not in the mood for cheeky titles: Syllabi

My internet at my house has been very sporadic in the last few days, I finished writing all this last week, but I couldn’t get on to post it... arrrrggh. So I lugged my laptop to the library.

These are some of the syllabi I found by randomly googling words. Most of them seem to be for undergraduate courses, but I cannot tell sometimes.

http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/rel/f03/rel390-01/

This class seems similar to ours in regards to their blog discussions. Instead of doing different terms each week, the themes seem to be based more on what theory is. This class seems like it would be good.

http://academics.smcvt.edu/jbyrne/Religion%20Theory%20and%20Method.htm

This class is a seminar led by different students each week. I have been in a number of such classes over the years. I think they are a good skill to develop, but it really depends on the presenters each week. I think a downside to such a method is that each student only really has to focus on their own week. It is also up to the presenters to get discussion going and if they are not good the class can be really boring.

http://classes.colgate.edu/osafi/Theory.htm

The content of this course seems to stop in the 1960’s. I wasn’t too impressed with this syllabus.
http://www.ecu.edu/religionprogram/maher/courses/4500a.pdf

This course appears as if it focuses on different authors each week. I personally like reading primary theory sources as opposed to articles discussing the theorist. Sometimes the material can be hard to approach but being able to read different authors is an important skill. But the description of the reading material seems like this assumption I made is false. I am not sure if the books they are reading has excepts from other authors.

The idea of “voice papers” is interesting, where students have to write in different styles.

This syllabus is detailed and helpful.


http://www.fiu.edu/~religion/rey4030.htm

This class seems like it is fairly heavily focused on field research. The project asks for the undergraduate students to conduct their own field research. The grad students are allowed for focus on the progression of their own thesis paper. This is similar to our class. Their reading material seems to be based on a lot of actual primary sources. They get to also watch movies in their class!

http://pirate.shu.edu/~carterch/methods/rels2010syl.html

They focus on one topic for several classes, so they must really go in depth. But they also seem to have class twice a week. The topics seem interesting. I was unsure what many of the assignments demanded (one-minute essay?).

http://www.westmont.edu/~work/classes/rs144/spr2001/rs144.html

The class seems very multidisciplinary, as, instead of going over a specific term each week they focus on a specific discipline (Anthropology, psychology, etc). The other criteria were not really laid out very well, so I don`t know what they do in class.

http://www.hartsem.edu/ACADEMIC/courses/fall2007/phd700.html

This is a doctoral level method and theory course, the other ones previously listed have been predominantly undergrad and/or mixed with MA (I think sometimes it is hard to tell...) This is a team taught course, which I think would be interesting, but I wonder if it would lack direction, and possibly be repetitive. I have never been in such a course, I have one next semester so I will see how I feel about them after next term.

Hmm I just noticed it is at a seminary school though... so maybe this does not count. It calls itself Religious Studies... but I think it looks more like biblical studies

Almost all of the classes (including this one)have had exams. I don`t know if I think a class on Method and theory, which is mostly a seminar class should really have an exam.

http://www.virginia.edu/religiousstudies/programs/courses/021syllabi/RELG400a.htm

This is a more focused method and theory class devoted to the material on Christian saint`s lives. I don`t know if having a class be so focused would be good or not, it could be interesting to have more solid examples, but I know for our programme this would not work as we are all so diverse. Maybe if each focus in the department were big enough this type of class could be taught, but this is not the case.

http://condor.wesleyan.edu/pgottschalk/wescourses/2003f/reli101/01/syllabus.htm

This is an introduction to the study of Religion. It is a first year course. I think this is the type of class we were talking about instead of a “World Religion” first year course

Ooooo they get to read Rushdie? he`s my fav, yeah I would totally take this course!

This seems like a really good idea for an introductory course to the study of religion, it is similar to ours in regard to what is learned but at a lower level.