Shamus Khan

Shamus is the best! Social theory could get boring so fast because after all we mostly only read classical philosophers (Rousseau, Lock, Hobbes, Smith...) But Shamus is such an eloquent man. He goes straight to the point in his lecture and your note-taking abilities will determine whether you do well on your exams or not. If you ever want to learn about the classes subject but are scared of getting easily bored, take this course with Shamus Khan!

Shamus was a witty, enthusiastic, well-prepared, and brilliant lecturer. He introduced many theories and ideas that broadened my outlook on the world and made me excited to continue taking classes in the social sciences. My biggest qualm with his teaching style, however, is his lecture pace. He spoke very quickly, and used zero visual aids, so it was incredibly hard to take satisfactory notes. I think that he should have either a) maintained his quick pace but also used a visual aid such as lecture slides, or b) slow down. The only way to take comprehensive notes (which were necessary because we were quizzed on the lectures) was to use a laptop. I hate taking notes on a laptop- it's distracting to both me and the people around me, but I wasn't able to keep up. I missed a lot of the names that were mentioned, and I constantly worried that I was missing major points. Otherwise, Khan was a great professor to experience because he is making strides in the field of sociology and clearly has a passion for sharing his experiences and perspectives.

Just noticed that there's no review for Shamus's methods class, so thought I'd throw one in there. I took Social World with Shamus and thought it was just okay, but his Methods class (taken Spring 2015) was really superb. Shamus does what more teachers should but do not do - assign clear projects with deadlines and then present all the information needed to succeed. If you need help, you can seek it out. If you blow it, he does not care, but you know you had everything you need to succeed and then some. This is a refreshing and quite frankly generous mentality. And he really loves Methods. This class did a phenomenal job of presenting lots of different methods as unique ways of understanding problems that are better or worse in certain contexts (ex. ethnography provides detailed insight that survey data does not; experimental methods are the best way to test causality but often cost too much/are not feasible). He has you try each method and reflect on it in a "lab report." I also appreciated how rigorous his approach to science is - he wasn't trying to make us into the budding genius researchers that lots of people thought they were, but rather meticulous investigators who hesitated to jump to any conclusions. It made me a more skeptical and rigorous thinker and I appreciated it. This is a class taken mostly by sociology majors, and you probably don't want to take it if you're…

I have taken Professor Khan's The Sociological Imagination and loved every minute of it. His energy, enthusiasm, and, sometimes, cynicism immediately convinced me to follow through with the major. I have not turned back since. When it comes to the intro material, Khan is an amazing professor. I was excited to take his course on Elites, since I very much wanted to have the opportunity to take a class with him again. I was unfortunately very underwhelmed. Once again, Professor Khan's lectures are superb. However, his approach to the class (historical, sociological, and literary texts in a single themed "module") did not fit my tastes. The texts were very well chosen, but I personally found many of them not too interesting. Additionally, his lecture style was a bit all over the place, which I feel works in an introductory course, but just confused me here. He usually would supplement a text by going through a "Sparknotes" version of more classical accounts of that phenomenon. Oftentimes, I found he would try to tackle too much in a lecture, which made the overall experience unsatisfying. Professor Khan is clearly well-read and does knows what he's talking about. He also explains these authors fairly well, and always checks himself to stay away from academic jargon. Still, this does not mean that to bring in all these ideas is appropriate for an undergraduate class. He throws a to…

I took this course, which is no longer offered, a couple of semesters ago, but since I'm graduating soon I think it'd be nice to acknowledges the classes and profs who were truly outstanding. This is the class that made me want to become a Sociology major, which in the end I didn't, but the class was certainly interesting enough that it enticed me to go down the Sociology path. Khan is really intelligent and he sounded really passionate about what he was talking about. Some of the material was a little dry -- as an overview course, there is some material you're bound to disagree with or dislike. I really appreciated, though, that Khan took the time to explain the readings; but most importantly, he also outlined some of the scholars' faulty thinkings or problems with the readings. Too often profs don't go out of the way to problematize the readings and this can lead to an incomplete education. So the class isn't offered anymore, but I would definitely take another class with Khan if I could. This means you should take a class with Khan, if he offers one you can take.

Shamus is a great lecturer, it's a pleasure just to listen to him. He doesn't require participation in class, which is a relief from the usual forced (and dumb) comments that people make in other classes. He is also a well-known sociologist, and brings in fascinating references to sociology and other disciplines to enliven the (sometimes dry) readings. He also took us on two field trips, one to St. John the Divine and one to Riverside, Morningside, and Central Parks. One of the best professors I've had at Columbia.

Dr. Khan is the man. The Social world is a great course. Not only did I learn a lot in the course but I also became a better writer. The only problem I had in this course was with the TA. Like most large and popular courses your experience, grades and learning yield can live and die on the quality of the TA your are paired with. For the first time in my college career I had to pass/fail a course. Not to toot-my-own-horn, but I've published in peer-reviewed journals and social science publications. However, according to this TA, my reviews were too lengthy and my responses were...to be honest over the TAs head. This TAs grading seemed random and selective. Yet, I didn't want to make waves and thought I'd try to win the TA over with my work...never again! Learn from my mistake, don't sit on my hands when your not receiving an accommodation, or your TA has a chip on his shoulder or whatever the issue. If there is a legit issue, Dr. Khan is more than happy to accommodate. I just wish i would have went to him on week 3 instead of week 11

not a small amount of work, but he tells you that up front. 2 quizzes (one on general scientific methods and the other on comparative and historical methodology) 3 research projects: one experiment, one survey, one ethnography. The first two you are free to collaborate with people on to write the "lab report," the last one is a personal written piece. 1 book evaluation - read some articles and a book, appreciate the strengths of the methodology, offer a few critiques that reveal your knowledge of research methods

Fairly straightforward course, a novel, empirical text and a theoretical text due every three weeks or so although you can easily skate by only doing one of the three readings every three weeks as the four paper assignments due periodically during the course of the semester are only on one of the three texts. Important to note that Khan informs his TA's to grade the papers poorly although he enforces a curve at the end to bring up the class average on these papers. One longer assignment due at the end of the semester.

Professor Khan is great. His Stats course is challenging, and he assigned some dreadfully boring reading, but all he asked was for basic comprehension and many students complained about the difficulty of his tests even after he gave very clear, repeated explanations of the concepts. Khan does tons of preparation, and he lectures with a great deal of enthusiasm and energy. His lectures are very clear, and he is able to understand and respond to students questions very effectively in class. For required sociology courses, including Stats and Methods but also Soc Imagination and Evaluation of Evidence, Khan would be a great professor to take. More exciting and accessible than Ferguson, more organized and clear than Whitford. For courses in the Sociology department, Khan may not be the easiest prof but certainly the most rewarding.