A seminar may be like a jam band: mostly dissonant, with solo hogs and long dull stretches, but the occasional inspired moment that wouldn’t be possible in more polished performances. This may not be a good format for most courses, but I wouldn’t want to see it disappear either.

“I’ve never heard of anyone doing an undergraduate field lab course in cultural anthropology, but that would be really cool. I would love to teach a class like that!”

Look up Mark Moritz of the Ohio State University. He teaches a combined graduate/undergraduate seminar that functions as a field lab course in cultural anthro at OSU every fall. I took it the year before last, and I have to say, talking to other anthros, it does seem that no one else has had a similar experience. Its an understatement to say that this class was the best and most important one that I’ve ever enrolled in.

Key elements — taking instructor ego completely out of it. Moments of “mini-lectures” can completely destroy the dynamic. Stopping what seem to be “promising” threads to give other voices a chance to be heard. Making students realize that others in the room have the same ideas. Frequent in-class 2-5 minute mini-writing assignments to make students commit to an opinion before discussing a concept.

It’s a lot easier for me to lecture than to do a seminar well. It’s a lot easier to do a seminar poorly than to lecture.

I dream not of a world in which bad seminars have been supplanted by Internet courses but rather of a world in which bad seminars have been supplanted by good seminars.

John Hawks wrote,

Seminar courses are often very poorly taught and professors routinely overrate the value of their sessions for students.

McCreery observes that “often” and “routinely” imply quantitative claims that are not addressed by dreams that ignore social and material realities. Neither do they address the question of how seminars might be improved. One possibility to create assignments in which “critique” unaccompanied by suggested improvements or a viable alternative are given zero credit.

I have had students tell me that online classes are actually harder than campus classes because it isn’t as easy to fake it. You can’t sit quietly in the back of the classroom and hope the professor doesn’t call on you.

I’ve never had the privilege to lead a seminar myself, I don’t think everyone gets to do it. I teach lectures because the classes are big.

Do allow me correct you, however: if wishes were horses we’d all be eating steak.

In the ideal, a seminar may not be replicable online. But I’ll be provocative and claim that online sessions can easily beat the average seminar for most students.

My counterclaim: match the horse to the course and put the reins in the hands of a good enough jockey.

I don’t mean to stereotype the entire format, merely to point out that the “great seminar experiences” that many professors remember from their training may have been miserable for most of the other students. It takes great skill to do a seminar fairly, which means being perceptive of inequities in the classroom and actively promoting the engagement of all students with the material.

In the ideal, a seminar may not be replicable online. But I’ll be provocative and claim that online sessions can easily beat the *average* seminar for *most* students.

I’ve been following the whole kerfuffle at UVa with great interest. I hope it doesn’t become merely a personnel swap (Sullivan gets reinstated, Dragas gets fired); I think that would satisfy a lot of people in the short term, but it would represent a missed opportunity for UVa to thoroughly examine its own structure of governance. Personally, I’d like to see UVa (and all public universities) governed by boards that include not only political appointees from outside the realm of academia, but also a healthy contingent of profs, staff, and at least a couple of students. Yes, the business people and the academics will probably have some trouble understanding each others’ perspectives and forming a coherent plan for the university. Lots of difficult conversations will undoubtedly be necessary. But I think that those sorts of conversations and collaborations are vitally important as we all brace ourselves for the marketization of university education.

I’ve never heard of anyone doing an undergraduate field lab course in cultural anthropology, but that would be really cool. I would love to teach a class like that!

I’ll go first:
1. Seminar
2. Lab and field instruction

You need go no further, as far as I am concerned. In my opinion colleges and universities should be taking resources away from lecture-based courses and moving them to those two. Lectures are a passive form of learning and student passivity is a problem even in seminars and lab/field courses. Why encourage it be taking the passive logic to the next level via online coursing everything?

If lectures were eliminated would institutions be able to graduate as many students? No, not without a huge resource boost. That’s not a problem in my eyes, and I see anything that might help undermine undergraduate education as a credentialization service to be a positive. (Which is to say that I believe far too many people are going to college in the United States.)