Talk:Syllabus

Contract aspect

I don't think we can still say "Within many courses concluding in an exam, syllabi are used to ensure consistency between schools and that all teachers know what must be taught and what is not required." First, this statement implies coordinated efforts between various colleges and universities regarding syllabi. Second, these documents now carry a legal connotation, serving as contracts between instructor (acting on behalf of the institution, I guess)and student. While some institutional groups (Colorado Community College System, for example) impose loose curricular guidelines on a few freshman courses to guarantee in-state transferability, we have not yet adopted standardized lesson plans. Colleges agree to general categories of objectives and competencies ("Understand and develop writing as a process in college"; "The Narrative Essay") as educational goals, but instructors decide how to help students reach those goals. To this nascent instructor, boilerplate contractual statements regarding attendance, performance, and grading appear to be mandatory as legal protection for institutions, rather than individual instructors. Finally, I know professional discourse is considering the ethical questions surrounding standardized syllabi. Any comments?Djredus 15:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds legitimate to me. At my school, the professors always make the "covered material" section of the syllabus exorbitant, because they can subtract from it, but not add to it, by school policy (e.g. contract style), but this is not always the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.58.182 (talk) June27, 2007

The notion of a syllabus as a contract between student and instructor is an abuse of the contract idea. The syllabus is not negotiated and does not impose any duties on a student. A mere list of policies a professor will follow in the course is not a contract. Best practice is moving away from the notion of "syllabus as contract," and this wiki should reflect that trend.

Links on how to prepare a syllabus?

Can we get some links to pages to help show how to write a Syllabus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.8.22 (talk) August 3, 2007

You can check Syllabus section of http://www.techbirbal.com which provides syllabus of Mumbai, Pune and Delhi University for Engineering Studies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.136.230 (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that one is a bit hard for me to swallow as well. Perhaps it needs to die? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

