Theoretical Foundations of Political Economy · BC
2 papers (about 3000words), weekly reflection, in class excersise, and take home final
● 2 Essays: 20% each ● 1 Debate: 25% ● 1 Final Exam: 20% ● 3 Short Quizzes: 10% (lowest score was dropped) ● Participation/Discussion: 5% Grading is pretty generous, besides on objective things like 3 short quizzes and MC section of the final exam.
I feel like this is a much better introductory course to economics then the Intro to econmic reasong course Barnard has. Really interesting and thought provoking assignments that are graded easily! The readings are extremely long and dense, but you do not have to do a single one to succeed. Kurt is interesting.
In consistence with the previous CULPA reviews, during the very few classes that I attended, Burgstaller has said many things that are just plainly offensive. He tends to ramble in an unpredictable manner and is very hard to follow. Every time I come to class out of guilt, I just question why I'm doing this to myself. With that said, attendance is totally unnecessary. Every class Burgstaller chooses "a slave" (yes he said that, minute 2 of the first day) to take pictures of notes on the board and will upload them, plus recordings of lectures, to Courseworks. Potentially, you can just sign up for the class, read the books at your own pace, only show up to submit your essays / take finals, and get this requirement over with (if you're a barnard econ major).
I think Prof. Archibong is a very interesting and engaging teacher. Yet, I did not think that her teaching style and slides prepared students well for the quizzes and final exam. The assignment that is weighed most heavily is the debate -- each student has to participate in one debate during the semester. Pretty easy to do well in the debate if your team prepares and if you practice your parts. There are also 3 quizzes (lowest grade is dropped), 2 essays, a participation grade, and a final exam (split between MC and short answer). She posted her lecture slides and recorded each lecture, but the slides were not informative. You had to either go to class or watch the lecture to actually understand. There are a LOT of readings posted, but most people don't read them as everything you need to know is gone over in class. There are many opportunities for "extra credit" throughout the semester, but keep in mind that the extra credit is allotted to the 5% participation grade, not to each individual assignment. The two essays are pretty straight-forward, but make sure to really research the question and go to office hours with the TA or the professor to talk about your arguments. The take-home final was super challenging, especially the multiple choice. Most of the questions were "trick" questions that were super hard to get wrong if you were relying on the slides alone. The average fo…
2 assignments (each 20%), weekly discussion post (20%), participation (15%), and final (25%)
Very light. Most people missed all classes, only showing up to submit the two papers required of us and for the final. I assume that's helped him stick around.
Great professor and super knowledgeable about different theories/frameworks. I highly recommend taking at least one course with him. Attendance was taken in each class, but I'm not sure if it really counted towards the final grade. There was a weekly discussion post, which was kind of a pain, but it served to make sure you did the readings. One of the assignments was a 2500 word essay and the other assignment was to answer a series of questions in about 500 words each. The final was take-home with multiple short essay response questions. Overall, Professor Semm was wonderful and always engaging!
Where to begin? If there was one overarching theme it would be to stick to the material - I'm far from an avid policer of political correctness or what have you, but the degree and frequency of Prof. Burgstaller's inappropriate commentary distracted students from the course, made many uncomfortable, and ultimately reduced the quality of the course considerably. Some choice examples: 1. Publicly referred to a student's Catholic faith around the time of Easter, and then proceeded to tell the whole lecture hall about his favorite priest back in Geneva, who he liked because he was deaf, and therefore wouldn't hear the Professor when he would repent for his "impure thoughts about women". Again, the man teaches at a women's college. 2. Around the Lunar New Year, he remarked upon it, and when students waved in a particular way, he said (into the mic) "Oh, that's so Chinese of you." 3. Repeatedly commented on students' appearances. Usually positively, calling them "beautiful". Obviously shouldn't be a thing happening at all, positive or negative! Felt really weird even adding that detail in here, to be honest! 4. Commented on Barnard Public Safety's recent abusive treatment of a black student in the library next-door to where the lecture was taught, specifically saying people were being unsympathetic of the "uneducated, base" public safety officers, who "were just doing their job". 5.…
3 long essays, weekly discussion posts, and "participation" which, in his words, is based on "whether he likes talking to you."