PAGE SIXTE MICHIGAN DAILY THE MIC
TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1966 TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1966
THE- MICHIGAN DAILY
a v+.+Va+tai...'.f s:.y.ufv k7 Z.. vv, iVVv
yLaJ V.a ara f " v wvv+ vv} avvv. a .w sy. " . . rs . . ,
The course offered an opportunity to evaluate the
philosophies relevant to current controversies and was
a valuable addition to a liberal education.
Robert J. Wargo: A generally stimulating instructor.
Prof. Abraham Kaplan: Recitations were held in
his home and were interesting and motivating.
Prof. Irving M. Copi 73 5 4B 10
Copi is said to be a pretty interesting lecturer with
lectures as mainly tangents to the subject goal as found
in the text. Examination questions were taken from the
text. Most students enjoyed the text and problem sets.
The exams were stimulating. Students enjoyed and uti-
lized the freedom and responsibility given them.
Mrs. Merrilee H. Ashby (Grader): Significant praise
was extended to Mrs. Ashby, who was willing to spend
time with the students discussing exams.
Prof. William Frankena 90 12 4A 8B
The class seemed to be pretty well divided. Only
the most devoted students of philosophy felt that the
course was very worthwhile. Others felt that the course
lacked objectives and significance. Frankena was sensi-
tive to the feelings of his students to the point of
allowing too many questions during lectures. He was in-
terested in the student and solicited their views ex-
clusively on the exams. Papers were on relatively triv-
ial subjects as opposed to the thought-provoking exams.
The course aims at a broad outline of some of the
more basic problems of the field.
David P. Zimmerman: Students felt that his reci-
tation did nothing to further the objectives of the course.
Prof. Bernard A. Berofsky 375 66 16A 42B 6C 2X
The lecturer successfully explained the material, but
often content was on the dry side. There was a large
amount of material to cover which made thhe course
demanding. Most students felt the course valuable and
would take it again. General opinion of the course: an
adequate introduction to philosophy.
Prof. Bernard Berofsky: Received considerable fav-
J. Anthony Blair: Some praised the instructor pretty
highly. He seemed inexperienced but could be an ex-
David E. Whiteside: Swell guy, but unsure of himself.
He hasn't learned how to direct the class to a certain
objective without wasting too much time.
Martin Deitch: Most students seemed satisfied with
Deitch and indicated that he stimulated them and was
useful in attaining the goals of the course.
Charles F. Richter: Richter seemed interested in
material and students. All students indciated that the
instructor was stimulating and encouraged participation
Glenn C. Graber: Showed a lot of interest in trying
to help the students, but many found recitatioons dull
for they were often repetitions of the lectures and
readings, rather than discussions of philosophical ques-
Miss Caren L. Saaz: Opinions varied.
Mitchell D. Ginsberg: Studentswere stimulated by
the instructor and felt that he did the best that he
could with a disorganized course.
Prof. Irving M. Copi 43 7 2A 5B
Almost all respondents were stimulated by Copi and
the course. They appreciated the wit and interest of the
professor. Two major objections were the grading by the
graduate students and the mathematical approach to
logic. Most students liked the text.
Prof. Alvin I. Goldman 23 9 3A 5B 10
With one exception, all students thought this course
excellent. His main objective was that students learn to
think logically, coherently and above all, rationally. He
was very adamant on this point. "The excitement which
Prof. Goldman has for his subject is catching. Goldman
obviously was interested in his class and showed great
willingness to put in extra time with students." This was
an interesting and stimulating class.
Prof. Kendall L. Walton 26 1 6A 5B
Most students felt that this was an adequate intro-
duction to philosophy. Some felt there was too little
reading and little substance to the lectures, however.
Paper topics were thought-provoking and interesting.
Students also commented that Walton was interested
In the students and was helpful in answering questions.
Prof. Jack W. Meiland 124 18 4A 7B 70
Most students thought that this was a very good
course. As a study in philosophical thought and in what
are arguments and refutations and how they are formu-
lated. The objective wasn't the answering of questions,
since the answers to philosophical questions weren't pre-
sented. This caused some dissatisfaction with students
who felt they hadn't gained too much from the course.
