Michael Stanislawski

In looking at previous reviews, it seems like people are taking things a bit out of proportion. Professor Stanislawski does lecture a lot (which can be a bit boring at times), but he is very (!) knowledgeable and is constantly trying to bring in other forms of information and media (art, songs, articles, etc) to keep the class from being repetitive. He definitely lets people speak, and if he cuts you off it isn't because he doesn't respect you, it's probably because he's just too excited about the topic. He also 'flipped classrooms' a few times per semester to make sure that everyone has a chance to participate and in those sessions, he literally just sits in silence for the whole class. Honestly, I think he's just an old-school professor and that doesn't suit a lot of people, which is fine. But he's definitely not looking to ruin anyone's semester or humiliate anyone in class. If you're looking for a pretty chill section of CC, where you can participate once per class, write the essays, and still get a good grade, then honestly you can stay here and get a decent (even good!) experience out of it.

I thought I wouldn't enjoy any of this course or sit through and be so bored. Truly he is so insightful and I've learned so much. He explains things in such a way that helps me understand even though I don't often read, but brush up on summaries.

He is a literally AWFUL professor. He just lectures the whole time and there is basically no discussion space. The favoritism he displays is actually so gross, if he likes you he will always agree with you and let you speak. If he doesn't like you (he hated me) just give up because every time I would speak in class he would just straight up cut me off and tell me my opinion was wrong. Also, the grading was influenced by how much he liked you; A's for the people he liked, A- for neutrals and B+ for the ones he didn't. He would make some interesting connections although, many times comparing characters in different books to modern day people. However, this did not make his class any more interesting as everyone was always either falling asleep or doing something on their computer. He made us write 3 questions a week for a discussion post, which we were supposed to discuss in class, yet we only did this 3 times. Also, he will automatically dislike you if you miss more than 1 of his classes. Overall, not a good professor. Do not take his class.

This dude literally doesn't stop talking about the Bible and pedophilic anal sex during the Symposium discussion. The latter incident straight up traumatized half the class to change their section for next semester. It would've been nice to have our own discussions during the class. I felt like I barely got to appreciate other people's viewpoints since the professor spent most of class time lecturing and overindexing on historical context (which he subsequently tells us not to incorporate into our essays). Our discussion on the Golden Ass was the most engaging because it was the reverse classroom, which he saves for the final class possibly so that he doesn't feel the need to do it again for the semester. Grading was so arbitrary, I got a high grade on one of my essays because I just wrote what he told me his interpretation was for two texts. For subsequent essays where I didn't have the chance to go to his office hours my grade dropped as a result. Funny how that works. While not necessarily narcissistic, Professor Stanislawski's self esteem does make it feel that he's belittling people's opinions in class. I can't remember a single time anyone got to speak before he cut them off or make some comment about how oh well you can think that in quite honestly a disrespectful way. It was also kinda funny when he tried to make sure we were politically correct about stuff like callin…

I would like to push back on some of the negative comments. Maybe it's because this is a thesis seminar, but I found Professor Stanislawski to be rather laid back and very forgiving with extensions/coursework etc. Additionally, he is willing to read as many drafts as you send him, and is accessible outside of class. When guiding me through my thesis he was encouraging, but also very willing to push back and point out what I needed to do to improve. Stanislawski is a knowledgeable guy and has a great understanding of historical craft. He also brings a lot to the table in terms of intellectual and enlightenment history. That being said, the classes were sometimes not very structured, and we did tend to lose track of the time.

Just been going through CULPA for next semester and am very upset at the most recent review of Stanislawski's History of Israel. I took it last year and loved it! The lectures were VERY clear and easy to listen to and to learn from, the professor was always available to talk to students, the readings were heavy but fascinating, and I love the fact that the exams are open-book.For me, too, the fact that this was not a typical Middle East class in which the professor's politics dominated everything was a huge plus. Stanislawski tries to remain as neutral as possible, mostly succeeds. and spends more time on culture and society than on the wars and the conflict as a whole. Take this course!!

Just finished Stanislawski's LitHum section, and think it was fantastic. Stanislawski knew the texts intimately, but more importantly, worked extremely hard to get us to understand and appreciate the material, which was often not easy. Contrary to some of the reviews here, he was extraordordinarily accessible and caring-- he went out of his way to meet with each student individually, to discuss not just this class but our overall coursework and academic plans, and was genuinely concerned about each student. He did have to cancel some office hours, but always made up for that with private meetings at another time. And at the end of each semester he invited us to his home form a review session, but it was as much just a friendly informal gathering to make us feel better facing the daunting exam. In class he did sometimes talk a little too much, but this is because we really needed context and information about the authors and texts and he has amazingly wide knowledge and is really committed to students' learning. He used visual material a lot, which helped, and accompanied us to two tours of the Met to supplement the classes. He also required that we submit rough drafts for the first two papers each semester, which I guess doubled the work load for him, but was amazingly helpful in trying to get us to write better papers. Finally I enjoyed this class so much that I will definite…

Professor Stanislawski is alright. For the most part, he just stood in front of the class and read off of rather boring lecture slides. There were a few things, however, that really put me off about his class: 1) He does not read over the midterm, papers, or final. He may glance over them, but the TA is entirely responsible for the grading, and the TA this year (Alana Hein) was particularly tough and generally rude, although this is not the proper place to review her performance. 2) His powerpoints would typically include huge (HUGE) blocks of texts from historical documents that nobody could read due to the small print and that he would basically just read verbatim without giving much insight. 3) There were times where he would read aloud texts that he already assigned for reading outside of class. For example, he once read about 3 pages of a text that he also assigned for the discussion section. I'm not really sure how this could be seen as beneficial or productive to the lecture. 4) For the most part, the materials he used seemed to be lacking. In the discussion of Tolstoy, he showed us the YouTube preview for the remake of Anna Karenina with Keira Knightly and Jude Law. You can't tell me that there was "just no information about this topic that would be relevant!" It's Tolstoy. And Anna Karenina. Overall, I found his class to be loosely organized, yet occasionally engaging…

Terrible coure. A total waste of time. I am trying to be respectful, so let me just write that the lack of organization, cohesion, and care undermined the capacity of this subject at a respectable academic level. There was also a Stockholm-type Synderome of affection to a gone empire best described by Reagan as evil.

I hated it. He expects too much and gives too little. He is not focused, and he does not listen to questions. He could use refreshment from recent scholarship, and more respect to gender and class issues.