I'm three quarters of the way through my take-home final exam for
Linguistics 305:
Syntax (Introduction to
Government and Binding in Generative Grammar). That
is to say --
I've worked for six hours, and expect to work another six.
In four years of undergraduate education, I have never before been asked to or needed to
apply such mental energy to schoolwork as this final exam is asking me to.
And that's the point of it, according to Professor Ken Safir. I've never had a better professor. He
doesn't just teach, he explains. He builds up paradigms of thought bit by bit until everyone in the class
is bouncing in their seats with expectation because they've all figured out on their own what's coming
next. He makes things make sense. And he doesn't assign busywork. Even the final exam is intended
to teach us something -- he informed us outright that much of the material on the final was never
discussed in class -- "but some deep thinking should allow you to synthesize what you need for the
solution."
Why can't all classes be like this? It bothers me that universities don't draw distinctions between
"hard" and "easy" classes.
I'm expecting to earn a B+ in this class -- and I do mean earn. I've struggled with the material,
and overcome it, and burned new and useful pathways into my cognitive machinery. I learned in this
class. Time and again, poring over the week's material until finally a light went on and I Understood.
On the other hand, I'm expecting to receive an A in Social Psychology. I went to class twice the entire
semester. The tests are open-notes, multiple-choice. It's a 300-level, 3-credit class, just like Syntax.
My "academic standing", whatever that is, will be raised more by Social Psych -- a class I didn't
attend and received no benefit from -- than by Syntax, a class that caused me to do more deep thinking
than any other I've ever taken.
There must be a better way.