Prof. Jack W. Meiland: Explained aspects in an in-
teresting manner and was aware of what students were
thinking. Open to questions or suggestions.
Miss Nancy C. Holmstrom: Students seemed satis-
fied with Miss Holmstrom, but had no comments on her
Miss Lois A. Addison: Most students thought thatn
Miss Addison was very good. She was willing to help
students and give them as much of her time as they
Prof. George I. Mavrodes 91 8 3A 4B 10
Most students- found little stimulation in the lec-
tures. The lecturer insisted on adhering rigidly to a sen-
tence analysis method of treatment for all philosophical
problems discussed. Many students found stimulation in
the readings, although they found multiple-multiple ex-
ams purely an exercise in memory. Other students felt
that Mavrodes made the best of what he had to work
Prof. George J. Mavrodes: Good and skillful at eval-
uating and attacking arguments. One student received
his term paper without a single comment, just the grade
B. Most agreed that more care might have been an im-
Miss Phyllis S. Morris: Varied comments were re-
ceived. Some said recitations served as a battleground
following Mavrode's lectures.
Political Science 100
Prof. Norman C. Thomas 487 68 21A 24B
Thomas is an extremely competent lecturer, never
disorganized and with great interest in and knowledge
of his field. Several students mentioned, however, that
he would occasionally use the texts verbatim in his
He did interest the majority of the students in the
subject and was rated as highly effective in achieving the
course goals. The rating for difficulty of the course was
centered between average to fairly difficult although a
great many students consider the course repititious of
high school civics. Difficulty is attributed to trying to
cover too much in too short a time and to the fact that
goals were set too high.
Students were closely guided in their work. There
was unanimity on the fact that the readings were up-to-
date but only one text was considered really good, anoth-
er usable and the third a complete waste. All the read-
ings were assigned and most felt that the readings were
more supplementary than redundant to the lectures.
They were generally thought to be more time-consuming
The exams were considered more as covering the
course adequately than spot-checking. They also stimu-
lated some thought but the multiple-multiples were
generally felt to be just a tricky grading device.
Robert E. Blackwell: Rated as an excellent recitation
instructor by most of his students. He encourages stu-
dent participation, offers them feedback on their pro-
gress, appears personally interested in the class.
Joseph Falkson: Encouraged student participation
but was rather distant and offered little feedback on
Jerome M. Mileur: Encouraged student participa-
tion but generally is rated as both distant and insensi-
tive to students' reactions.
Miss Patricia Ranger: Only slightly effective in
achieving course goals. She appears to have antagonized
many of her students and is rated as insensitive to their
Bernard Saalfeld: Only slightly effective in achiev-
ing course goals. He is generally described as disorganiz-
ed, distant and only slightly sensitive to student reac-
Miss Phyliss Thorburn: Somewhat effective al-
though she improved as the course progressed. She was
distant and insensitive to student reactions, but offered
some feedback on progress.
Prof. Thomas E. Chapman 470 61 17A 24B
170 2D lX
Evaluations on Chapman's effectiveness as a lec-
turer range between moderately effective to very effec-
tive. The course itself is rated mainly as average to
There was unanimous consent that the course had
certain flaws which aggravated the difficulty of the
course unnecessarily. A fairly high percentage stated that
they felt that the goals of the course had been set too
high. The majority felt that the main obstacle was the
attempt to cover too much work in too short a time.
Students were fairly closely guided in their work, the
goals of the course having been stated at the beginning.
All readings were assigned and considered up-to-date
but were too time consuming. They were also redundant
to each other and to the lectures. One text was considered
worthwhile, one acceptable, and the third a complete
Exams were both essay (midterm) and multiple-
multiple (final). They were generally used more as a
grading device than a teaching device and were not
considered very stimulating.
Chapman seemed to be an entertaining lecturer--
some stated that he is too entertaining, but he is occa-
sionally rather disorganized. He is informal and ap-
proachable, and most students found him charming even
if they disapproved of his methods.
