Frank Guridy

I was reminded the importance of doing some background research on an author to get a better idea of what their biases and motives might be.

Attendance is very strict. You also won’t really know what is going on without being in lecture. It is conversation based and class participation is graded. There is weekly reading and study questions to go along with it. The questions are just for yourself to think about certain concepts so are not mandatory. However, citing as you read is crucial for class conversations (he asks you to cite as you speak) and also the exams (so you don’t have to search through the whole book). There are three take home exams, consisting of five identifications and one essay. It takes time but is not super difficult. They are looking for something very specific so follow the instructions closely and CITE! Depending on your TA the grading can vary but I think Guridy asks them to be somewhat harsh. Overall it is not hard to do well just takes time and effort.

I clearly understand what it is to do transnational and International history now.

I enjoyed this course because I found the content engaging. However, there were definitely moments where I felt that we were only being shown a very small portion of perspectives that aligned with Guridy’s views. Professor Guridy had a lot of interesting things to say. However, he often shared his opinion as fact and was not open to other ideas. Despite this, if you are interested in sports in any capacity, I think this class is worth taking. Take everything with a grain of salt and you will be fine.

both knowledge and methodology of thinking of history beyond national borders

2 Take-home exams (1 week) and a final (also 1 week, also take home). Hella reading that definitely helps but is skippable if you have a clue (and the ctrl-F function). Grading wasn't too harsh for me.

Stimulating lessons and discussions on varied approaches to doing transnational and global history.The course took me to nearly every part of the globe: Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico, etc. The intersections of global and Cold War politics with sports is perhaps my biggest takeaway in this course.

I too took this class because it seemed easy. It wasn't terrible-- pretty positive experience overall if you don't mind being in a majority-male humanities class. The concepts are easy to grasp if you're a history or econ major, but if you're coming to this from some other background there might be a learning curve. I think Guridy does a good job of making sure the terms he uses are defined-- if it ends up on the definitions section of the exam, there was most likely a big discussion of it in class, as long as you were paying attention and taking diligent notes. He mostly lectures and is big on student participation-- you may feel at times that other students are teaching the class (especially because of the beginning of class 5 min. presentations by students). Even if you don't explicitly do his extra credit, you can probably snag an A just by sitting in the front and raising your hand a few times. If he knows your name, you're good. His insistence on turning assignments in on paper is unforgivable, though. Who does that? It's the year of our lord 2023.

I learned all about different ways of doing and thinking through international and world history - perspectives including environmental history; immigration and diaspora-focused history; Cold War / political history; Atlantic history; and postcolonial and anti-colonial history, among others.

Light: about a book a month (4 in total) all about sports (Friday Night Lights was one) 3 take home exams that will kill your grade PARTICIPATION IN CLASS, it's worth 20% (plus there's a discussion section) -- mandatory lecture attendance (!)