Core Curriculum?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
1

<p>Whenever I hear about Columbia or read about it, the Core Curriculum is always mentioned and it seems to me that the core is considered an integral/really great part about Columbia. But honestly, I don't understand why the Core is so great. As a science major, courses like lithum seem very boring and do not seem like something I would enjoy.</p>

<p>I realize that the Core will make you well rounded by forcing you too take these courses, but is that the only benefit? Is there something I am missing?</p>

2

<p>if you don’t think the Core is great and you think you’ll probably have to grit your teeth and get through it, don’t go to Columbia. simple. </p>

<p>yes, the point of the Core is to help you to become more well-rounded and intellectual and it is the integral part of Columbia. people like me applied because of the Core but if you’re not interested, don’t go. you’ll literally be miserable lol.</p>

3

<p>OP, are you in high school? I was a biology major in high school; when I actually began to take college courses, I became a philosophy major. You have a lot of time to figure out your academic and career paths, and the Core (among other things) helps you think through which paths to take. I agree, however, that if you find the Great Works “boring,” you may not like the Core.</p>

4

<p>@pbr,
I am senior in high school and I have been admitted to Columbia. My passions are in the sciences and I will be pursuing the premed track. I will most likely major in the biological sciences (prob biochem).</p>

<p>To be honest, I find much of the Literature Humanities curriculum to be boring. I have never really had an interest in the Great Works or much of the humanities. </p>

<p>I am deciding between Columbia and a full-ride at a state school. If I really do find the Core boring, will this really ruin my experience at Columbia/ is this a large enough deterrent to pick my state school over Columbia?</p>

5

<p>to tack on - a lot of other schools will make you do breadth requirements, columbia is more standardized by having all students take the same courses for the most part. (so don’t pretend that somehow columbia is that much of an outlier
save brown, most of the other schools have requirements). i will just say that columbia’s program is better.</p>

<p>you will have a lot of study support for these classes and are not going through them alone. so a big part of the core is the community that develops on campus around classes, especially finals time, and the long term affiliation you will have with Homer, Thucydides, Augustine and the like. it becomes in the most nerdy of fashions a language that you share with your fellow columbians, and an instant point of conversation with any alumnus/a</p>

<p>but there is something more germane and that is the question about training your brain to think critically - sure the ‘subject’ is a book, but the technique is the same. the ‘soft skills’ you develop in the core (analysis, writing, argumentation, understanding various viewpoints) will better prepare you as a scientist in terms of working with your colleagues, engaging in debate and in the end becoming a more well-rounded and prepared individual who can present him/herself well. there are a lot of pedagogical theories out there, and columbia subscribes to the belief that students are equally responsible for teaching each other as professors (and indeed students can teach professors), so the purpose of the core - small classes, a focused set of books/masterpieces - is to create an intellectual environment where questions are encouraged, where critiquing even the canon is demanded and being able to see (particularly in a classroom with humanities, social science and natural science students) multiple perspectives on a single text or a single issue. so it is part learning by committee (an idea bounces around the class so everyone learns), and it is also a setting where students can impart their own particularly understanding (whether it be from their field, their background or other interests). when it is clear there are multiple views on the table your professor and fellow students will push you to clarify and defend your opinion, pushing you to argue persuasively. it is this environment and way of thinking that branches out into other classes and is distinctly columbian. it means you aren’t afraid to ask even crazy questions in class, to be brash with your opinions, and to stand up for arguments even under the questioning stare of an acclaimed professor. it makes you aware of various disciplines, of various arguments even on the same issue, and makes you sensitive to the fact that you can’t just say something without anticipating some kind of backlash (and sometimes being able to predict that backlash).</p>

<p>the core is more than just saying - hey take a lot of different courses (which most breadth requirements are). it is in reality a pedagogical system that uses small discussion classes around central themes to elicit better reasoning/analytical skills of you individually, while also developing an intellectual community.</p>

6

<p>and to your question - though i think we all love columbia and the core, i know a lot of students who entered skeptical of the core, only to come to love it and the experience. so what seems boring now, maybe actually work out for you.</p>

