Jonathan Rieder

Music, Race, and Identity with Dr. Rieder was definitely a positive experience. The content and class discussion were really insightful and interesting, and it felt like a neutral space where any opinions were welcomed. This class really taught the importance of music within cultures, and how it begins to shape communal and individual identities.

It was ok. Taking this class as an elective, it seemed very fun at first! Dr Rieder is definitely passionate about his work and teaching and genuinely wants to hear from the students. The reading is manageable, a bit intense some weeks and lighter on others (sometimes down to nothing at all). However, the course is graded off of two exams and a paper, each 1/3 of your total grade, and loosely on "participation" and "attendance," which aren't given actual percentages in the grade but are considered in boosting your final grade. He has a very particular way he expects you to write your exam answers and going outside of that expectation will lead to points being taken off. You can meet with him or the TA in office hours and they are very nice if a little condescending at times, but the grading expectations for the exams are so loose that IMO it doesn't really help. Although the exams are open note open book, the grading caused unnecessary stress for an elective course.

Honestly, I think the hype is a little overrated. Professor Rieder often dominated seminar discussions and told students they were wrong when their opinion differed from his. This is a first year seminar, the point is for students to share their ideas, and there can be multiple interpretations of literature. The reading list was good for the most part, however we spent a lot of time reading and discussing an old issue of a magazine Professor Rieder was the editor of. This made critiquing what we were reading and expressing our opinions even harder. Professor Rieder will meet with students about all their essays to go over them, and that's really helpful. However, many students were frustrated that these meetings would often result in Professor Rieder telling them their ideas were completely off, and directing them to write an argument that he believed in, but the students didn't.

Professor Rieder is a sweet, funny, laid-back dude who knows more about sociology and politics than just about anyone. The structure of each class goes something like this: 1. He gives a mini-lecture (about 10 min), which is, unfortunately, VERY confusing. He sometimes writes on the board, but that doesn't help much... and often makes things even hazier. Rieder knows a TON about the subject matter and is clearly very passionate about it, but he does not do a very good job of breaking down concepts or explaining things in general. 2. Class discussion building off of his mini-lecture, centered on the readings for that day Rieder constructed the course so that we'd do all of the readings in the first ~2/3 of the semester, so the last ~1/3 of the semester would be dedicated to paper-writing and discussing the papers. Advice: --If you know a good amount about politics, you'll succeed in this class. If you don't, you will struggle. The seminar students have differing amounts of background knowledge, and Rieder knows this, but it's still rough if you don't have a strong grasp of current political events and political party movements/shifts. --It feels much more like a PoliSci class than Sociology. --Go to him for advice on your paper if you have questions about the readings/class discussions/whatever. He's very accommodating and likes talking outside of class. The frustrating part is…

Professor Reider is a great professor. He definately has his pros and cons, but overall you will do well by paying attention to key points in class and focusing on those concepts for readings and exams. Some of the readings seem lengthy, but think basic concepts and terms. Don't get caught up in meticulous details. As far as cons, some students are frustrated by his waivering syllabus changes, but he updates the class daily at the lectures or via e-mail and the changes are necessary in most cases to keep up with the flow of the class. The advantage, is that the test are not really intended to trick you. Know the main concepts and be able to write about their significance in the readings. If you are confused, ask for help. For the papers, he is VERY open to letting you chose a topic and simply support your opinion. The class is not a breeze, but it is definately fair. Also, don't let his terminology overwhelm you. Sometimes he uses complex terms to explain ideas that seem simple, but this will only help you dissect over simplified information better and guide you on what terms you should know for exam purposes. I highly recommend going to class or getting notes if you miss because he covers a lot in one class. Challenging, but I truly loved the class and his teaching style. You will do well if you try. Bottom line.

This class should be renamed "The Art of Stating the Obvious". Apparently, things you do in everyday life that you don't even think about warrant 100 pages of reading and a 3 hour discussion. Despite, Rider is a good professor--very intelligent, nice (brings cookies) and allows for class arguments. He also thinks that everything you say is brilliant, even if it ain't, so it's good for self esteem. Recommended professor.

He is the best! Super interesting course. He is so passionate about the topics and loves to talk about it. Definitely take this course if you're interested or just want to talk about lyrics!

Omg do not take the framework of the class is difficult to follow. Also his weekly questions, which are fundamental towards answering and understanding for the midterm and final, are extremely confusing in word choice. The class is pretty open ended, but I did not find his teaching style to be conducive for me. In lecture, he would often jump point to point and it will quickly be confusing as to what he is referencing or talking about. He does love when students are involved and ask questions, but they often side tracked what the course was actually about. Topics were interesting, i will say. If you HAVE to take, then utilize the TA a lot and email him with questions, but if there is another course I recommend that one instead.

I cannot sing Rieder's praises enough! He seriously cares about his students and makes time to meet with each student in his seminars personally to revise/brainstorm their essays. He is passionate about his areas of research, and is genuinely interested in people (refreshing and unfortunately too rare for sociologists). I will emphasize that he is much better in seminar format than lecture; it's a more manageable format for the types of discussions he tries to have. He is not super-organized, which can be frustrating, but I still think his classes are very worth it, for his expertise and the questions he makes you consider. If you care about identity politics, pop culture, music, and the human side of sociology, TAKE A RIEDER SEMINAR.

I very strongly disagree with the previous review. This class was a huge disappointment and I do not felt like I learned anything new. Rieder's lecture style is dry and he over complicates pretty straightforward concepts. Rieder would challenge students' views by twisting what they said and posing questions in order to complicate ideas on race and identity. Although he is undoubtedly a pro in the world of sociology, I would highly recommend NOT taking this course. The syllabus was disorganized and lacked unity surprisingly enough. I still am left confused as to what he actually wanted on the exams.