Faculty and Staff - Sharon Tisher - HON 212 Syllabus
Spring 2006
Sharon S. Tisher
Section : Tuesday & Thursday, 11-11:50 a.m., Colvin Hall
Lecture: Thursday, 3:30 – 5:15, 101 Neville
Office hours: Tuesday 12 – 1:00 p.m.
307 Winslow Hall
Call if you plan to come in or want to schedule another time.
Office phone: 581-3158
Home phone: 866-0023
Email: FirstClass
Grading: I will base grades 75% on written work and 25% on class participation. For students showing consistent effort and substantial progress during the course of the semester, final grades may not be based on strict averages of paper and exam grades. Subsequent improved work may be weighted more heavily than earlier work.
Class participation: Class attendance is very important, and any absences should be explained, in advance if at all possible. Active participation in class discussion (by volunteering, not waiting to be called on) as well as excellent attendance will be required for an "A" in class participation. Every Tuesday, class may start with each student giving short (1-2 minutes) comments on the week’s readings. Every Thursday, students will be expected to hand in an informal 1-2 page "lecture reaction paper," describing your reaction to the lecture and the week’s reading, tying them together with other material in the course and your own ideas and experiences. These may also be sent by email before class. I will react to them, but not grade them. They are considered in your class participation grade.
Written work: Graded written work will consist of three formal essays of 5 to 7 pages typed, double spaced and a final exam. Essays should not involve research, but should be purely original analyses. There can be no good writing, and no good thinking, without reworking. Therefore you will have an opportunity to rewrite your papers. You may turn in a rewrite of any of your papers up to one week after the original is returned to you. The rewrite grade substitutes for the original grade. A drama performance or debate option may be substituted for the third paper.
Paper Due Dates: February 16, April 13, April 27 (paper copy in class preferred but if necessary may be e-mailed before)
I may grant extensions for good cause (usually, documented medical excuse or family crisis). You should make every effort to contact me before the due date in this regard. Late papers will be graded down one grade for every 24 hrs. or part thereof that they are late.
First Class Conference: There is a First Class Conference folder set up for this section, which you are free to use to share and exchange ideas about the class, lectures, and readings. It is entirely optional. Some students have requested it in the past. My own preference is to focus the dialogue on our in-person encounters in class. I don’t intend to participate in the First Class Conference unless asked to.
Intellectual Honesty and Plagiarism, Outside Research :
To use another’s words and ideas with no acknowledgment is theft – plagiarism. Unintentional or intentional plagiarism is prohibited, and is grounds for failure in the course and possible expulsion from the university. In general, you must avoid presenting someone else’s ideas as your own. You are also requested for this course not to research other writers’ ideas about these works. Your reactions to and analysis of the works we will study should be your own, as influenced, of course, by the lectures, class and outside of class discussions, First Class conferences, and the introductory and editorial material in the texts, which is generally optional reading. If you do summarize someone else’s ideas or if you cite a fact from a book or article, you must have a reference to that person after the fact or idea. (e.g., Inanna, Wolkstein essay, 137) Not having these references indicates that the ideas are your own. Pretending that someone else’s ideas are your own is plagiarism.
Accommodations: If you wish to request an accommodation for a disability, please advise me and contact Ann Smith, Coordinator of Services for Students with Disabilities (onward Building, 1-2319) as early as possible in the semester.
Drama Performance Option: Instead of writing a third paper, students may form groups of two to six, and perform one of more scenes of a 20th century play relevant to our course. This should NOT be a play that you have previously studied, and it is expected that every participant will have read the entire play. The performances will be the last week of classes. Time frame for your selection should be at least 3 minutes per participant, and workload should be fairly evenly distributed. You do not need to be a good actor, or to have prior acting experience (though it would help) to do well on this option, but you do need to put your heart and soul into performing, not just reciting, the play. The performance should include presentation of a synopsis of the rest of the play, and presentations (including class discussion) at the conclusion of the performance relating the play to other materials we have studied in the course. Costumes, props, etc. are at your discretion, but certainly enhance the performance. One class recently performed a comedy related to quantum physics, which I can provide to you. Your grade for the performance will in all likelihood be a group grade, unless there is an obvious slacker, in which case grades will be modified to reflect individual effort.
