I was thinking about how it was like law school (or what I’ve heard of it, anyway)—the prof even told us the class would be taught “by the Socratic method.” I don’t know much about the details of said method, so it’s hard for me to say whether what we did fit the bill. Okay, I guess it was very different from law school in that we had no texts at all to work with, just the few theorems he gave us and occasional proofs copied from the board.

I dashed this off in a bit of a hurry, as I’m currently writing a paper, and, rereading it, I wonder if it’s too whiny and presumptuous. Who am I to say how the class ought to be taught? What right do I have to demand that professors make classes interesting and fun every second I’m in the room? Sure it’s nice if they make an effort to make things easier on students, but in the end it’s still my responsibility to learn the material, not the prof’s to teach it to me.

It would be nice to know, though, what material I’m supposed to be learning. I think if I were to rewrite this, I would focus more on the lack of a course outline or any apparent plan—the prof seemed to be making the course up as we went along. I have no idea whether I’ve achieved the objectives of this course, because there were none.

This person should not go to law school, since that is how it works there. Altho I do feel his/her pain and can sympathize.