<p>also - there are plenty of students at columbia that do not like the core (and may even agree and call the classes boring), they just take the classes burn through them and just concentrate on their other work. it is not as if you have to love the core (though it makes the experience better).</p>

<p>my suggestion? keep an open mind if you go, it might surprise you. and yes, there is a purpose more than breadth (see above).</p>

7

<p>sucks balls. period. the vast majority of students I know don’t actually read the books - its always the first thing to go when you need to study for other classes (which is always). </p>

<p>it would be much better if Columbia were too just have distributional requirements where you can pick the topic and receive the same critical analysis training. if you’re interested in what the class is over, maybe you’re more likely to read. </p>

<p>i honestly didn’t read a single book my final semester of lit hum, and still did fine. and people always talk about how the core brings together the scientist and the musician and the economist blah blah blah, but actually all it does is bring together the 3 or 4 people who like talking, while the rest of the class simply looks at their watches, praying for the looooong two hours to go. </p>

<p>it also restricts you from taking as many electives as you may want. Its supposed to take up 1/3 of your courseload, while your major takes 1/3, and another 1/3 is electives. so, don’t double major (like me), or you won’t be able to take ANY electives (like me). </p>

<p>i should say, though, that, although i HATE the core, i still love columbia. the strength of the econ/polisci program is enough to overcome the misery that is the core.</p>

1 Like
8

<p>dear fitchm - i’m sorry you didn’t enjoy the experience.</p>

<p>as i often offer on here. i’ll be willing to chat with you, to offer you my experience, and perhaps give you a bit of nostalgia for the core. unwittingly it has impacted you, i’m sure.</p>

9

<p>The Core is one of Columbia’s most unique things. It’s a two year commitment. If you can’t (don’t want to) suffer through that and just want to start your major, Columbia is not the place.</p>

10

<p>Thank you everyone that responded. It seems that even if I don’t like the core, my experience at Columbia will still be fine if I can focus on/enjoy the courses in my major. Essentially I can “burn through” the Core.</p>

<p>No offense to you admissionsgeek, but fitchm’s description of the core will most likely be a reality for me - although I can’t say for sure since I have not experienced it yet.</p>

11

<p>come to columbia!
[YouTube</a> - Columbia University!](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZG7gThoGME]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZG7gThoGME)</p>

12

<p>Looking at some of your past threads FitchM, it looks like you attend the University of Chicago? Did you transfer into Columbia?</p>

13

<p>state school vs. Ivy
hrm</p>

<p>There are so many other things besides the core! Think of all the opportunities Columbia offers you. I have a really good freshman friend who is also majoring in the sciences. He is interning this summer at CERN, in Europe!!</p>

14

<p>What state school?</p>

15

<p>re: fitchm - honestly it doesn’t have to be you soundscool, because you have a choice how you want to approach it.</p>

<p>first there is a difference between being in the core and being done with it - and nostalgia always is a more powerful emotion. complaining about it while you are taking it is kind of par for the course, its like complaining about high school classes, everyone does it, it is far more rare to find someone who is 100% positive about something. so take his words with a grain of salt.</p>

<p>but i think there is to some extent a rather misguided idea that these courses are useless, and i hope to at least elucidate the fact that the pedagogical schema changes you as a thinker and makes you better. you may hate it, but it is still doing something for you.</p>

<p>so go into it, enjoy it, be as happy and grateful as you can during it, and it makes time go by.</p>

<p>and lastly - i double majored and took a lot of courses in different departments (even some that served no purpose), and did research, was involved on campus, went out a lot, and liked my core classes (especially cause they grade so nicely). it’s possible ;)</p>

16

<p>beautifulday: I applied EA to UChicago, but chose Columbia because of its financial aid (looking back, though, I think I made the right choice even w/o consideration to financial aid). Ironically, UChicago used to be the only other school in the country (comparable to Columbia, anyway) that had a Core. A few years ago they came to their senses (like I imagine Columbia will in the next few years) and did away with the core in favor of distributional requirements. </p>