Science Debate Option: Imagine that a cult of radical neo-Luddites has become extremely powerful in the United States. These are followers of J.J. Rousseau, and they adhere to his perspectives on the disadvantages of science for human society expressed in his Discourses. (These Discourses, although not assigned last semester except in my preceptorial, are included in your Rousseau text and must be read in connection with this option). Armed with (ironically) new scientific knowledge, they have updated Rousseau with concerns about the disadvantages of science for the well-being of the planet Earth generally. They have introduced legislation in Congress to withdraw all federal funding for scientific research, and require all privately funded scientific research to be reviewed and approved by a government panel including a majority of non-scientists. Two teams of two to four students will be required for this debate. One team will represent proponents and the other the opponents of the legislation. Arguments may draw on issues not specifically covered in the Honors sequence (such as human cloning, genetically engineered food), but at least 80% of time and effort should be focused on analysis and use of the readings of the courses (both humanities and science, and drawing from both years if you like).
No extra research is required.
Students will have an opportunity to affirmatively present their case, as well as to cross examine the opposing side. There will not necessarily be a winner and a looser. Each team will receive a team grade based upon the extent of their preparation, the organization, clarity and persuasiveness of their presentation, the fair distribution of labor ("teamwork"), and their ability to effectively respond to examination questions.
Interlude Weeks: This semester includes two free weeks to be used at the preceptor’s discretion. During the first week, Feb 9, we will attend and discuss a play, Spinning into Butter, at the Penobscot Theater Company in Bangor. Addressing race relations at a small Vermont college, this should be an interesting sequel to Souls of Black Folk.
history.
During the second week, April 13, we will begin work on Silent Spring, so we have an opportunity for another theater performance, Almost Maine, also in Bangor, the following week.
Attendance at both theater performances is mandatory, but students who have scheduling problems with the agreed upon date can go another night and student rush ticket cost will be reimbursed. Students are also invited to bring a friend from Honors to these performances, at our expense.
Recommended readings:
Writing style and mechanics:
Diane Hacker, A Writer’s Reference, St. Martin’s
Strunk and White, The Elements of Style, Macmillan
Zinsser, On Writing Well, Harper
Philosophy:
Jostein Gaarder, Sophie’s World, Berkley
History of Science:
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Shimon Malin, Nature Loves to Hide
Susan Quinn, Marie Curie
David Cassidy, Uncertainty: The Life and Science of Werner Heisenberg
Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything
Douglas Adams, A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe
Joan Spicci, Beyond the Limit
Michael Frayn, Copenhagen (DVD)
Honors 212
Tisher
First Paper Assignment Options – Due February 16
1. Capitalism and Suicide. Choose either A or B:
A. Proposition: Durkheim has one causal explanation for the association between Protestantism and suicide rates. Weber's exploration of the spirit of capitalism offers an alternative, more convincing explanation. How does the spirit of capitalism, the "struggle for profit free from the limits set by needs," (Weber, 20) contribute to the likelihood of suicide in a society?
B. Converse proposition: Argue that capitalism, as defined by Weber, replaces the cohesiveness of traditional religion, as described by Durkheim, to give positive meaning to one's life and hence reduce the temptation to suicide. This accounts for the fact that in the U.S. current suicide rates are not significantly above those cited by Durkheim.
(In addition to careful analysis of the relevant assigned texts, this paper may include evidence from your own or your parents' experience of work in a capitalist society).
2. Social Science and Truth. Are Nietzsche's criticisms of scientific truth even more convincing when that truth derives from a "social science?" Critique Durkheim using Nietzsche's analysis. Or alternatively, defend Durkheim against a Nietzschian critique.
3. True or False: Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lying." Write a focus statement that expresses, in your view, the most persuasive argument for OR against Nietzsche's thesis. Draw upon your experience of "truth", scientific and otherwise, in your life and in one or two previous Honors texts (from any semester). Prove that focus statement in your essay.
4. Du Bois and Weber: W.E.B. Du Bois was a friend and colleague of Max Weber. Discuss how, in Du Bois’ view, the "Spirit of Capitalism" has shaped the "Souls of Black Folk." Would Weber agree with Du Bois’ analysis?
