OCW: Your syllabus designates some readings as “rabbit hole” readings—a category that also appears in the course materials for CMS.594. Are they a feature of reading lists in CMS more generally? And are they more intended to go into further depth and detail on topics covered in the required readings, or to explore interesting tangents on related topics?
Justin Reich: That’s my innovation. It responded to an instructional policy issue that I’m not actually 100% sure of the source for, but many courses have undergraduate and graduate numbers, and graduate course descriptions say “Graduate students will do additional readings.” I always assumed some policy required this, though I’ve never actually seen the policy, or can’t remember.
Since my courses often have graduate cross-registrants, I added the Rabbit Hole as a way of making sure that there are some additional readings for grad students. They are assigned to do one extra reading per class in the syllabus, though I never check. (Education systems are loosely coupled; instructors’ alignment with administration policy is often de minimis!)
The most important things are that 1) if students get jazzed about a topic and need to go deeper, I have a few things keyed up, and 2) a handful of super-motivated students will just read everything or nearly everything.
I also think it’s a nod to old school syllabi; back in the day a syllabus wasn’t a terms of service contract, it was a list of assignments. Many syllabi would have the 8 books you’d read in 16 weeks, and then a list of 20 or so other good books on the topic. The Rabbit Hole is just that additional list of books.
