It is by now obligatory for discussions such as this to begin with a slashing attack on the typical introductory course in sociology as superficial, unscientific, unduly eclectic, moralistic, thin in substance, boringly focused on antiquated concepts and ... and I'm glad I don't have to teach it. In point of fact, every word is true. The average introductory course is superficial, unscientific, unduly eclectic, moralistic, thin in substance, boringly focused on antiquated concepts, and I am really glad I don't have to teach it. However, I seek to take the high road of constructive suggestions and therefore eschew the demagoguery of beginning with a slashing attack on the typical introductory course for being
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
James Davis (1983) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: