Michael Scott

Scott has interesting topics , but he has a hard time relating them to the class. He assigns way too many books like 8 of them plus reserved articles? I mean what's all that about. Plus all these books and articles are from all sorts of walks... psychology, evolution, sociology, and history.He is not deep, but plays good music while he prepares what he calls "house-keeping" before he starts the class . His exams are hard, and expects a student to be a top notch writer otherwise will make you feel like you are not supposed to be in his class. His lectures are on pure theory and concepts but he only touches briefly on them. He touches lightly on the historical development of each idea but I don't think he really knows much than what one can find in a brief encyclopedia. He comes across as an experienced "professor" but he is really lacking depth. Right from the beginning, one can see him through his syllabus. His lectures lack reinforcements because the books he assigns are historical cases, but very dry on developing what he lectures about in class which is hardly anything that is tied up to the books. If you don't have to take this class, I think you can have fun somewhere else. The guy is not boring, but he is as dry as he can be. Unimaginative ! Yeah, that's the word. Give him a C minus.

I would definitely recommend taking SS300 with Scott! He breaks the semester up into four sections and at the end of each section there is either a paper or an exam. The papers are nothing to be afraid of. As long as you show that you put effort into it and had passion for your topic then you should recieve a good grade. His exams are kind of tricky because according to him, he wants to reward the students who put forth the effort to learn the material. He is by far one of the most approachable professors I've ever had. He was always available during his office hours and he was willing to give me his full attention until the assignment was clarified. Actually, sometimes he seemed almost reluctant to let me go! ^_^;; As long as you respect him, he will respect you. (So I disagree with that other reviewer who said he was passive aggressive)

Dr. Scott is the best teacher I have ever had. Don't be intimatated by what seems like a lot of work. He makes the topics so interesting that the papers are actually sort of fun to write. The tests are hard, but he plenty of ways to make up for them. He's an amazing teacher, very passionate about the topics on which he lectures and very fair to students. As opposed to another reviewer's perception that Dr. Scott is "confrontational in a non-confrontational way", Dr. Scott is not at all confrontational nor does he try to intimidate his students into talking in class about things they don't understand.

Dr. Scott has a lot of real-live world experience in Social Science and it shows. He is very intelligent and his lectures are fun, humorous, engaging and informative. If you don't just love this guy, there's something wrong with you, not him! You'll see slides and watch films, and have a lot of open discussions. He doesn't just want to talk AT you, he wants to talk WITH you and wants the class to talk to each other, too. He breaks the semester down into 4 units. Each unit either has a paper or an in-class exam or a take-home exam. If you attend all of the lectures, you'll know exactly what you are suppose to do and how to do it. Dr. Scott is one of the friendlist and most "human" people I have ever met. I have taken two courses from him now, and only wish I could take a third. If you want to have fun and learn something at the same time, take a class with Dr. Michael Scott!

I believe Dr. Scott is among the best of the teachers we have here at SFSU, and I want to highly recommend his classes to all who may be reading this. He actually takes the time to meet with all his students, and learn all of our names! He's been around the world working as a social scientist, so he knows first hand what he's lecturing about. Take this class, you will not regret it- relevant information that pertains to life.

Professor Scott is an excellent teacher and I would highly recommend him. Though his tests are challenging, he's open to new idea's about testing his students. He seems to have a genuine passion about the subjects he teaches and for his students. I was a little intimidated by him on the first day of class, but now I wouldn't take anyone BUT Professor Scott for SS301.

Dr. Scott was very interesting and I plan to take him again for 301. He was not at all passive aggressive like the other reviewer was insinuating. His class was fairly simple, with only two papers, one presentation, and two exams (a little hard, but multiple choice). The presentation is a joke. Most people just sat in their chair while presenting and he was fine with that --in fact, encouraged it. I recommend him highly.

It's hard to separate my personal dislike for Dr. Scott from my positive feelings about the materials in his class, but here goes. I don't like him. I don't like his style of non-confrontational confrontation; and I especially don't like that his interesting lectures are consistently sidelined by questions (ranging from pertinent queries to absolutely useless regurgitations of opinion designed to curry favor) that usually redirect the flow of ideas, making class time drag by and the lecture itself somewhat disjointed. OK, so after all that, I really appreciated the focus he chose to take, and besids one monster book that I barely cracked (written by Grieder), the texts were not only interesting, but compelling. Likewise, he tried to incorporate a misture of current events and history to demonstrate his points, and vitally so. I don't like him, but after attending every class meeting and completing his take-home exams (another plus, they're challenging but not impossible), I would tell most people to take his section of 301. I didn't take his 300, but I imagine that it's similarly worthwhile.

It's hard to separate my personal dislike for Dr. Scott from my positive feelings about the materials in his class, but here goes. I don't like him. I don't like his style of non-confrontational confrontation; and I especially don't like that his interesting lectures are consistently sidelined by questions (ranging from pertinent queries to absolutely useless regurgitations of opinion designed to curry favor) that usually redirect the flow of ideas, making class time drag by and the lecture itself somewhat disjointed. OK, so after all that, I really appreciated the focus he chose to take, and besids one monster book that I barely cracked (written by Grieder), the texts were not only interesting, but compelling. Likewise, he tried to incorporate a misture of current events and history to demonstrate his points, and vitally so. I don't like him, but after attending every class meeting and completing his take-home exams (another plus, they're challenging but not impossible), I would tell most people to take his section of 301. I didn't take his 300, but I imagine that it's similarly worthwhile.

He knows his subject and prepares his lectures well. He is clear about his expectations and is extremely fair in his grading. He challenges you to do some critical thinking but is open to questions and is very accessible. Also, he has real world experience. (He's done work for Oxfam, the U.N., etc.) You are encouraged to talk in class and you get to know your classmates. It's a good class from a solid professor.