(continues from June, 11)
1. Prevented all the optional disciplines. The student hasn’t to opt for anything because this could lead him/her only to mistakes, and could also create the feeling that the collegium is not certain what precisely is to be studied by someone, in order to acquire learning in the given field.
2. Special priority received the practical work with the language. In this work the superiority of the professor is out of doubt, because no one, who has studied a language for 2-4 years could compare with somebody, who had taught it for 10-30 years, especially if the language is a dead one. (That’s why the first methodological crisis in the specialty classical philology broke in the year, when the first graduates of the gymnasium were enrolled in the specialty; some of them dealt with the languages quite decently, and the professors so far had experience only with beginners).
3. The non-linguistic disciplines, such as history of literature, had to be presented in very general courses, in order to create the feeling for entirety and thoroughness (it must be so, when an authority is teaching), and the successful passing of the exam had to make him/her sure in the knowledge of “these things”.
4. The syllabuses and the curriculum in general were meant to remain untouched. Besides the evident convenience for the teaching person, this created the impression that there isn’t anything else to be fancied in the given field.
5. Not to encourage elder students – say, no older than 30 years. (For the regular doctoral study, the so-called aspirantura, it was explicitly legislatively forbidden students older than 30 years to be given scholarships). Students, who have studied something different earlier or studied something else at the moment, were not to be encouraged. The real reason was that the greater life experience could create questions, which might burden the professor. The mere opportunity to compare the specialties and the professors was already something undesirable. This embarrassment caused by the older students and the students with different background was explained in the following manner: we don’t need such people, because they do not have the chance to become good specialists, since they haven’t started on time. They have wasted their time or they are wasting their time now.
6. Not to invite professors from other specialties. That is intrinsically connected with the lack of optional classes and is engendered by the principle of the authority; the authority does not tolerate either addition or comparison. No need to mention about foreign lecturers. In short, the contacts between the separated specialties and the universities, even within Bulgaria, had to be kept to a minimum. However, if some professor went for a while in a foreign university, it didn’t damage his/her authority, because usually no one was informed what (s)he has done there.
I am convinced, that these claims of mine would be confirmed by almost 100% of the students, who have studied classical philology in the past 20 years, and maybe by the older ones. At the same time many of them would say that the education they have received is not bad. And this is really so. Because, besides the fact that the mere object of the classical education is the common cultural heritage of the West (and thence of the world), the concrete teaching in the SU possessed its own character and style, due to its decades-long tradition. However, it was evident that the interest towards it is vanishing, and it was not only the collegium’s fault, but it is also a consequence of the greater change, which affected all the assets of our live – in Bulgaria and in the rest of the East European countries.
The task of the people, who had to design the future master’s programmes, was to change the mere character of the academic work. Let’s see what they have undertaken.
2. Two unsuccessful attempts
A. The Master’s programme in Classical languages
Prior to the discussion of the programme, which is the topic of this presentation, I am going to narrate (in brief) about two attempts, which preceded its creation. That will help me to draw your attention to some difficulties, which are accompanying the fulfillment of such an educational project. If not surmounted on time, most certainly they lead to its failure.
As I have mentioned above, one of the first reformative initiatives of the specialty was the elaboration of the Master’s programme, called Classical languages. The contents of this programme corresponded well to the name. It included three semesters of practical work on Greek and Latin. There were additional disciplines as epigraphic, paleography, historical grammar, morphology and syntax of each of them, comparative linguistics of the roman languages and some more specialized courses. The ratio between the obligatory and the optional courses was 50:50. The reasons for all that are still evident. The specialty had at its disposal the necessary teaching staff, in order to secure the launching of the programme and of each discipline. There wasn’t any need of change in the way of working. The programme was meant to offer to the students the study of texts, not read during the bachelor’s (that’s easy because the classical literature is quantitatively inexhaustible) and new contents of the theoretic courses. This certainly meant that the professors would be given the opportunity to make presentations of parts of their writings (which will be a prove that thus the education really turns out to be “for more advanced”.)
The idea for such a project was grounded on the already mentioned prejudice that the higher education exists in order to produce specialists. A specialist is the one, who knows something exhaustively: say, the one, who knows the names of all authors, who have written on a certain topic and is familiar with all their publications. At the same time he has to master perfectly some skill (for example, to be able to read without difficulty and dictionary ancient texts from all genres, because (s)he has read already everything and knows all Greek and Latin words). In short, the notion of a specialist in these academic spheres coincided with the notion of an authority.
No candidates appeared for this programme either in the first, or in the following years. It is not difficult to explain this lack of interest: in order to participate, they should have become bachelors in the same faculty (because there is no other place in Bulgaria, where such an education is offered). But these students were reluctant to study classical philology any more. Moreover, there were between 1 and 4 students who graduated from the department yearly (exactly as nowadays). At the same time only Master’s programmes, which have enrolled at least six candidates (exceptionally five) were permitted to start.
B. The Master’s programme in Byzantine studies
(Sofia University central building. North entrance to the courtyard)
No comments:
Post a Comment