ENGL W3267

Two papers, I think the first one was 3-5 pages and the second 5-7, something like that. The second one was about two pages longer than the first. No midterm. Choice between final exam and final paper (8-10 pages). I chose the paper so not sure how the exam went but it was supposed to be some passage IDs, explications, essays. Reading was doable and you could get away with not doing it all if you were busy. I don't really know how the class was graded but probably some combination of the above, plus discussion. The TA did the grading.

Enjoyable readings.One essay.Exams are great.At most 5 paragraphs to a question.

Two medium-length essays, and then an exam or a final (10-page) paper. Probably will change based on which professor teaches the course next.

I took this class in fall 2012 but haven't had a chance to add my two cents about the class until now. Delbanco is a pretty great lecturer with a great handle on the material and very interesting points. My only complaints are that (1) he doesn't follow the syllabus really -- by the end of the semester we were pretty behind on what we were reading for lecture, so sometimes lecture/discussion plans didn't match up exactly and some things we had to speed through and (2) I took the class in NoCo 501. Anyone who's ever taken a class there knows that it's almost impossible to stay awake every class. There's something about that classroom (the desks? the stuffiness? the heat?) that makes learning so much harder in there. I took another class there in the spring and it was the same deal. Avoid that room if you can!! The reading list is great, I think the course title is pretty accurate. There's a lot of variety, from Puritan sermons to Emily Dickinson to Moby Dick/Melville's short stories. I really enjoyed the later works especially (Melville is great and there's a lot to think about there, plus Delbanco is an expert). I'll agree with the reviewer that you get what you put into it -- you don't have to do all the reading (I didn't, but wish I had had the time to) or attend lecture (no attendance). You do have to sign up for a discussion section (attendance mandatory). I guess maybe I…

Amazing! I loved this professor.She can convert whatver dumb comments you make into insightful observations on the fly.She helps you analyze books on your own.You will be amazed by her indepth lectures.

I took Foundations of American Literature with Andrew Delbanco (his last year teaching the course); Nick was my TA. Based on section, the other reviews of him seem harsh, although I don't know what his UW class is like. For American lit, Nick led discussions with a real interest in hearing what students had to say, and his comments on papers were extensive. His specialty is Melville, which was apparent during our classes on Moby Dick. By and large, class discussion was lively, if relatively unstructured, with students having some say on its direction. Essays were open-ended, so long as we found some "tension" in the text, something we could "contest." In other words, we were supposed to make an argument about the text, not simply observe or summarize. If you can figure out how to do that, you'll do well enough on his papers.

One 3-page paper the first month, one 5-page paper right before midterms, one 10-15 page paper as final OR take the final exam. I wrote the paper, so I don't know how the test was.

Delbanco is an amazing teacher with a great mind and a dry wit. He expresses the points and insights you should be getting from the readings clearly and with a passion that is contagious. His class is very much a 'get out of it what you put into it' one, as there are relatively few graded works and no midterm. That makes it approachable for majors and non-majors alike. Unfortunately, you must sign up for the discussion session in class, so you may not actually get him for the weekly session (which is where attendance is really taken). Even if you sign up on SSOL the sessions are redone the first week.

Notice a pattern in CULPA reviews: the more admired the professor is by the world, the more likely a certain kind of intimidated student scents his being "full of himself". Gee, that's funny. Delbanco hasn't bothered to update his American Studies bio in 3 years. It lacks all his latest honors and publications. Among countless honors one notices: "In 2001, he was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and named by Time Magazine as "America's Best Social Critic." If he was in rock he'd be Billy Joe Armstrong. If he lacked self esteem he'd be nuts. If being around a star intimidates you, why did you come to Columbia? Go to CCNY, and save your parents' money. If you think anybody slightly more dignified than Carter at the Grammies is "pompous" or "Ivy" then leave the Ivy. Those sincerely interested in Delbanco's goals as teacher should read the deservedly famous NY Review of Books article: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/318 Written when English depts were drowning in decon, it says, "full-scale revival will come only when English professors recommit themselves to slaking the human craving for contact with works of art that somehow register one's own longings and yet exceed what one has been able to articulate by and for oneself. This is among the indispensable experiences of the fulfilled life, and the English department will survive—if on a smaller scale…