plural

There needs to be a citation for the issues surrounding the pluralizing of "syllabus." I'm in my 3rd year of Ancient Greek training, and I cannot find the Greek source word this article points to (σιττύβα). I do find "συλλαβή," which seems like a better candidate. Plus, this issue with Cicero's mistransliteration definitely needs a citation. Was he quoting a greek work? What work was it? These issues need to be addressed. cheapham 15:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's no other mention of these plurals on the internet, except in direct quotation. The word "syllallabussesi" looks like a joke to me. Earcatching (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that if syllabus is allowed to be imported into Latin, it is a deponent second declension, therefore neuter in the plural, not masculine. I've never had a Classics professor support "syllabi" as acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.104.231 (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, here is an authoritative source for "syllabi". I don't see how is could be neuter in the plural, since Cicero uses the accusative plural syllabos. That sure is not neuter. I also don't see how syllabos could possibly be a fourth declension form. Where did the urban legend that "syllabi" is improper come from? Was it Tom Christianson's ill informed rant about the plural of "virus"? Rwflammang (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I also note that the statement that "syllabi" is a hypercorrection is not supported by the reference. I purpose to delete it. Rwflammang (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be a 2nd or a 4th declension, but ultimately "syllabi" is wrong. It is a hypercorrection, and unfortunately, it is making its way into academic vernacular where otherwise educated people are sounding distinctly uneducated (partly because of this page listing "syllabi" as a plural). Probably because Latin is no longer intrinsic to higher study in many cases. Should really be deleted. Strike a blow for knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.73.246 (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is a 2nd declension masculine noun, then "Syllabi" would not be a hypercorrection, it would be the appropriate 2nd declension plural. Except it's not classical Latin, it's a Late Latin from the Greek and we have no classical examples of the word in use. In the Greek it's a masc. sing. 2nd decl. (that link also lists Cicero's usage), on what basis would it become a neuter in Latin (which would be the only instance in which a 2nd declension plural -i ending would be incorrect)? The only current citation supporting it as a hypercorrection is one in which the article author acknowledges her need for further research in the article comments - if the author of the reference isn't sure she's right, how can it be used as sole substantiation? Coupled with the fact that Lewis and Short list it as a 2nd declension masculine, what support remains for calling it a hypercorrection? King Kashue (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's kind of like the loanword "bistro" - originally from Russian slang to "hurry" yelled to French cafe owners by Russian troops in occupied France - which has gained import as synonymous with cafe. The plural in French is "bistrots" - whereas in English it is "bistros". Even with a direct French loanword such as "cafe" - the English "declension" adds an "s" to denote plural. This syllabuses becoming "syllabi" is a perversion - and really a hypercorrection in line with "octopi" - and the use of "syllabi" is not held by one of the foremost bastions of English study of classics - Oxford University Classics Department clearly lists, as it says, "syllabuses" of courses. Not "syllabi" http://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/courses/cmlcourses.asp . I think the debate comes down to 4th declension vs. 2nd declenson. But, really, as import into English, as an orphan word from Greek, the Latin declension rules don't apply. Much like bistros. Also, think stadium plural. Stadia? Good luck. Campus plural as "campi"? Yikes! And that wouldn't technically be a hypercorrection. In English, especially American English, "syllabi" will always be a hypercorrection overcompensation. In academia, it is an emperor has no clothes bit, and the ancient classics professors are dying off, and new upstarts are trying to sound smart - using an extinct language fewer and fewer know the rules to, and know the context of. "Greek" and "Latin" are vaguely the same to the new academic. These extinct shibboleth tongues. Quick, everybody, let's sound smart and say "syllabi"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.95.251 (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not whether syllabuses is a legitimate plural - it is. No one is arguing it is not. The issue is whether there is more than one legitimate plural. Right now, your refutation of the plural shown in the Lewis & Short dictionary (a standard academic Latin dictionary that well predates your supposed "recent upstarts" claim), as well as the plural shown in the OED (link unavailable, since the online OED is subscription only - Here is the entry from the general availability Oxford Dictionary site), is the website of the classics department at Oxford? The plural on the Classics department website (which is in no way intended as a reference work) is sufficient in your mind to refute two standard academic works? You're saying the OED is wrong, you're saying the Lewis & Short is wrong...and your source is the plural used on the site where the Classics department links to class syllabuses? Seriously? King Kashue (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems there are good arguments here for changing the description of "syllabi" as hypercorrection. Is there any reason why no-one has done so? Or has it been tried and reversed? I think at the very least the description should be moved out of the parentheses right at the beginning of the article (a position that suggests a lack of any controversy) and into a new paragraph stating the hypercorrection argument and the opposing argument. One link that I think should be referenced is: http://epectasis.blogspot.jp/2010/07/curious-and-quibbling-history-of_23.html Ricklaman (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm so far not convinced by any source given in the article or anywhere above that they may constitute reliable sources for the status of syllabi as hypercorrection. "Hypercorrection" implies incorrectness (source: "hypercorrection". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)), and the OED clearly lists syllabi as an accepted plural form. This means that all of the source which claim that syllabi is a hypercorrection are in conflict with the OED, and since they are all (the ones that are actually given at least) blog posts and forum posts and whatnot, they cannot override the OED in authority. In view of this, I am of the opinion that proper weighing of the available sources does not permit us to use them in order to push the view that syllabi is a hypercorrection.

Also, one thing to note is that L&S should not be cited as authority for the plural form syllabi, since it is incorrect on this point. (L&S, for those who are not familiar with classics research, is a really old Latin dictionary that should be considered superseded by more modern dictionaries such as the OLD, which, incidentally, does not list the word syllabus at all) That being said, however, OED as the English authority should clearly establish the validity of syllabi as the English plural. Let us leave the Latin discussion to the Latin Wikipedia. M. Caecilius (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

dynamics

For a given term the syllabus is set, and a school follows a curriculum composed of several syllabi. An example of a dynamic view is given in Masters of Theory by Andrew Warwick. Preparations for Tripos examinations evolved over the 19th century following the examiners' preferences and the coaches anticipations. A curriculum/syllabus article could show the pressures from employers, administrators, parents, students and others on the dynamic of classroom work. The attitude of a hired instructor differs from that of a social or economic planner anticipating future demand for skills.Rgdboer (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Esyllabus

I have converted this article into a redirect because it says very little about the difference between a paper syllabus and one on the web. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted it, based upon what I see as the obvious functional distinction, and the reported introduction at a point in time. The main difficult isn sourcing will be the obvious difficulties in conducting gsearches for the concept, as distinct for the millions of actual syllabi. We shall obvbiously need a discussion. I suggest that, knowing of my support of this article, it would have been better to hold the discussion first--but I know that our unfortunate formula for producing conflict, BRD, remains accepted. I have placed an underconstruction tag on it,. as I intend to work on it over the next week or so. DGG (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary parts?

