For the Moment

Before noon last Monday, the spring term core syllabi were posted on the large bulletin board in the north corridor of the Science Center.

Flashily displayed in a flurry of pins-ups, the syllabi hawked their wares, attempting to catch the attention of potential enrollees. Many gave a detailed, day-to-day class schedule; others, perhaps shying away from specificity for fear of turning away students, were more sketchy.

Whatever their approach, Core syllabi generally attempt to make their courses seem appealing.

Consider, on the other hand, the course outlines of departmental classes. required science and math courses' syllabi tend towards a straightforward format, rattling off requirements like items on a shopping list from hell. And chances are the writers of these bitter syllabi are not going to sugarcoat the courses, either. Chem 20's going to suck; it's going to suck hard; and there's nothing you can do about it.

Well, of course," you say. "Obviously Computer Science 51'S workload levels The Rome of Augustus's into the ground. No wonder the syllabi differ.

True, but some students find the difference goes beyond mere content and point to the way in which Core course syllabi dress their curricula. "The Core is definitely worked up through the syllabus," said Cyrus C. Mody '97.

Indeed, these syllabi seem to presume an unholy connection between intellectual curiosity and cosmetic presentation. "The syllabi are like ads." said one first-year. And Dang H. Nguyen '97 interrupted his perusal of the Science B29 syllabus to observe that "the setup in the Science Center is glitzy, show-offish."

But students disagree over whether Core syllabi consciously attempt to seduce them. Daniel Kalish '96 rejected the idea. "I don't find there's a big difference between Core and departmental syllabi," he said. Victoria Kennedy '97 agreed that the Core descriptions are "pretty much straightforward and honest."

However, the syllabus for literature and Arts A35: "Tragic Drama and Human Conflict," which was offered last semester, is a good example of "syllabias." It opens with the goals and themes of the course, playing to students' preference for cozy abstractions over cold, hard facts.

Fluff abounds: "A prior knowledge of psychoanalysis is not a prerequisite, but a lively curiosity and willingness to try out some different ways of thinking about human conflict and conflict within families are quite important." Has a "lively curiosity" requirement ever scared a student away from a course? Which courses of not value open-mindedness in their students?

The filler continues: "Its is assumed that the typical student taking the course has studied some Shakespeare in secondary school, and is at least interested in learning more about tragedy as a whole." It seems unlikely that a student would take a class with "Tragic Drama" in the title without having at least a passing interest in the topic.

Yet, for all the Core's promotional efforts, many students do not give much weight to syllabi while selecting courses. "If I'm going to take it, I'm going to take it," said Khalid K brathwaite '97. "The syllabus won't change my mind."

Students generally agree that a Core's popularity depends more on CUE Guide evaluations, suggestions from veterans of the course, and shopping period impressions than on the appeal of the syllabus.

And despite what some see as an overemphasis on presentation, syllabi cannot lie. One student examining the Science B29 syllabus muttered to a companion, "P-sets!" and promptly turned away.