<p>I was thinking of taking medieval history with koziol this spring. Has anyone here had any experiences with him or the class, good or bad? </p>
<p>If not, what do you guys think is a good lower div history class to take for someone who's just interested, but not planning on majoring? Thanks.</p>
<p>One of the people on my floor has taken that class and is currently trying to prod everyone else to take it. He has had a very positive experience.</p>
<p>As for other classes, I haven't heard much else about lower division history. Although I have heard exceptionally good things about and enrolled in History 106A (about the Roman Republic). If Rome is of interest to you, I don't imagine the step up would be too intense.</p>
<p>I don't know the course in question, but I did take a class with the professor this semester (upper division, though, so YMMV).</p>
<p>I think he's great! But that comes from an English major. He teaches history, no doubt about that, and he is definitely a historian -- but he's a medieval historian and he's very multidisciplinary. His lectures tended to cover "softer" interpretations of the texts and events -- less about who did what where and when and more of the social context surrounding it. There was, of course, plenty of the who what where and when as well, it just wasn't the focus.</p>
<p>He loves his subject and that makes him an excellent teacher.</p>
<p>I like what I'm hearing so far, so I think I'll go through with it! Thanks to the both of you.</p>
<p>Also, does anyone know how the course is laid out in terms of workload and papers? I heard from ratemyprofessors that there isn't a single paper, but I find this hard to believe for a history class.</p>
<p>My upper div class didn't have a paper. A matrix open-book midterm, a similar final, and a series of "assignments" during the term which were essentially ~one page responses to a question about the reading.</p>