Most of the article seems unnecessary as it's just a list of possible things that a teacher could include in their syllabus. Does the article really need all of this? —D'Agosta (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Impossible to read!

I dunno what kinda lung capacity you guys got, but if I try to read the TWO sentences under Uses out loud I'd suffer from serious lack of air before I even get halfway. I'm amazed you haven't noticed yourself. 85.200.159.216 (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor change

I changed "syllubus" for "syllabus" Right on the second line. I hope it was just a typo instead of a twist on the latin word that i didn't know about. Thanks --Filosombi (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe your gut feeling was right. Well played! SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

I am open to the idea of merging the "online course syllabus" page with this page. I can also see strong arguments for keeping it separate, due to the challenges created by the time/space separation between online instructors and learners, which online course syllabi must address. George.joeckel (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Merge. Seems like a fairly obvious move to me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

povs and cns

I googled this article to answer the simple question- what is a syllabus, and where can I find the definitions discussed. You can all read what I found. An article about American legal problems, something to do with their local contract law- all beautifully written and referenced. This is hardly useful in Canadian, European, Hispanic or Islamic cultures. I think that justifies a POV tag- then not a single paragraph is referenced (bar one that I can't check online). The most interesting line is in the third paragraph of the lead- but where did that come from, and was that journal regionally specific. Can we try to answer- what is a syllabus? How does it differ from a program of study, a curriculum and a scheme of work? --ClemRutter (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: I looked over the article and thought about what you said. Originally you put a tag on the article that it had a "neutrality" problem; I changed that to a "globalize" problem because I thought that would be more specific to your complaint.

I also came here for a definition and global perspective and can agree that the article cites US-based sources and fails to present a global perspective. It is not obvious to me how to find sources to improve this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Thanks for trying- finding references is hard. Google appears to change the query syllabus england to search for curriculum england. UK gov documents seem to have written out the word. Though we do have a reference enshrined in law to local agreed syllabus with regards to the RE syllabus. http://www.theredirectory.org.uk/overview/agreed-syllabus-re. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/syllabus does allow a contrast between US UK usage and curriculum. http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/syllabus is at least concise!

Thirty years ago, as HOD (IT) at a UK Comp- I knew what I was doing. To fulfil the curriculum requirement, I chose to use the OCR syllabus, and entered my students in the OCR exam. Less confident teachers of IT, used to follow the London Board syllabus as it was more traditional and it still fulfilled the curriculum requirement that was set by the universities the students were wishing to enter. The English department were alway moaning about which poems and books had been excluded from their syllabus that year, just as they had perfected a way of presenting them. We found out and compared the syllabuses by looking at the exam board catalogues in the staff room.

I included that quote to illustrate the use of the word in UK ENG. But it still doesn't answer my questions, or your quest for sources for a way forward. From the OCR syllabus- I wasn't reqired to write a program of study- that document was opposed as its sole purpose was to provide a tick sheet for monitoring the teacher, and that was the POV/political act I was tagging. Individual lesson plans were written, and the lessons were assessed against them. Since then, politics has imposed a national curriculum that overrides teachers professional judgement and experience- and the students have lost out. (That is a POV until the research is written up in a generations time!)

I did find a useful note given to Stanford students: What is a syllabus and Here. It widens the definition. It seems to fit in with my quote but not adequate for a universal definition. The https://www.leeds.gov.uk/docs/Leeds%20RE%20syllabus.pdf is useful for understanding the interplay of all these overlapping words. There for the moment I must stop there are other things I need to do tonight. ClemRutter (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Open the Dictionary

This citation of Cicero which allegedly misunderstands "qui pro quo" tau for lambda, is a not referenced and even a grossly blatant falsity. No any cultured person can believe that is possible to misunderstand a tau for a lambda by higly educated ancient people like the Latin/Greek scholars or Cicero himself. Greek was a living language at the time of Cicero, was he also deaf? Furthermore, Cicero was notoriously fluent in Greek. What is this pretentious and quite unreferenced BS. The Oxford Dictionary of Smurfs?

Syllabus comes from sum + lambanoo, sullambanoo, to collect. Only a very illiterate person with any notion in classic Latin and Greek can believe that "syllabus" could be a misinterpretation of sittybas(??). sittybas is a non-existent latin world also, there is no presence of this term in any Latin dictionary. Please correct this lousy piece of garbage.

And come back to school, please. Do not insult Latin and Greek scholars with this bs (08/september/2018) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.233.66.85 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

"Required reading" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Required reading. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)