James Jordan: Encouraged student participation but
provided little or no feedback on individual progress
and was rather distant from his students.
Prof. John W. Kingdon: Very effective in achieving
the course goals; he encouraged student participation,
offered feedback on individual progress and seemed per-
sonally interested in his students.
Lawrence LeDuc, Jr: Somewhat effective in achiev-
ing course goals.
Bruce Merrill: Somewhat effective in achieving the
course goals. He is rated as sensitive to student reactions
and encourages student participation.
Robert Youngblood: Very effective in achieving
course goals. He encouraged student participation and
offered feedback on individual progress.
Minoru Yanagihashi: Somewhat effective in achiev-
ing the course goals.
Political Science 110
Prof. Eugene N. Feingold 30 7A 16B 6C ID
Political Science 110 concerns itself with six areas
of American government with texts covering the areas
generally and lectures providing case studies for each
of the areas. Students admitted they learned something
from the course and did find interesting and stimulating
phases. However, many felt that improvements could be
made to make the course more worthwhile. The lecturer
presented the material in great detail and at a too rapid
pace. It was at times difficult either to understand the
lecture or to take notes. The hour exams were essay
types and were thought to be too vague to be effective.
The final exam was multiple-multiple and was criticized
for asking for irrelevant and overly specific information.
Questions were allowed in lecture. The readings met with
mixed reactions, some were considered useful while oth-
ers were a waste of time. The students evaluating this
course felt it could be a potentially better course.
John Ashby: Provided a stimulating recitation where
students were encouraged to engage in discussions. There
was a suggestion that more time might be spent dis-
cussing questions not related directly to the lecture
Stephen I. Grossbard: For some, Grossbard's recita-
tions were the best part of the course. He helped to or-
ganize the reading and lecture material to make it more
understandable. His flexibility in changing class periods
and paper topics was greatly appreciated by the students.
Mrs. Carol Schmidt: Knowledgable, a fair grader
and capable of leading interesting discussions. However,
some felt she intimidated students in the discussions and
thereby discouraged participation.
Political Science 160
Prof. A. F. K. Organski 251 40 17A 6B 17C
Organski is considered very effective in achieving
the goals of the course and was often described as a
superb or exciting lecturer. Some remarked that he was
opinionated but did not force the students to agree with
his opinion in order to do well in the course.
The course rating ran from average to fairly diffi-
cult and this was primarily because the course goals were
too high with too much to be covered in too short a time.
Most students felt that their work was left mainly to
their own responsibility. Goals were outlined at the be-
ginning and the students were left to manage as they felt
best. This presented somewhat of a problem since several
readings in the UGLI were extremely difficult to obtain.
Robert De Vries: Encouraged student participation.
The majority of the class found him somewhat effective
in achieving the goals of the course. He tries to accom-
modate himself to the students' reactions and interests.
Robert Fischer: The majority of his students find
him somewhat distant and unencouraging.
James A. Rhodes: Encouraged student participation
in class and offered personal interest in the students.
The majority regard him as being very effective in
achieving his goals.
Political Science 260
Prof. William Zimmerman 74 10 2A 6B 20
Although students felt they learned something from
the course, they expressed disappointment that they did
not benefit more from it because the presentation of
material was disorganized and incoherent. Zimmerman's
manner of delivery discouraged many students.
Classroom discussions were encouraged. The essay
exams were thought to cover the course well.
The recitations were led by Mennis and students
thought they should have met more frequently as it
would have been quite helpful. Most would take the
course primarily for the information gained about for-
Political Science 401
Prof. Frank Grace 71 15 7A 4B 20 1D IX
This course was appreciated by students for the ma-
terial, the lecturer, and one of the texts. Grace's lectures
were generally well-received. They were well-organized,
interesting and informative. The course covered a great
deal of material and was demanding of the students.
