Teaching History II

I am taking an Introduction to Modern European History class, as a requirement for the history component of my major. I was going to take it last year, but dislike the prof enough to drop the course. In any case, I very much like my professor this semester. Her area of expertise is Vichy France, leading her to have a very dry sense of humor and a massive amount of contempt for the French. Today she was lecturing on the conditions in Europe in the beginning of the 19th century leading up to the revolutions of 1848. She began with an overview of the creation of the middle class, which she rushed through, ending with this apology, "I'm sorry, but I can't talk about this anymore, though there is more to say. I just find it terribly boring. Let's hurry up and get to World War One already." Leaving aside her subjective assessment (which I tend to agree with, at least as far as the rise of the middle class goes), I'm a but ambivalent about her approach here. In a huge survey course like this it is impossible to cover everything in depth. But where should the emphasis lie? She skimmed over one of the most important developments in European history because it bores her. That seems problematic to me. On the other hand, class is better when the professor enjoys what she is teaching. Students get more out of it. And my interests are often in line with hers. In the end the decision is hers, of course. I'm glad she was honest about why she made it, as opposed to downplaying the importance of social history, or ignoring it altogether.