What do you think of Professor Potter's course, Jane?
Not much.
Why, what's wrong with it?
Oh, I don't know. It's just that he overloads it with details. The course he gave on town planning last year, it was just the same-a load of details, which you could have got from a book anyway. There was no overall ...
No general overview you mean?
Yes. I suppose you could call it that. I couldn't see the town for the buildings.
But you've got to have the details in this kind of subject. Anyway I think he's good. You take his first lecture for instance. I thought that was very interesting, and not at all over-detailed.
Well, he starts off all right, but then he just piles on the details.
Now you're exaggerating.
Well, the way he dealt with the Western developments, that wasn't bad, I suppose.
You seem to have got something. Perhaps Potter is a little disorganized, but I think he's good.
Do you really think so?
He does do most of his teaching to the postgraduates. He only does the one undergraduate course each year. After all, I think he tends to forget where he is. He starts off being nice and general and then tries to cram in a bit too much specialized information.
The main thing I object to is the lack of direction.