2. Results of students poll

In December 1999 - January 2000 I conducted a sociological poll among three groups of second-year students of the Economics department at the M.A.Bonch-Bruevitch State Telecommunications University in St.Petersburg, after the students have taken my o­ne-semester, 32-hours course in sociology.

The poll was conducted in the groups, who received the following questionnaire:

WHAT IS:

1. The course's major merit ____________________

2.The course's major drawback __________________

RATE o­n o­ne-to-five scale the course's components:

3.Humanitarian (teacher's work) __________

4.Informational (substantive) _________

5.Organizational (systematic order, structure) _______

6.Material (visual aids, obviousness, charts) _______

RATE the course's aspects:

7.Lectures ___

8.Seminars ____

9.Novelty (originality, creativity) ____

10.Practical implications of tetrasociology for persons and society _________

DETERMINE:

11.What do you value more: friendship or truth, pluralism or monism (underline your choice).

12.Priority sphere for practical application of tetrasociology in Russia ________

13.A sphere of its application in collaboration with the author. Yes. No.

14.TetraSociology is a new, consistent outlook and way of thinking for the young. YES. NO.

The questionnaire has three parts: qualitative (2 questions), quantitative (8 questions), and value-oriented (4 questions). The first part asks to name the course's main merits and drawbacks. The second part asks to quantitatively rate the course's four components (humanitarian, informational, organizational, material) and its four aspects: lectures, seminars, novelty, practicality. The third part asks to choose among values. The questionnaire has 14 questions overall; 46 students filled it out.

The questionnaire's general results

1. The following course's qualities were praised most often: "new outlook," "systematicity, solidity," "well-substantiated, open-minded," "novelty," "depth," "optimism," "good practical assignments," "solid theoretical basis," "persuasiveness, consistency, well-foundedness," "practical applicability," "competent presentation of the ideas," "it makes students think," "it teaches to formulate and argue o­ne's opinion," etc.
2. The following course's drawbacks were mentioned: "shortage of time," "subjectivity," "emphasis o­n TetraSociology," "incoherence of information provided," "not enough practice," "idealism, practical unfeasibility," "impossible to put into practice during the first couple of years," etc.
3. In the quantitative questions, the course's average rating was 4.3. (In the 1997 questionnaire, it was 3.9; in 1998, 4.1; in 1999, 4.2.) The ratings run all the range from the lowest to the highest, and the whole gamut of opinion is present: from most laudatory to extremely negative.
4. Regarding the value questions. 85% accepted pluralism; 6%, monism. (For reference: among St.Petersburg professors and social scientists I polled in 1999, o­nly 20% accepted pluralism.) 70% found collaboration with the author acceptable; 30% didn't. 88% recognized TetraSociology as a "new, consistent outlook and way of thinking for the young"; 12% didn't. (For comparison: o­nly 5% of the professors and social scientists answered positively. Let us remind that almost 80 % from them remain by monists, opponents of the pluralism.) The results displayed a variety of ratings and opinion among students who'd been lectured in TetraSociology; the overall attitude was positive. This is what counts.