<p>I disagree strongly with whoever recommended Reacting to the Past. My girlfriend took it and absolutely hated it and was not alone. It seems like you either love it or hate it and have to be willing to let the class consume your life for a semester. Honestly, I don’t think it’s as worthwhile as some of the other FYS’s.</p>
<p>Is Reacting to the Past the same as Reenacting the Past? My roommate took that FYS and really loved it, though it is a lot of work. You actually don’t spend as much time reenacting as you do researching the period and the history and the people involved.</p>
<p>My D loved it (though I brain cramped on the prof, it was Dan Gardner, not Pat Coby…she liked both very much). </p>
<p>And there is a benefit to having a class consume your life during the first semester. I think her class had class t-shirts made. For many, it was a bonding experience, both with each other and with Smith.</p>
<p>@ S&P</p>
<p>I recognize that not all TAs are bad, it’s hit and miss just like full-fledged profs (albeit with a more screwed ratio). I just have an aversion to them because of my own previous experience. As they always say, once bitten, twice shy. I don’t want to be frustrated again due to the TAs not explaining anything clearly. The TA taking my physics tutorials actually told us during a Biophysics tutorial that because she’s studying Quantum, she can’t really explain Biophysics. Well, if you’re put in charge of that tutorial and of all of our grades (which a Distinction will be essential for one of the most prestigious scholarships in Singapore), you’d better read up and try to understand as much as possible before you come to lesson. I am currently teaching children as a part time job myself, and I always make sure that I know what I’m doing during lessons. </p>
<p>marysidney is absolutely right, because of the lack of experience, TAs can’t explain convoluted concepts as well as professors who have been doing it for ages. </p>
<p>If my grad stipend is tied to a TA position, I’d certainly take it but I’ll actually do my work beforehand and make sure I’m not being bring a disadvantage to my students.</p>
<p>Thanks for all the suggestions! The info on this thread is great :)</p>
<p>I took Reacting to the Past and absolutely LOVED it. It does consume your life, and anyone recommending it should say so upfront. But you become really good friends with the other ~12-14 people in your class, you get immensely better at public speaking and writing (both of which are highly valuable skills to have as a person and as a job applicant), and you learn a whole lot about a few crucial times in history.</p>
<p>That being said, if it’s offered again in 2 sections, take the one that meets twice a week instead of thrice. I know the other section felt that that extra class period plus all the additional work was overkill. Also, take it with Dan Gardner. He is brilliant, a really good gamemaster, and he doesn’t let the section get as crazy as the other professor did (i.e. the other class dressed up in historical costumes for class, stayed in character outside of class, etc), which I valued immensely as someone who wanted the intensity of the academic work without the crazy social implications.</p>
<p>My daughter took a class in Calculus her first year at Smith, and her teacher was not a prof, but a visiting grad student–I’m not sure how that worked–and he was both a bad teacher and utterly uncommitted to the class (repeatedly disappeared for several days for a job search/convention, leaving a badly-worded test with someone else to administer; didn’t show up for office hours, etc.). Calculus is not a course one can easily self-study, and although my daughter survived, I was quite angry that she had such a bad time. The dean had finally to step in, and the teacher left at the end of the term. </p>
<p>I have taught as a TA myself, and I don’t think I was very good at it; upper-level courses are much easier to teach than intro ones, because at the upper level you’re talking to students who want to be there and have some grounding in the method of study already. Intro-level students can be quite hard to reach, especially for someone who’s naturally good at the subject–the teacher has to remember to put in all the process she herself has no need to think through.</p>
<p>A graduate student from UMass taught one of my daughter’s upper level neuroscience courses. While the course was not as demanding as those taught by Smith professors (and graded more leniently, I think), the material was taught well. And I think one of her calculus courses was taught by a UMass graduate student – and there she couldn’t tell the difference in quality. </p>
<p>As for the “best” professors at Smith, that’s tough. My daughter had only one that she didn’t like, but then again, she was very careful to read Smith “reviews” of professors to determine which sections to sign up for and which elective courses to avoid. In government, she enjoyed Dennis Yasutomo’s course in Japanese government, even though it was her Smith trial-by-fire course. In neuroscience, Adam Hall and Mary Harrington were stand-outs. In psychology, MJ Wraga was also good. I can’t remember the names of her other professors, or else I’d add a much longer list.</p>
<p>Figuring out good profs is one of the advantages of the House system where you have all four years living together…your House mates make recs and comments in both directions.</p>
<p>D took a tough intermediate Gov class second semester and was one of only three first years in it…she was forewarned and she managed to do pretty well but trial-by-fire it was. Wish I could remember the name of the class…on some days I do.</p>
<p>I liked Molly Falsetti for Spanish, Maureen Ryan for Latin, Nick Horton for math (side note on math–my first year roommate looooved Mary Murphy for calculus; it convinced her to become a math major and now she’s an actuary), and Alice Hearst for government. My advisor was Don Baumer and I thought he was very good in that role–never actually had him for a class though!</p>
<p>I’ve heard great things about Mary Murphy for Calculus; my D was past that but had friends for whom Murphy was <em>great</em>. And yes, too, to Nick Horton. And Chris Goulet (spelling?) in Math as well.</p>
<p>It’s Gole(with a dash over the e)</p>
<p>Also, for math people, Elizabeth Denne, Michael Bush, and Alicia Gram are all wonderful. Laurel Miller-Sims is AWFUL</p>