Classroom discussion was an important feature of the
course and was actively encouraged. There was some
comment on the lecturer's dogmatic attitudes being in-
terjected into the lectures and the discussions. The Sa-
bine text was widely praised, but the other readings met
with disapproval. The essay exams were generally found
to be stimulating, and the term paper was considered to
be worthwhile. Most students found the course beneficial
enough to recommend it to other students.
Political Science 404
Prof. Frank Grace 80 11 9B 2C
Almost all students who found this course stimulat-
ing attributed it to Grace. Lectures were well-organized
and thought-provoking. They were more interesting when
he covered the material in a wide perspective than deal-
ing with one political theorist. A great deal of material
was presented,. but the main points were emphasized.
There was some difficulty in hearing the lectures due
to the lecturer's delivery. Interested students should sit
in the front of the class. Classroom discussion was encour-
aged, and some thought this the best part of the course.
Many expressed admiration for the lecturer's ability to
clarify points in these discussions.
Prof. Arthur J. Carr 150 13 5A 4B 4C
For the impossible task of covering so much mater-
ial in one short semester, Carr seemed to have a thor-
ough knowledge of his subject. The course and its content
were stimulating and interesting for most students, and
the lecturer was very effective in achieving the course's
goals. Also very effective were the texts and other read-
ings, while the papers were thought very useful by some.
Most students thought the classroom situation was suit-
able for learning and should not be changed.
The course was considered fairly difficult due to
high levels of achievement set by Carr as well as too
much material covered in too short a time. The readings
were assigned and generally considered worth the time
spent and supplementary to the lectures. The exams
seemed to cover the course comprehensively, stimulated
thinking and acted as a teaching device. They were all
A few students commented that Carr was dull: "I
leave lectures with not one constructive, stimulating
idea." Generally, though, he was considered an excellent
lecturer, very interesting and extremely knowledgeable:
"this was undoubtly the best English course I have taken
John W. Wright: Considered very effective in
achieving the course goals. Wright maintained a good
classroom situation by encouraging participation, offer-
ing feed-back, being interested and sensitive to student
Bert G. Hornback: Generally considered ineffective
in achieving course goals, he did not encourage partici-
pation or offer feed-back and seemed distant and in-
sensitive to student reactions. Most felt this classroom
situation was poor and unsuitable to learning.
Prof. Frank Huntley 34 7 3A 4B
The course was well received, but there were some
objections to its lack of direction. Many felt that the
lectures were not as well organized as they could have
been and did not make enough use of the good but ex-
tensive reading list. Most students found the course fair-
ly difficult, apparently due to the reading list.
The exams were essay, but students felt they got
more out of the papers that were assigned. The reactionsj
to classroom discussion were mixed; but once again stu-
dents felt the discussions were not sufficiently organized
or directed. Some felt that classroom discussion was
somewhat discouraged by Huntley's reactions to com-
ments, but they felt he was personally interested even
though there was not heavy feed-back on exams. Most
considered the readings worthwhile and well integrated
with each other and their lectures. Their main objection
seems to be that the course "did not pull itself together."
and integrated with the lectures. For the most part, the
students were closely guided in their work. The exams
were essays but of the type where a number of questions
are handed out prior to the exam and exam questions
taken from this set. They covered the material well.
Prof. James R. Squires 56 7 2A 4B 1C
The students responding thoroughly approved of
Squires' approach to the subject and found the course
interesting and worthwhile. The main attraction of the
course for many of the students was Squires. His lectures
were found enjoyable, stimulating and humorous. They
covered the material well and provided a good analysis
of the subject matter. The papers and texts were also
considered interesting and important in achieving the
objectives of the course.
The professor encouraged student participation and
demonstrated an interest in both his subject and the
students' grasp of it. The course was considered more
than average in difficulty due to the high standards of
achievement. The readings were worothwhile and supple-
mentary to the lecture material. The exams were essays,
with both spot and general-coverage questions which
stimulated thought on the course material.
Prof. Bert G. Hornback 56 5 3B 1C 1D
The opinions expressed were quite diverse. The pa-
pers, texts and exams were favorably received, while the
students found considerable faults with the instructor.
