HIST W3330

Lots of reading including primary sources for section. Other texts read too including Czeslaw Milosz and Vaclav Havel. there were also movies recommended every other week or so - Battle of ALgiers, Paisan, etc. I'm pretty sure people stopped attending those mid-way. The auxiliary readings generally impeded your time studying for what would eventually be on the midterm and final. 1 research paper due at the end, 1 midterm, 1 final.

I think Maybe the previous reviewer's comment that Judt's book is the only redeeming part is perhaps strong, but the lectures were pretty dry. I think at one point I heard her say that homosexuality was illegal in europe through the twentieth century, which is clearly a fallacy as France was one country which legalized it during the french revolution prior to the 19th century. The TA apparently graded you each section on a scale of 10 for your level of participation.

What do you get when you combine elitism, self- aggrandizement, and too many feminist workshops? Take this class and you will quickly find out. No structure, no focus, no interest. Judt's book was the only redeeming part.

Tony Judt's Postwar is an excellent read. You'll need to do the reading seeing as you'll be asleep during most of her class.

This woman is incredibly smart, and understands the greater warp and woof of European history; she can take a bunch of different threads and tie them together, and she knows how to take a very focused study of, for instance, Benneton, and amplify her conclusions about that example onto a greater background. Unfortunately, her voice's cadence recalls the speed of 900 pound quadriplegic turd coming down my constipated intestine. I fell asleep consistently. She is always searching for just the right word. This means she talks very very very very very slooooooowwwwwww. Be prepared. NoDoz, Red Bull, and amphetamines are all useless in the face of her soporific genius.

Not too bad: reasonable amount of reading, bi-weekly film screenings, two map quizes, 10-15 page paper, midterm, final (for both you get a bunch of terms and questions in advance to prepare and then she chooses a couple on the day of the exam), bi-weekly discussion section (alternates with the movies)

This is one class where it is imperative to do the readings before going to lecture. De Grazia assumes that you already know what sheÂ’s talking about, and tends to go over specific events or discuss specific examples. If you havenÂ’t done the reading youÂ’ll be totally lost. Lectures on social history were generally good; lectures on politics tended to be extremely confusing (she gets flustered and gets dates and names mixed-up). To me this was a very interesting class and de Grazia was a very knowledgable professor, but it you donÂ’t have a background in European history/or arenÂ’t willing to do ALL the reading before lecture then I wouldnÂ’t recommend it.

A lot, if you do all the reading to get the most out of the course. Readings from Tony Judt's "Postwar" take forever, but are comprehensive and interestingly arranged and argued. About 100-125 pages of assigned reading per week, plus supplementary texts that are unilaterally great. These include Primo Levi's "The Reawakening," Francoise Gaspards's "A Small City in France," Steven Kotkin's "Steeltown, USSR," and Jana Hensel's memoir on growing up in East Germany. Aside from the copious readings, students are required to see 5 out of 8 movies (ranging from the Italian classic 'Paisan' to Good Bye, Lenin! and l'Haine.) See them. They're required for the final and all quite fascinating: de Grazia references the films frequently during lecture, and even opens up some discussion concerning them. For evaluation, there are 2 map quizzes (easy) a midterm, final, and 10-12 page research paper/essay. The midterm and final require 2 essays, about 10 ids and some extras, which are all given to you a week before the exam. She will give you 5 essay question, pick 4 of them and ask you to write on two. VERY fairly graded. The paper is also fair, and can be written on any topic your heart desires. It can be as hardcore as you want it to be: you can chose to write about something as obscure as Algerian/French advertising, or a comparison of historical memoirs covered in class. It's up to you.

A mixed bag professor: quite knowledgeable (brilliant, even) and rather warm, but these qualities rarely come out during her lectures. She seems to have a set trajectory for her lectures, and if something sets her off, she tends to fluster for a moment while she regroups. During these moments, she may say something a little silly (like mixing up Gorby and Brezhnev) but this is NOT because she doesn't know the material: she is a professor not comfortable mixing discussion with lecture. Try to talk to her during office hours, and you'll come to appreciate a greater dimension of her personality, which is VERY cool and interesting. Don't expect warm fuzzies though, unless you take a seminar with her. To get the most out of her lectures, which vary significantly in presentation and content, DO ALL THE READING for the week. Her lectures tend to assume that you've done the reading from the major text, Tony Judt's "Postwar," and that you are fully grounded in the political, social and cultural situations that she will discuss. The lectures seem light only if you have not done the reading, because she focuses mostly on varying arguements and gives her own perspective on the politics. A general piece of advice: any lecture on women, culture, social change, immigration will be fabulous; the political lectures can be vague, at best, if you haven't done the reading, and these are the ones…