5. Spinning into Butter and Du Bois: Compare the perspective of the play Spinning into Butter and W.E.B. Du Bois’ perspectives on the condition of African American people in a White-dominated world. If you feel you would like to see the play again in order to develop this paper, we will cover your student rush admission.
ALL papers should have a focus statement rather than a title, and incorporate a careful, clear, text-based exposition of the principal relevant arguments in the assigned texts, written with the assumption that your reader has not read the texts. NO research should be involved in your papers. See Ten Commandments for guidelines on writing.
Second Paper Options – Due April 13
ALL papers should have a focus statement rather than a title, and incorporate a careful, clear, text-based exposition of the principal relevant arguments in the assigned texts, written with the assumption that your reader has not read the texts. This applies to visual as well as written texts. NO research should be involved in your papers. See Ten Commandments for guidelines on writing.
1. Quantum physics. Freud observed that all major revolutions in the history of science have as their common theme, amidst such diversity, the successive dethronement of human arrogance from one pillar after another of our previous cosmic assurance. Freud mentions three such incidents: the Copernican/Newtonian revolutions in cosmology and physics, the Darwinian theory of evolution, and Freud’s own psychoanalytic theory (a healthy example of Freudian ego?). Discuss whether or not the same analysis applies to the subsequent developments in quantum physics. What parallels or dissimilarities exist between these earlier revolutions and our revised concepts of subatomic realities?
2. The DNA Revolution. J. Rousseau wrote that "Science, however beautiful, however sublime, is not made for man; ….his mind is too limited to make much progress in it, and his heart too full of passions to keep him from putting it to bad use." Argue for or against this perspective, using as your focus The Double Helix and the companion article "Unraveling the DNA Myth" by Barry Commoner. Some
additional research into issues related to the controversy over human cloning or genetically engineered food is permissible, but not required, for this paper. All sources should be properly cited.
3. Duchamp, Woolf and Freud. Discuss how Duchamp’s Dadaism, Freud’s On Dreams, and Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway find common roots in an exploration of a non-linear and non-rational world.
Tisher’s Ten Commandments for Analytic Essays
These are guidelines. You won’t necessarily be struck by lightning for occasionally deviating from them. But careful consideration of these principles will make you a better writer.
1. Write a manageable focus statement, then prove it in the essay. Be an effective advocate for your proposition.
2. Intrigue and captivate the reader with your first sentence.
3. Write a first paragraph that is a step by step roadmap of the whole of your analysis (often best written later rather than earlier in the process).
4. Create a discrete task for each paragraph, and arrange your paragraphs in a logical order. Introduce the task in the first sentence of that paragraph. This first sentence should be a statement of opinion or analysis, not of fact.
5. Paragraphs should be at least five sentences long and each sentence should relate to the idea expressed in the introductory sentence of the paragraph. For example, if you’re comparing two works in one paragraph, you should reference both and state the essence of the comparison in the first sentence. Don’t shift topics in midstream in a paragraph. If you’re summarizing plot, your summary should be essentially relevant and related to the point of the paragraph.
6. Text is the essential raw material of your analysis. Every paragraph except perhaps the first should quote from text (here’s where you use your reading notes). Don’t just throw in block quotes that seem to be relevant. When you use a longer quote, spend at least as much space after the quote analyzing it and tying it into your argument. Experiment with weaving short quotes – a few words – into your own writing.
7. Use the grammar and spell check functions of your computer – they work! Avoid passive voice. Usually avoid the "I" word.
8. Once you’ve mastered the basics, experiment with metaphors and creative word choice – for verbs as well as adverbs and adjectives. Get used to browsing a thesaurus.
9. When you’re done with the first draft, have a friend read just the first sentences of each paragraph and then try to guess the general progression of your argument. If your reader’s confused, rewrite those first sentences so they relate to one another in a logical sequence and to the focus statement.
10. (Hardest of all) The final paragraph should not be purely repetitive. Lift your reader just one step beyond all that went before in your analysis. Slightly surprise and delight her. Note: a very integrated essay will hint at this revelation in the first paragraph.
Good writing can inspire, entertain, persuade, and make good things happen in the world. Possess that power!
Back to Sharon Tisher