The lecturer was not very effective in achieving the goals
of the course, while the texts and papers were thought to
be very effective in this respect. The professor was not
particularly inclined toward student participation and
it was felt that this condition should be changed. How-
ever, he did keep the students informed about their pro-
gress by means other than test grades.
The course was considered to be of average difficulty,
which was attributed both to the high standards of
achievement established and the fact that too much ma-
terial was presented in too short a time. The students
felt that hey were responsible for achieving the course
goals on their own with little guidance from carefully
outlined activities. The readings, which were all assigned,
were supplementary to the lecture and complementary to
one another but too time consuming. The exams, all es-
say, were fairly comprehensive and somewhat stimulat-
ing. They were used as both grading and teaching de-
vices. They allowed for individual opinion when it was
well supported. The final exam was a term paper.
Prof. Donald Hall 17 8A 8B 1X
Hall was credited as one of the finest teachers, po-
ets and scholars teaching English at the University. Stu-
dents found him provocative and fascinating. At times
biased by his own prejudices he, however, never hamper-
ed freedom of discussion. The readings were difficult
and extensive but considered necessary by the students.
Exams and papers were interesting, once again encourag-
ing the individual to think with the idea that the student
had potential to contribute to the professor's knowledge.
He was witty and personally interested in the class.
Although the students warned of the difficulties of
the course, they urge that this course be taken by all as
an experience in the meaning of a true formal and liberal
Prof. Robert F. Haugh 8 2A 5B 10
Haugh's course was highly recommended. It cannot
be considered an easy course with the difficulty centered
in the material rather than with the professor's presen-
tation. The success of the course was primarily attrib-
utable to Haugh through his ability to make the readings
come alive with insights that were meaningful and im-
mediate to the student.
The course was all lectures and some students took
objection to the lack of student participation. It did not
seriously detract, however, from the effectiveness of the
course. The lack of class discussion was attributable to
the size of the class, yet Haugh seemed to maintain a
high level of interest and non-verbal participation.
Lecture content, exams and papers were considered
stimulating and effective in achieving the goals of the
course. Haugh was personally interested in the class and
sensitive to student reactions. The readings were well
worth the time spent devoted to them. The essay exams
were very favorably received. They covered the course
well while stimulating interest in the material.
- The favorable response to this course was largely at-
tributed to the professor himself.
Prof. Lyall H. Powers 7 2A 3B 20
The reactions to. this course were quite favorable.
Cited as reasons for this are Powers' dynamic and stimu-
lating lectures, personal interest in students, fairness,
flexibility and personal interest in the actual teaching of
the course. Most students found the materials up to
date, interesting and promoting individual interpretation
-the latter being one of the purposes ascribed to the
course. While most found the course fairly difficult with
high standards of achievement required, they found
tests stimulating and serving as a.teaching device rather
than simply a grading device.
There were a few who dissented from the satisfaction
with the course and the professor-a few cited the im-
personality of the lecture system, the large amount of
material and the general structure of the course which
did not permit in-depth teaching and thought on specific
types of literature as their reasons. Most of the students,
however, gave Powers a standing ovation and would take
his course again.
Prof. James J. Gindin 10
Generally; the course w
with favorable reactions given
er and readings. Favorable ri
however, were not unanimous
"finding profound meanings i
"excellent grasp and insight
lectures seemed above the s
times, trends in an author's
from the lecturer. In spite of
dents were stimulated by the
Essay exams covered the c
sively, served as a teaching de'
Ing. Readings were enjoyable a
Eight of the ten students co
Prof. Morris Greenhut 5
Student criticism centered
sor's handling of the seminar.
ed for vague teaching and la
classroom. Students largely coi
uation a transferral of useful
an exchange of ideas. Perhaps
of three hours once a week c:
reaction on the students part.
