I believe the one of the biggest challenges we have faced has been what I would define as structure, and I think our experience with it is one of the most important things we can share with those who make the course in the future. I have tried to be as objective as possible in my reflection as I know it is not a question everyone agrees on in the course. But I think it would be constructive to document some of our practices and offer suggestions, to be taken with a critical grain of salt of course. Some of the parts of this reflection will already be known by people who have taken the course but I wanted to give some background information so that this could be accessible to people who have not taken the course as well if we ever want to publicize these reflections. I hope it will be useful to others, especially those who make this course in the future.
Defining structure
There are two aspects I am referring to with the term structure. First, there is the decision making procedure, which is the way we collectively discussed and made decisions. Then there is the logistical procedure, which was how we applied that decision making procedure to practical questions about the course, for example attendance, participation, etc.
Decision making procedure
The course was from its beginning aimed at breaking down hierarchies which are taken for granted in the university. Many of the people taking the course were familiar with consensus decision making, so we tried that out for a trial period, at the end of which we decided to keep it.
Consensus decision making at its core is a process where everyone must at least consent to a decision going forward. This inherently encourages many people to speak and try to bring up points against a decision. There are many benefits such as encouraging voices which aren’t often heard, not leaving anyone behind, and getting a balanced debate on an issue.
However, it also has its faults. Because its goal is to make sure that no one is left behind, it often results in lengthy discussion, meaning much of our time was spent in discussions of the first issues on our agenda. Although these discussion were educational, I felt we weren’t able to adequately engage in other formats of learning which better suited other people’s abilities. Consensus can often favor those who are the most articulate or willing to speak, creating informal hierarchies where some voices are valued over others.
I don’t want to suggest that consensus decision making is not good for the course. Instead, I would recommend that other options of decision making are explored through practice before coming to a conclusion that consensus best fits those involved (not to mention that there are many variations of consensus decision making we never discussed). I would also recommend that any group who does decide on a consensus-based decision making structure devoted at least one workshop on facilitation, ideally led by an outsider or person taking the course who has some formal experience. This is really crucial to ensuring people’s voices are heard, avoid conflict, and is a great skill to have in many contexts!
Logistics

We decided that almost most logistical questions regarding such things as attendance, assessment, approval, etc. would be decided as a group. We also decided it was important that everyone engage with the most basic questions of making a course such as “what does it meant to participate?” and “when should someone be failed?” On a practical note, as a student unfamiliar with course organization, I now understand much more of what goes into making a course and learned from having to think about things I had never fully considered before such as attendance and assessment. More fundamentally, critically analyzing the most basic assumptions of university procedure was a crucial part of our curriculum and a valuable exercise in critical thinking.
The downsides were that lengthy discussion of certain topics often meant we could not talk about other things which we wanted to. Since procedural decisions had to be decided by all, were often time-sensitive, and were of high importance, they were often discussed first and dominated class time. This meant we had less time to discuss topics, broader questions, etc. This also often served to alienate those who were interested in other critical questions (which I don’t think we can assume would have been any less valuable to discuss). There were many sessions in which I experienced quite intense fatigue from long discussions of fundamental but mundane questions. I think energy in the course needs to be considered since it depends on engagement to function.
One option would be to decide within the first one or two sessions what the procedures such as assessment and attendance would be, while reflecting throughout the year on its implications for deeper questions such as participation. I think this could be easily done next year by looking through documents of our discussions around these topics from this year and making an informed decision. This is not to say that logistical decisions aren’t important. Instead, in my experience it would have been more beneficial to answer logistic questions early, even if they were imperfect, and spend time throughout the year reflecting how those decisions worked rather than spending time guessing about implications early on. Other logistical questions are bound to arise during the course which will give the group a chance to engage with logistics throughout. I believe it is important to remember that this course asks a lot of questions and offers options which most students and staff have not engaged with before. I think it is important to note that not all things can be discussed, so future classes should consider what questions they want to prioritize.
Conclusion
Although it is easy to forget, this course is an experiment. I think the name serves not only as a descriptor but as a reminder—have fun, try things, get uncomfortable, be critical. A key aspect of experimentation is trial and error. With decision making structure, I think trying other ways (voting, different styles of consensus, etc.) before committing would be a valuable experience. It really affects all other aspects of the course and will determine what other choices are made. With logistics, I think committing to a structure of assessment, attendance, format, etc. early on would give future classes more time to focus on other things which may be more engaging and prove more informative. A point of learning for me was not to be afraid to simply try things, even if you know they don’t work perfectly because it is upon reflection that you learn.

On Structure-Gray’s Reflection / The future of our university by blogadmin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0