HIST BC1401

3 papers, based on books that you read over the course of the semester. Not all of the books will be covered with the papers, and you will have to refer to them on your final. No midterm. Final is 10 IDs from a list of about 40 that Sloan gives you, and two essays (you have no choices). Mandatory discussion section.

Weekly readings for discussion section which were very manageable, Q+Q (which are essentially short reading response, you do six on any readings you choose, with half before the mideterm and half after) 20%, 3 papers - the first one was 10%, the last two 20%, a midterm (10%), final (20%)

Professor Sloan knows so much, and that is apparent from his lectures. That having been said, he can be boring and a bit dry, and lectures can tend to drag on a bit. There were definitely times I feel asleep in lecture. You have a textbook, which I found was good because it gave the background to what Sloan would discuss in lectures, but you could really get by without reading it and just going to lectures and taking notes -- for the final, Sloan gives you a list of terms that you will have to know, which do a good job of encompassing everything covered in lectures. He would pick specific overarching themes of the period, and spent several lectures over the course of the semester on historiography, which I found was interesting, but, again, was a bit dry. You also have to read six other books over the course of the semester, some of which are interesting, and some of which are boring, useless, and did not contribute anything to my knowledge of American History (Robert Cole's World, I'm looking at you). There is also weekly mandatory discussion sections. My TA, Eric, was okay, and did a good job of facilitating conversation about the texts we were reading. Grading is done randomly, so you can have a TA or Professor Sloan grading your paper and your final, making grading a bit of a mixed bag -- you win some, you lose some. You also don't know which one is grading, which makes it…

Andrew Lipman was a wonderful professor -- he gives a very good lecture and is very clear on his expectations for his class. The topics of the lecture were always listed on the board, as well as the key terms he expected students to know. He truly wants his students to succeed, and structures the evaluations in that way. The Q+Qs, which make up 20% of the grade, are based off a check system, and as long as you have read the piece and do some basic analysis, you will do well. The mideterm and the final are also based on the key terms he lists throughout the lecture -- the terms are used as proofs in essays. At times, he can be very humurous in his lectures though at other times more serious, but he is able to differentiate which material deserves which treatment. For a large lecture, he is able to work in participation from the class, though it is not required in the syllabus -- this makes for more meaningful contributions to discussion. Furthermore, he always makes sure to ask for questions as he wraps up parts of the lecture. I would definitely reccomend taking this lecture!

A few papers. All quite short. No midterm. Final consisted of both ID questions, which he provided a study guide for, and then a number of short essay responses.

Four 2-3 page responses to be turned in throughout the semester on any week's readings. Option to submit a fifth that will replace lowest score. Collectively comprise 20% (Because of the responses I felt like I was always writing, but genuinely improved my historical analysis skills) Two 5-7 page papers, each 20% Midterm is only 10%, Final is 20% (The midterm and final take the same format, a selected generalized theme with which you need to use a certain number of IDs)

Sloan is awesome. He sits down a few minutes before class and waits for someone to bring up some small talk until he actually begins his lecture. I would always throw out current events and enjoy his cynical yet objective-ish response. As a pretty conservative person I'm always weary of the position professors will take when re-telling history, but he usually steered clear of politics. The readings were alright, and I skimmed every single book assigned. The lectures were interesting because he was a never ending pool of facts. When he would ask a question and someone got it wrong, he would yell "NO", but make it funny-- it was never intimidating to have the wrong answer, and actually made class more fun because his response was so hilarious. Good intro history class. If you put in the time you can learn a lot of dates and facts.

Professor Lipman is an extremely engaging lecturer and is knowledgeable about everything regarding US History, specifically indigenous history. There is a lot of overlap between this class and his Early America-1763 course, which he consistently references. By the midterm, we had barely scratched post-Columbian contact which I personally loved. Some people in the class felt as through we didn't spend enough time between the American Revolution and Civil War, but if you'r'e all interested in alternative perspectives of colonial contact and Native American patterns throughout the 19th century, this is a great class. He utilized the CARDS notetaker and posted the detailed notes from each class, which I hope he continues to do as it was extremely helpful. Highly recommend this class!

Not a lot. Three essays and a final exam.

Readings every week, but never felt like too much or overwhelming. You can sort of pick and choose what most interests you. Four "Q&As" which are 1-2 page short responses based on the weekly reading. He provides a few questions to choose from. You can do the four at any point in the semester. Either spread them out over the semester or front load all four (this is what I did and it made the course load way better). Two 5-6 page papers based on a book we read. I thought they were graded very fairly. An in class midterm. It was a timed writing. It was not bad as long as you had the key terms memorized and known. Take home final also based on the key terms and some readings. A little bit more in depth than the final, but it was take home so it made sense.