<p>And in response to admissionsgeek: I’m all but done with the core, thank you very much. Granted, I still have to do my PE requirements
 but I imagine that will be my favorite part about the core. Honestly, I think you’re doing a disservice both to Columbia and prospective students. Its important to show that a lot of students at Columbia did not come here for the Core, do/did not like the Core, but still love the undergraduate experience. You make it seem as though everyone here would rather read the Iliad (or Kant, or Plato, blah blah) than learn finance or something not so liberal-artsy. Thats not true, and I imagine that you’re doing so is scaring off a lot of prospies who could actually have a great experience at Columbia. </p>

<p>You argue that the Core is there more for pedagogical reasons; I agree, and think that the same goals of the Core can be achieved through distributional requirements. Let students learn about what they want to learn about! I assume that you’re one of those 3-4 students in the Core classes that read everything and talked nonstop during class; remember, there were 16 other students with you. </p>

<p>The Core was started in 1914 to “remind students of what they were fighting for” during WWI (quoted from a former dean of CC). The Core is obviously a bit outdated then, isn’t it? Since Columbia has one of the highest numbers of international students, and PrezBo is aiming to make us a “global university,” the Core really should be done away with. Why would an international student from China need to take Masterpieces of WESTERN Literature, Masterpieces of WESTERN Art, Masterpieces of WESTERN Music, and Contemporary Civilization (Hobbes, Smith, Burke, Hume, etc.)? Distributions would develop the same thinking strategies in ways that students would enjoy. </p>

<p>“It seems that even if I don’t like the core, my experience at Columbia will still be fine if I can focus on/enjoy the courses in my major. Essentially I can “burn through” the Core.”</p>

<p>Soundscool, you have it exactly right.</p>

<p>And admissionsgeek, thanks for the offer to share your experiences with me; however, I am a Columbia student, and I have my own experiences (and so does every other Columbia student - stop making your experience the only one that prospies see!) Thanks.</p>

17

<p>it’s not unique, University of Chicago has it too and imho it’s is quite limiting and western focused. Sort of like a list of things one should read before they die. Pointless, really
especially if you’ve explored the reading list yourself in high school.</p>

1 Like
18

<p>fitchm - i am probably tame on here when it comes to core loving, i recognize that not everyone will love every minute. </p>

<p>but in the end, if you want to be a ‘realist’ about columbia, that’s fine. i just probably would never go on a discussion board and write such a poorly thought out barb against my own school. </p>

<p>i’m more concerned with helping students, offering the facts i know, and yeah a very good portrayal of columbia because i kind of love the place. not the authority on columbia, but i know it well and defend it well. and care above all to impart what knowledge i have to others (including current students). and even if you don’t appreciate what i have to say, a lot of folks have told me they do - i do it for them ;)</p>

19

<p>I guess I somewhat lie in the middle. Honestly I don’t appreciate the idea of having some long deceased savants tell me what I should read and learn. Not that what they say is not true, nor am I a natural rebel. To me it’s like a matter of autonomy.</p>

<p>As an international student, I actually do want to read Kant, Rousseau, Woolf, but just cannot digest Virgil or Thucydides. i don’t know if it’s a matter of personal preference, or simply because I’m not educated enough to appreciate Ovid. As for the art hum, I really don’t understand why they thought it a good idea to assign several masters, excluding numerous great great artists and time periods. And I can’t imagine how can my fellow Chinese kids who didn’t have a huge interest in humanities as I do handle all these!</p>

20

<p>one thing that i took from the experience was that columbia is all about critiquing the idea of a western core, and not necessarily buying the idea fully. it is a conversation not just why these pieces are important, but at times asking are they too important. using the western canon as a space to argue.</p>

<p>as for arthum, it is probably the most low key class you’ll have at columbia. i mean your task involves going to the met and looking at incredible paintings.</p>

<p>last thing - a great prof/instructor makes the class. by itself the idea of the core might sound uninteresting, but when you have someone that really does a great job trying to get you interested in the material, to have you look at things from different perspectives, it just makes this experience fully enjoyable.</p>