We were given a bibliographic exercise, which was like a quiz to be answered from the reference area of the library that appears to have been done in conjunction with another student but we still failed to find all the answers.

It was marked but I don’t think it counted towards the pass/fail other than being required participation.

The Checklist assignment did count. It consisted of choosing a practical research topic, selecting appropriate bibliographic reference sources and annotating some of the selections.

I chose the grail myths as a topic in which I was interested. I got 4/5.

GRAIL

The first assignment was an ungraded proof reading exercise that was to teach how to properly mark up a text when editing.

The first graded task, however, was a critique of a thesis proposal. We were given a thesis topic and asked to look at its feasibility. We were to gauge the suitability of the scope to justify a 15000 word dissertation, the potential to develop a structured argument, the available of resources and how one might go about the necessary research. We were also to comment the merits of the thesis proposal and its potential problems.

We were given a thesis topic “Romanticism and the Early European Perception of Australia”, with a three paragraph proposal.

The obvious intention was to get us thinking critically about our own potential dissertations.

THESCRIT (2)

It was marked with a few ticks, some constructive criticism and an 8½/10.

There was an immediate improvement in presentation using a real computer and MS Word. I much preferred the early versions of Word to the current model.

How did I find myself in 1993 doing a subject on English Research I ask myself?

Having a major in English and Religion nailed down, and needing two units complete an Arts degree in only eight years (!), I recall deciding I wanted to do some postgraduate work in English, which in those days was called a Postgraduate Diploma in Arts. It was the part time equivalent of an honours year.

The prerequisites for that were this subject and a subject on Literary Theory, which I tackled in second semester.

One key idea of the course was to try to help us not make a hash of the dissertation that we would tackle in the years to come. There was also instruction on simple tools (like a perpetual calendar), proof reading and MLA style. With the best part of two degrees already, learning how to research and present essays properly was a bit late.

1993 was also when I first had a real IBM clone running Word, so I have the actual documents backed up and will need to scan and type no more for this blog. I also at great expense, (~$1000) added a CD-ROM to the computer. This was an absolute marvel in the pre-internet world and it meant some of the library techniques we were being taught were already becoming redundant. I think one library task I had to do was largely able to be done on a reference CD ROM without much effort. It also was great for the children to have fun educational CD ROMs available for their use.

It was a largely practical class taught by Dr Chris Tiffin and Dr Alan Lawson and was assessed on attendance, seven small assignments, of which four were graded and a short answer exam. It was pass/fail – I passed.

Dr Tiffin is still at UQ it appears and his profile is here. This photo of him is from some time ago, I suspect before my time there.

Dr Lawson is now Emeritus Professor Lawson and also still associated with UQ.

Essay topic:

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 4:24-7:29; cf Luke 6:17-7:1) as Evangelion.

I have what is a late draft in very faint draft printing that refused to scan so I typed it out.

It is a great example of a floundering student struggling to come up with anything that might get close to 3000 words.

I have been reminded that in amongst all this out third child was born and was pretty unwell for some time so I may have had other things on my mind.

There is an argument in there somewhere under the incoherence, but a 5 was generous.  Luckily he didn’t give the essays back, the comments would not have been fun to read.

Sermon on the Mount

After the genial style of Dr Ian Gillman this subject in second semester 1992 was a return to the formidable Professor Michael Lattke.  I had done two external subjects of his but this was the first time I met the man.

Again, I must have been leaving work early on Wednesdays to attend lectures at the University of Queensland. My recollection was that I was one of the few attendees not training or already in ministry. Lattke took no nonsense from Christians who were used to their own interpretation of scripture. If they suggested anything other than what was there he would say “I do not see that in the text” and that was it.

This was my last religion subject at UQ and meant I completed a major in the rules of the day. It was also the last course that I used my strange two disk (no hard drive) computer with a dot matrix printer and Webster’s word processor.

I was rather out of my depth here and his assessment methods exposed that rather well. I doubt he trusted undergraduates to work and so we had a mid semester exam, which I did poorly in, an essay and a viva.

Now I had done vivas in my medical course, which were pretty terrifying, but Lattke’s amazing office with floor to ceiling books and his no nonsense questioning were something else entirely. He called it an academic conversation. It is a great technique to find out what people have absorbed in a course and I suspect far too labour intensive for use these days. He told me I was a solid 5 (out of 7) student and that is what he gave me overall.

The second essay topic was thus:

Protestant- Roman Catholic relationships were marked by deep antagonism until the 1960’s.” Discuss this claim with respect to Australia.

I suggested that the antagonism was from the clergy and church leaders with much cooperation and respect between the laity of each church.

This is the marked copy with his generous comments.

RE215 – Australia

I got a 7 (out of 7) rating overall for the subject.

The essay topic I chose was:

Investigate the truth of the claim that “revivalism” has been at one time both the most invigorating and the most disruptive force in American Protestantism.

I suggested it was more disruptive than invigorating.

I couldn’t find the essay I submitted but this is late draft with a few corrections. I also have a word count written in with each hundred words noted. Such was the world before automated word counts.

RE215 – America

After six years slowly doing an external studies BA part-time at the University of Queensland, external studies ended and I became an internal student to finish my degree. Just as I had been fortunate enough to be just outside Brisbane to qualify as external, I was fortunate to be not too far out such that I could attend classes now that external studies had ceased to be. It has just struck me how the concept of needing to be outside a city to do external studies seems odd now, when so many people study online due to time factors rather than distance.

I chose this course with Dr Ian Gillman who had supervised my last external course. So from 4-6pm on Wednesdays in first semester 1992, I left General Practice behind and attended actual lectures again with actual other students. The timing suggests a shift from external study to evening classes. I have no recollection when the tutorials were held.

He let us choose to have 2 assignments for assessment, rather than an exam, along with a mark for tutorial participation. The texts were Ahlstrom’s “The Religious History of the American People” and Breward’s “Australia – ‘The Most Godless Place Under Heaven’?” I still have both books and have since picked up some of the recommended reference books he suggested over the years.

The loss of external studies meant the excellent lecture notes and study guides were replaced by notes and actual participation. There was a fair bit a material given to us at the tutorials. I found this all very interesting, especially the American section. I always though the Great Awakening would have made a good board game.

Just for fun I’m posting the exam with the notes I made during the ten minute perusal.

RE113 Exam

I did well enough for a 6 (out of 7) for the whole subject.

This assignment was to choose a prominent Christian thinker and analyse “the theological concerns and attitudes and conclusions of the author surveyed, together with a brief consideration of these concerns … for people today.

I chose Marsilius of Padua.

The lecturer helpfully noted:

Marsilius [AD1275-1342], a radical critic of much of the teaching and institutional  forms of the church of his day, and in many ways a herald for the secular, pluralist society of own day.

I probably picked him because he sounded a bit of a ratbag – my favourite sort of Christian thinker.

RE113 Marsilius of Padua