Richard Braverman

If there was a Worst Teaching Award, this guy will make it to the finals, and probably win it! Prof. Braverman is one of the most boring lectures I've ever taken at Columbia. He seems to think too highly of himself, when, actually, I don't think he lives up to the standards. He is way too arrogant! Save yourself from his awful teaching!

a boring guy, provided no insight into the great masterpieces we read, arrogant. also not an easy grader.

Braverman is definitely not one of those professors a student can be decisive about. He's not terrible, but I'm not quite sure how good he is, either. He most definitely knows his stuff; the man is brilliant. He doesn't always communicate all that brilliance to the students, however. I always had this feeling when class ended that I'd been yanked away from a good movie right before the climax. In other words, just when I felt we were getting to one of his original and insightful ideas, he'd veer off into something trite and end class. But the books he chooses are great to read; he also discusses a lot on the development of genres and fuses pop culture ideas with the more conventional.

Boring, boring, boring! One of the most disaffected professors I've ever taken at Columbia. Save yourself the sham of his class. He is always late, speaks as though he is speaking only for himself, and if you ask him to speak louder, he will tell you that he's having throat problem or something! Problem is: the whole semester goes by like that. I didn't want to listen to the previous reviewers at Culpa, and paid my dues with a boring prof. I agree with the previous reviewer that it is not that this guy is 'stupid,' but simply that he does not give a d**m about teaching.

This is the most boring and ineffectual of LitHum teachers it seems to me, although Mr. Braverman is the only one I have had. He is not unkind, nor is he stupid, or angry, but he is bored, and he can't help but disease his poor freshman with his zestlessness. I wish I had just switched after first semester because I realize now I would have rather had someone more demanding and spicy if it meant I might actually have the motivation to drag myself to class.

Okay, so the other reviewers aren't so keen on Prof. Braverman. Yes, he does have a almost too lax attitude in class, but when it comes down to it...he teaches the historical background, genre characterisitcs, and modern criticism of the works clearly. The works he puts on the syllabus are really diverse and interesting. We read everything from Shakespeare to Frankenstein to Wordsworth. I thought his class was very worthwhile.

Engaging professor who makes the readings relevant for contemporary issues and gives very encouraging feedback. Although he doesn't let you off the hook for not reading he recognizes the expected mid semester slump and will carry the conversation of this seminar for those two "slump" classes. Outside of that be prepared to read and discuss at least two of the readings assigned for each class. He does try to give you realistic reading assignments and he chooses a lot that can be printed out from the web to save you money -- if it saves you money.

Really great guy, who really seems to know his stuff. If you don't believe me, look up his Ph.D. dissertation online. Problem is: his immense store of knowledge and agreeable personality don't always add up to an interesting class session. He seems to often be unable to get discussion moving and also has trouble making the material terrible interesting. He's a considerate grader, though not easy, and will teach you something, but drink some coffee before class.

Professor Braverman is a nice enough guy, but it seems pretty obvious that he doesn't have much interest in teaching this course. He always arrived late for class, then engaged in several minutes of "small talk" before talking about anything relevant. Beyond that, the class discussions were generally dull and unfocused, and Braverman's contributions (usually large, since only half the class showed up on a regular basis, and even they didn't want to talk) are not particularly enlightening. Braverman is an easy instructor for Intro to the Major, but you probably won't learn much from him.

I am shocked that no one has mentioned the infamous checkered brown shirt that he wore every single day. Toward the end, I was torn as to whether I should be more mentally stunted by his lectures or his wardrobe. Though he is very congenial and endearing, he constantly dons academic blinders; if you don't see it his way, don't bother offering an opinion, as it will not be entertained (except to be insufficiently discredited and absorbed back into his unshakable lecture outline). I actually enjoyed the reading, but there are, as previously mentioned, specific responses to the papers and tests. I regurgitated exactly what he said and got 100 percent on both the midterm and final (this is an easy A if you enjoy staying steadily inside the box). Also, if you don't enjoy the comments of lifelong learners, don't take his class, because he indulges the most inane comments (RB: "What were the social factors playing into Robinson Crusoe's situation?" Random octogenarian: "I can say the alphabet" RB: "Okay. Yes. Very good."), which unfortunately often includes his own.