Second Semester After Declaring Major [by week 11]

Hello from Sunny [well sadly it's pretty rainy lately] South Africa.

Sadly I only have two courses to talk about in my blogs because this far in my studies I have only taken two courses for my religious studies major. But I would like to speak about how the course, Introdiction to Religious Studies/Theology relates to another course that I took. This course was also taught by a religious studies professor, but it was not a religious studies course. I took DMOC with Dr. Matthew Shadle in my third semester at Loras, and I took Introduction to Religious Studies/Theology with Dr. David Pitt in my second semester at Loras. Looking back at the two courses I see many similarities between the course material.

Both courses were very historically based. There were many times in my class with Dr. Pitt that I felt I was taking a history course, which I very much was. This is true because you must understand the history of religion and theology before you can understand religion and theology themselves. in DMOC we had to play a role in the games of the different places, times and government systems that we were studying. In Intro to RS/T we had to put ourselves in the places of those who saw lived during the time of the Marian apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe. In DMOC we were often grouped together as Jacobins, Socratics, Radical Democrats, Bourgeoisi, etc. We were grouped together because our characters had the same beliefs and were fighting for the same things as the others in our group, or we were all grouped together as Indeterminates because we were all on our own and didn't have people that had the same political views as us, or didn't want the same thing as us. In Intro to RS/T we were placed in groups for projects to present on different topics. Within a group we were all similar because we were researching the same topics and were sharing the same grade on our presentations. Just like in the games in DMOC if we didn't get something passed, we all suffered. In this course if we didn't present our work well enough, we all suffered [or rather our grades all suffered]. Another similarity in these two courses was when we had to present on our own. In DMOC it was the speeches that we had to give in the games. In Intro to RS/T it was when we had to present on a topic of our own, something that we held interest in.

There were also many differences in the two courses. I felt that the people that were in the DMOC course were only there because it was required and I will admit that this is the only reason that I was there as well. But I also feel that people didn't take the course seriously because it was one that they had to take. I do not feel that I was one of these people. I enjoyed my DMOC classes and even though the work was difficult for me because the Social Contract isn't as interesting to me as, say Our Lady of Guadalupe, I still found the course very interesting and feel that I gained a lot from it. Intro to RS/T however was not a course that is forced upon all students at Loras. It is a course based solely around students who are interested in the study of religion. So I from this perspective I feel that the student interest in the classes should have been higher or greater than that of the students in DMOC. But because of the game in DMOC, I think that this was not always the case. If you were to take the game out of DMOC and make it all lecture like the other half of the course it would be a very similar response in my opinion. The difficulty that I found with the Intro to RS/T course is that I didn't fully understand why studying the Marian apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe was an introduction to all of religious studies? It seemed to me that there was much more in religious studies that could have been brought up in a course made to introduce students to it. But from another point I can see how it is such a broad topic that one needs to just choose something to focus mainly on and then possibly hit on the other topics in passing, mentioning that there is more out there but that those aspects will not be as deeply studied over the course of the semester.

So I can say that I think that the DMOC course felt more organized and established what was expected better in the beginning with the Athens half, but the French Revolution half was a lot more difficult for me because it didn't feel as organized [probably because it was the first time it was used] and because I was used to Athens half and it was difficult for me to switch to an entirely different mindset for France.

In comparison, the Intro to RS/T felt organized with in itself but not really within the program. I guess for me I didn't see how it was an introduction course when the material wasn't very broad. But this could also be that it was, as I understood from a fellow classmate, the first time that Dr. Pitt had taught this course so all of the material was new to everyone.

Now please do not take this blog incorrectly. I thoroughly enjoyed both of the courses very much. I gained much knowledge from both of them, that has stayed with me still today and much of it will stay with me for years and years to come. Both of the courses also made me want to dig a little deeper on my own time to find out about things that were not touched upon in class. I think that this is the important part. If a student wants to continue to learn about a topic from class when they are finished with it, then the lecturer has done their job well. So thank you to both of the professors mentioned in this blog and all of the others who have left me wanting more.

Peace, Love and Jesus

P.S. If you would like to read about my adventures in South Africa thus far please feel free to read my other blog which includes my walk across the United States last summer for the pro-life movement at the following link:

sedelle.blogspot.com

First Semester After Declaring Major [By week 11]

Hello! Welcome to my new religious studies blog. I don't really know how to write a blog about religious studies so this might turn out more like a poorly written paper. But we'll make it through together.

Fall semester of my freshman year I took Jesus and the Gospel taught by Dr. Waldmeir. I was very excited to take the class, and the course deserved my excitement. By taking a closer look at each of the gospels on their own, as well as comparing them all to each other really gave me a chance to sit down and fully appreciate the gospels in a new light. Also since the gospels play such a large part in the mass, this class also gave me a better respect for the mass and helped me understand many of the inconsistencies that are within the church. For those of you that do not know me very well, I do NOT deal with change very well, and inconsistencies are one of my true weaknesses, I can get pretty upset when things are not consistent. To make matters worse, I have a very interesting memory and remember a lot of things that most people would not remember. So when they change something, I remember but look like an idiot because they do not remember saying something different at an earlier time.

But that is not what this blog is about. This blog is about a class that I have taken in the past and what it did to help me, and what I would suggest to change to make it better. To make the class better is difficult. I think one of the most difficult things for me was that the class was an hour and a half long. It was just difficult for me to focus on one thing for that long and not fall asleep. But I can also see how it was beneficial to stay on the topic and only that topic for a full hour and a half. I mean it's like in high school. Some schools around me had block scheduling, but I didn't so I thought that it was weird and that I wouldn't have gotten as much done in that style. But To students who came from a high school that did use block scheduling might find it better to have classes for an our and a half long so that you stay focused on that subject the whole and time and don't have to waste time trying to recap on what you covered last time in class.

The book that we were supposed to read along with the gospel chapters that were assigned was not helpful to me at all. I actually sometimes felt myself understanding the material less after reading the commentary, rather than understanding it more. But other than those few adjustments I don't really have any suggestions of what could make the class better. I really enjoyed working in groups, but only because I had a good group of people in my class. It I was in a class of people do not participate it would be a completely different story.