Readings were considered
and worth the time spent. E
and acted as a teaching device
Generally, students conside
age in difficulty. The greatest
manner in which the classroon
was unanimously agreed upon
learning and should be change
Great Books 191
Prof. Henry V. S. Ogden 6
Prof. Howard D. Cameron 3
This course, required of all
was fairly difficult as a resu
work expected and, to a less
literature covered. The assig:
mentary to the lecture, compli
well worth the time. Essay exar
prehensively and stimulated t
inspired much interest in the c
At this point overall agr
Ogden's 8:00 lecture were tho:
the lecture, as indicated by
slump. A few students attrib
hour itself. These students wer
impressed with their recitatio
Students in Cameron's 11
pleased with their lecture, giv
high marks and indicating
structors paled in comparison.
students of the 8:00 lecture a
guest lecturers in the 11:00 w
Ogden's recitation sections
Thomas C. Beattie: Stu
recitations, papers and texts s
the course. He is quite effect
sensitive to class reaction an
ticipation. Opinions on the I
from very good to very bad.
Thomas O. Calhoun: M
agreed that the recitations a
the texts, made the course
He emphasizes class discussio
papers while allowing free ch
weigh the exams.
Leonard Michaels: Resp
thuslastic about Michaels. He
ticipation and was sensitive
using much of the class for
paper topics were well receiv
plained that he insisted on hi
Hugh S. Ogden: Student
astic about his class. He was
who made classes interesting
discussion sessions in the t
ciated. He allowed free choice
insisted on high standards of
Mrs. Elizabeth A. Schul
ferred her recitation to the i
not fully satisfied with the c
that although class discussion
portant to agree with her opin
Cameron's recitation sectic
Dominick E. Grundy: Sti
interest in the course was stir
the lecturer. They appreciate
participation but wished that
out his students more. Sever
proved greatly over the semeste
Robert T. Lenaghan: S1
satisfied with Lenaghan's ri
much student participation an
to discuss the papers for which
ards of composition.
John M. Potter: Opinior
recitation varied widely. He w
his students and sensitive to c
Mrs. Ellen R. Smith: St
what effective" in achieving
She was excellent in drawing
but contributed very little I
phasized grammar in grading
Prof. Richard C. Boys
5 IA 38 1C
Despite the small return on this class, the response
was unanimously unfavorable to Boys. Most found both
him and readings unstimulating and uninteresting. Cri-
ticisms ranged from his being boring and lazy to the
course being run on a high school level in both content
and approach, the latter consisting usually of a reitera-
tion of the plots. Tests were considered unfair, spot-
,checking the material and being simply a regurgitation
device for grading purposes alone, despite the fact they
were all essay. Again, this unfavorable response was to
the professor and his teaching methods and not to the
Prof. John F. Reichhert
5 4A 1C
Response to this course, despite the small number
of students, was overwhelmingly favorable both to Rei-
chert and the course itself. Some students found it a fine
experience in liberal education, consisting of an un-
structured approach, informative and lively discussion,
a personally interested instructor who carefully graded
papers and discussed them individually with the students
and no exams. Although long, the readings were careful-
ly chosen and prompted individual thinking and un-
pered discussion ensued. The response of all the stu-
dents was "bravo!" They would all take the course from
.Prof. Caesar R. Blake 68 6 2A 3B 10
The lectures were found to be very interesting and
thoroughly worthwhile. The readings and paper topics
were also considered enjoyable and profitable. The pro-
fessor encouraged student participation in class and was
personally interested in the material covered by the
course as well as sensitive to the student's opinion and
reactions to the course.
The students found the course difficult mainly be-
cause of the high level of work desired and the amount
of material covered. The essay exams were found to cov-
er the course well and to stimulate thought on the mater-
Prof. Edmund H. Creeth 29 4 IA 3B
The course was found to be interesting, mainly due
to the lectures, papers, and texts, which were considered
effective in achieving the goals of the course. The
lecturer was quite stimulating. Participation in the class
was encouraged. Creeth was interested in the material
of the course and took care to consider the students'
opinions and reactions and to provide information con-
cerning their progress in the course.
The course was considered of average difficulty, al-
though some students thought the work load too heavy.'
The readings were worthwhile, complimenting each other
S * 'p 4