I’m applying to Columbia for the fall 2018 semester, and have listed Religious Studies as my top major. For the question “list what you read for pleasure in the past year,” I’ve got the following:
Confessions by Augustine of Hippo
A History of Western Philosophy and Theology by John Frame
Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem
Fear and Trembling by Søren Kierkegaard
Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing by Søren Kierkegaard
The Sickness Unto Death by Søren Kierkegaard
A Grief Observed by C.S. Lewis
Till We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis
Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus by Nabeel Qureshi
The Holiness of God by R.C. Sproul
Dracula by Bram Stoker
In case you couldn’t tell, I’m a pretty conservative evangelical Christian–and I hadn’t realized how much my reading reflected that until I put it down on paper. Should I be worried about typecasting myself, or presenting only one side of my interests as a student? I don’t want to be a one-note candidate, but on the other hand, having almost everything fall into this category could bolster my credibility as someone legitimately interested in studying philosophy of religion. What do you guys think?
They want to know who you really are and it seems like this is an accurate representation. It seems like having tremendous depth in your area of interest is equally appeaking to admissions as people with multiple interests but less depth (assuming you do have some other activities and such on your application.)
But as this is about pleasure reading, don’t be concerned that the list “has to” focus on religion or philosophy. If you’ve read more broadly, it’s fine to include that. This sort of question is often to guage breadth (the relaxed choices, variety of interests, openness,) not just depth or academic.
I agree. Don’t try to create a list that you think Columbia wants to see and that will convince them you are serious about your major. Simply put down the books you have read for pleasure over the last year.