Best Civ Sequence?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
1

<p>I'm curious about the various areas of the core, and how best to fill those areas.</p>

<p>What is the best civilizations sequence? What sequence did you take and how did you enjoy it? What was the reading list? Who/How was the professor? Is it better to study a civilization close to your major, or to "expand your borders" and study a civilization that you don't already know much about?</p>

<p>The University of Chicago Course Catalog gives the following civilization studies sequences:</p>

<p>ANTH 20701-20702. Introduction to African Civilization
EALC 10800-10900-11000. Introduction to the Civilizations
of East Asia
ECLT 20100-20200-20300. Religion in Western Civilization
HIST 13001-13002 (13003). History of European Civilization
HIST 13100-13200-13300. History of Western Civilization
HIST 13500-13600-13700. America in Western Civilization
HIST 16101-16202-16303. Introduction to Latin American Civilization
HIST 16700-16800-16900. Ancient Mediterranean World
HIST 17300-17400-17500. Science, Culture, and Society in Western
Civilization
JWSC 20000-20100-20200. Judaic Civilization
MUSI 12100-12200. Music in Western Civilization
NEHC 20001-20002-20003. History of the Ancient Near East
NEHC 20011 through 20099. Perspectives on Ancient Near Eastern
Civilizations
NEHC 20601-20602. Introduction to Islamic Civilization
SALC 20100-20200. Introduction to the Civilization of South Asia
SOSC 24000-241000. Introduction to Russian Civilization</p>

<p>If you have the time to spare (or just don't want to study for finals... yes I'm using this joke in every post), feel free to describe the reading and writing input of each course, and the general feel of classes.</p>

<p>Also, I struggled to find past posts comparing the core courses, so links would be nice and will be added here:</p>

<p>-</p>

2

<p>I’m not entirely sure who’s teaching the other sections, but Nadine Moeller is teaching the Egyptian quarter of the NEHC 20011 sequence, and she’s AMAZING. She’s relatively new and very enthusiastic.</p>

<p>I’ve heard rumors that Geoff Emberling, who directs the Oriental Institute Museum, is teaching the fall quarter of the sequence. If so, I highly recommend it!</p>

3

<p>The course numbers here are unusually deceptive. The most salient difference is between those Civ sequences that are intended pretty much to primarily serve the needs of the core, in that they do not exist as required stepping stones to certain majors… </p>

<p>HIST 13001-13002 (13003). History of European Civilization
HIST 13100-13200-13300. History of Western Civilization
HIST 13500-13600-13700. America in Western Civilization</p>

<p>…and the rest which are integral parts of at least one UG major and more often than not required of many MA / PhD students in related fields during their first year. </p>

<p>In the former you do a lot of primary source readings and are evaluated by 3-5 interpretive papers per quarter, under the presumption you kind of already know American or European history at an honors or AP level and are trying to advance to the intellectual commentary stage. Equally importantly, such classes are dominated by first and second years. </p>

<p>In stark contrast, in the other sequences there is the hurdle of learning the factual element in addition, so you will have quite comprehensive midterms and finals alongside one or two term papers, which for UG’s will often be more directed towards proving you can size up the historical record, as opposed to putting a unique twist on it. The compositions of classes will also be heavily weighted towards third years, with very few first years. </p>

<p>Personally, I sat through two weeks a core civ class with an uber famous prof and could not stand it. It struck me as a meaningless and dilettantish exercise in roundtable style social commentary, each student trying to outdo the one who spoke before him or her, more humanities prone than social scientific. I also didn’t find the marginal intellectual return to be very high. None of the material is substantively new, and I personally did not care greatly about learning to write well manicured literati essays. Of course, for some people this <em>is</em> UChicago at its best, high brow and ivory tower to the <em>core</em>, so do take my view with a grain of salt. </p>

<p>That said, the area studies driven sequences - I completed one in its entirety and took the winter quarter of another as an elective - were refreshingly new but rigorous. They may be survey courses, but they are by no means introductory either. The downside is many are not discussion based. There is often only one section per course, so you usually go to a lecture with 30-100 students. There are required discussion sections with TA’s outside of class, but they are just not as good and often quite forced compared to those directed by the full time faculty. </p>

<p>All in all though, if you have not had European history, I would say it’s definitely something you want to read a survey of over the summer and consider taking as a freshmen. A good knowledge of Euro is an iron (intellectual) prerequisite to soft social studies or the humanities at the upper division level. You will encounter concrete historical allusions from the French Revolution to Cold War to no end in your readings. More proximately, it will help if you take one of the traditional social science sequences as a second year, such as Classics or Self, Culture, and Society, both of which are simply composed of commentary on the European experience for better or ill.</p>

4

<p>I certainly prefer objective, intesive studies of history to interpretive ones, as I’m no historian. The “third-year” civilization courses sounded interesting to begin with, but your description makes them even more so. (Just the same, I need gain some knowledge of European History outside of Greece, so I’ll like take something in that area as well).</p>