into the final grade. Papers are graded against a tough standard of originality, but the lowest grade ever given is a B.

What some of the earlier reviewers have said about the boredom of Professor Sohrabi's lectures is somewhat true, although he's definitely not the worst lecture I've encountered here--more in the middle of the pack. However, he makes very funny asides that serve to make some of his rambling tolerable. That said, I highly recommend this class for its content, which is excellent. Sohrabi has done a fantastic job of choosing readings, and at the end of the course I can really appreciate the ways they relate to, modify, and contradict each other--which is to say that the course as a whole seems to have come together in some way at the end, even if it doesn't seem to during the fact.

Stephen Scott is an awesome professor. He organizes this course in a very unique way, which makes it exciting to learn the material (We read one ethnography the entire semester, and read different theory along the way as the ethnography references it). He does a great job explaining concepts, and unlike Anthro Theory I (which I took with a different professor), I came out of the class feeling like I really understood the material rather than being more confused about the material. It doesn't hurt that he has a great sense of humor and is just a fun guy to be around. He's the type of professor that you'll want to do well for.

Nadia is by far one of the best teachers I've ever had. Yes, she is frazzled and scatterbrained and never replies to e-mails, but I learned more in this course alone than in an entire two years of Anthro classes. She's the kind of professor who teaches you about much more than just the subject matter of the course- so much of what I learned were general critical thinking/reading skills. Unlike so many professors she won't let you off the hook when you make an easy/lazy point in class- she'll actually push you to think it through and consider its ramifications. Don't be fooled by the whole drama about her research and some people's bigoted comments about her: she is a truly exceptional professor.

Honestly such a good class in terms of the readings! Super engaging and we did a lot of small group convos, really bonded as a class. Prof Larkin is a character and is very understanding while also pushing you to critically think