There are not many things in life more unnecessary and painful than Clay Aiken albums. Discussion sections are among those precious few. In theory, discussion sections foster a more personal environment where students can deconstruct class readings and think critically about lecture material. In actuality, discussion sections are 50-minute gauntlets of participation competition, awkward silences and masking stomach grumbles or hangovers because every section every semester is at dinner time or Friday morning.
Discussion sections can be broken down into three categories: tolerable, uncomfortable and "I'd-rather-be-watching-'2Girls1Cup'-with-my-father." The TA typically sets the tone for what type of discussion it will be, as he is the one who leads and grades. The worst TAs do not speak English, either because they are not native speakers or because they choose to speak in Pretentious Academic, a dialect of Olde English, instead. Then there are the TAs who take out their frustration about student loans and wasted potential on unfortunate undergraduates. If a student were to pose a question about an essay, this type of TA would inevitably respond, "I do not care what you write or who you are. If you go over the word count, I will destroy you because I have no time to do any of this grading and I think you all are the spawn of Satan. I do not get paid enough." Some TAs miraculously work against student apathy and Cabell stationary desks to make discussions tolerable. The few, the proud, the TAs who even learn your name.
Peer participation also defines the quality of any discussion. Perhaps the most awkward part of class involves outside interaction with these peers - seriously, what is the protocol for saying "hi" to people in discussions? And what if you see them out? It's like you totally know who they are and what they think about James Joyce, but you do not actually know them.
The easiest way to categorize discussion-mates is to discern those who do the reading from those who do not, but there are so many dimensions that this would be oversimplification. One type of discussion-mate - and I unfortunately might fall into this category - always litters her sentences with impressive vocabulary but never actually says anything of substance. An example: "The juxtaposition of this seemingly holistic dialectic organization effectively catalyzes a volta as the rhythm shifts from dactylic trimeter to iambic hexameter." Blank stares and eye rolls often follow her statements, making her one of the most despised characters of all discussion history. The person who always alludes to outside texts or Greek mythology - "Did I mention I read Ulysses just for funsies over the summer? Oh my Zeus, it was so enlightening!" - also deserves a swift thrashing. But at least these people do the reading. The worst might be the person who so clearly has not even bought the book, yet consistently tries to get by with sweeping thematic statements about the transition from youth to old age.
This semester, for once, I am actually enrolled in entirely tolerable discussions. The TAs discuss the reading as opposed to having students hypothesize about the nature of the world, and my Friday one is not mandatory. Still, can discussion sections ever be as fruitful as professors hope and think they are? Discussions to some extent give incentive to read, but the most consistent means of ensuring engagement with class material comes from class and the material itself. If a professor's lecture offers interesting insight and the Collab Resources page houses worthwhile texts, then students will learn.
Of course the University will never do away with discussion sections - aren't they just so Jeffersonian? - so it might be up to us to ameliorate them. We can start by bringing our laptops to section, guaranteeing an outlet for boredom and ill-preparation. If TAs ban computers, then maybe, just maybe, we can resort to taking advantage of the smaller ratio and arena in which to meet more peers by actively engaging with class material. Unless the discussion is Friday at 8 a.m.: Abandon all hope, all ye who enter there.
EP's column now runs biweekly Tuesdays. She can be reached at e.stonehill@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
What your contraception of choice says about you
By CD Life staff | 13 hours agoThere is no time like the present to consider the many birth control options available to us, each with their own unique personality.
It’s okay not to be okay
By Mai Hukuoka | January 8, 2025Whether talking to a friend, a loved one or a professional, it is so necessary, and human, to need more than you can provide for yourself.
Taking a break at Tangerines Kitchen
By Charley Thomas | January 6, 2025What the restaurant somewhat lacks in ambiance, it compensates for in tasty dishes and prompt service.
