I'm a mature student with an "A" average who has taken transfer credits at several schools. SFU was the worst of the lot. ...so bad, in fact, that, in retrospect, it's actually funny.
I took four courses there. Here's the run-down:
Early Chinese History: taught by a young white guy from Iowa who proceeded to tell the students--95% of whom were Chinese--that he was going to make us all challenge our perceptions about China. You know, like he did back when he went to China and realized that not everyone sees America as the centre of the universe. Ironically, he could stand to brush up on his own knowledge of China. Our lecture on the warring states period consisted of a classroom discussion about why states--any states--might go to war. Who was at war during the warring states period? What were they fighting over? I still have no idea. Assignments consisted of two 750 word papers, one of which involved writing a memo to Stephen Harper in the voice of a warring states philosopher. Perhaps because there was no genuine need to pay attention in class, lack of paying attention (via texting, web surfing, or even having your cell phone accidentally ring) was punished with a severe grade penalty. Despite all this, students seemed to like this prof because he made a point of remembering everyone's name.
Intro to Chinese Culture: The prof was a super nice, likable, organized and professional guy with some very serious quirks. He wasted a whole lecture reteaching essay basics and docked me marks on my term paper because I didn't begin my thesis statement with "In this essay, I will discuss" (I'm a professional writer. I promise I know how to write a thesis statement. The essay had one. Honest). This prof insisted that we include pictures in our assignments and that we select a variety of sources for our research (books, journal articles, web resources), all so we could prove we knew how to document these things. He also made the class hand-write the "term paper" in class as a means to avoid cheating. However, it goes without saying that you can't write much of a term paper in 90 minutes. The piece had to have sources cited, and he originally wanted the bibliography written during this time period too. "Five or six sources should be enough," he said. That's quite a term paper. Oh, the prof also had a weird obsession with obscure details. I'm all for having to listen carefully and take good notes in class in order to pass tests, but really, why do I need to know who authored ancient acupuncture texts? I bet my acupuncturist doesn't even know.
Introduction to Mass Communcations (distance): I think that's what it was called. You know you're in trouble when you don't even know what the course was supposed to be about. The prof wrote his own text book. It contains no thesis statements or topic sentences, and, for that matter, doesn't convey much information at all despite excessive verbage. The text book contains a chapter on an industry I have worked in for 20 years. It is--how can I put this politely--a pile of merde. It is factually incorrect and appears to have been the output of about 2 hours' total research. That might be generous. The discussion topics for this course consisted of--essentially--"read the chapter then say something about it." The essay questions were ...well ... not questions for one thing. More like vague, confused statements. How did this man get a PhD? It's one of life's great mysteries.
Communications 110 (distance): This was the only decent course of the bunch. I read two books. I wrote four papers and an exam. I was expected to do my own thinking. What a concept. At one point, I was penalized for writing too little, even though I wrote the maximum number of words allowed for the assignment. But compared to everything else, this is a minor issue.
In short, if you are remotely intelligent and if you expect more from university than simply being kept busy with any old thing until you get your piece of paper at the end, then SFU is not for you. read more