Stephen E. Arkin

Arkin is one of the main reasons I left SFSU and moved across the country to attend Columbia. The man is a rambling egomaniac who talks about himself more than the works he is supposedly there to teach. He also grades personally as opposed to objectively so if you fear speaking your mind and getting graded down for it, look out. He also attracts a small clique of syncophants who all clustered around the front taking turns complimenting the man and begging for chances to speak. Really. Arkin has been at SFSU since Nixon and probably should have hung it up sometime around the Clinton years. But, of course, who would he have to pontificate to at home? The cat?

Arkin would be a great person to have dinner with or maybe a drink or two, but teaching James Joyce he seems to fall short. Its not for lack of knowledge. He seems to know Joyces history, his pronunciation of foreign words is flawless, and he knows the text, but Arkin comes across as bored with teaching Joyce.

Almost everyday we would either get off the subject at hand or just veer near it. He would bring up something he had read or some past memory from his childhood, and sometimes it would clarify a point in the text, but most times it would be so vague as to be almost pointless. He also can be slightly cruel to people who give the wrong answers to questions. He covers it in humor, and he is funny, but sometimes hes a little harsh. And although he does a good Irish brogue, he does the same voice for all the characters: nasal, harsh, and angry. It began to sound all the same.

And Ulysses is one of the most difficult books ever written, yet Arkin made little time to explain it. This isnt to say that we didnt have enough time for the book, but he takes a lot of time talking about other things. This wouldnt be so bad, but he is also a tough grader.

The only other teacher who teaches Joyce is Zimmerman. Zimmerman stays close to the text, but unlike Arkin he rarely has his students contribute to the class. So it depends on what you want more in a teacher: one who closely follows the text or one who will let you speak up in class.

Some of the other reviews are correct in that Prof. Arkin does tend to let his lectures wander a little and he tells a lot of personal anecdotes, but it's less annoying than interesting. It's a good trade-off. His questions in class are very hard to answer, but they make you think about the work in a way that makes you appreciate it more. Has some plusses and minuses in speaking and grading, but the assignments are interesting and overall he's a very good teacher.

Professor Arkin is one of many fantastic English professors at SFSU. I always looked forward to his lectures, as they were informative about the specific piece we were studying as well as the author, the author's family and friends, and particular stories revolving around the author that might have been significant to the book we were reading.He knew the right avenues to open up so that students could think of the literature in a fresh way. I attribute his successful teaching style to the fervor, almost giddiness he gets from great literature. He's also very funny and can speak in a hilarious British accent. If he's difficult to get ahold of outside of class, it's probably because he is an extremely busy man, being the Chair of the English Department. I've personally had no problem receiving information from him outside of class. He's even gone to the trouble of photocopying lit. criticism for me.

1. Outdated reading material and a archaic sense of literature. He is a dinasaur. 2. Prejustice over the fact that adults constistutes a great part of the SFSU student body. This affects his assessment on adult students. 3. Totally let students' comments take over whether such comments are related to the topic or not. By letting himself interrupted all the time, his own thoughts always lost in the middle. 4. Emphasize too much on the ethic value of the works. PERSONAL interpretation, instead of objective and academical.

To first talk abou the requirements he gave for this upper vision class, there were two assignments: two papers, one in 5-7 page range, and another in 8-10 page range. The course didn't require overloading work. We read about 7-8 novels(quite short ones). I would say he is very knowledgeable with his subject, and quite far more intelligent than the students that just average students like me was hard to follow his erudite logic. He does offer questions for the students to talk about, but it is really hard to answer back his questions so you feel like an idiot. Though he doesn't require much course work he does demand for good writing, and even encourages us to rewrite our papers. He prefers close reading to applying other materials in the text. Yes, he is a very nice person and loves irish lit. and russian lit. But I think because he doesn't require things for us, it's more easy for to fall back in reading for his class. And that surely lessens your interest in the subject.

Dr. Arkin has demonstrated to me in several classes that he has a tremnedous grasp of literature. The man has seen the world and is willing to share stories with the class about all his journeys. However, he sometimes does only that for a good portion of class time. He is an interesting lecturer, but the problem is with his papers. The first paper was handed back with some snooty commentary on how we could not write and some people did not even receive grades. When I went to ask about the vague comments on my paper he was not very helpful at all. The paper topics( there are two papers 1 5-page and 1 10 page) are vague and even for a good writer, are hard to get a grasp on. He is a very tough grader. He also has favorite students who hang out and take his classes for fun and call him by his first name which can get very irritating because he often shares frequent in-jokes with them which makes some of us non-favorites feel a little left out and wondering why this could not be dealt with after class. He occassionally gets pompous, but usually is a nice guy. He was not approachable in the first class taken, but was in the second class. Overall, one could do worse than to take his classes, but if vagueness and really chummy former students do not bother you, then he will suit you just fine