<p>as i responded in the private message,</p>
<p>the info comes from hearsay and prediction. the prevailing thought was that since the administration was making such a huge deal out of it (enough to force kids to retake the exam this september if they chose) they would certainly have to fire the woman responsible. apparently the administration lacks bite.</p>
<p>
[quote]
hey, yea uri, which class was that? I'm surprised i (and the spec) missed that one.
[/quote]
Standing by the elevators at the Fu Foundation building, I overheard a TA stating that he attempted to fail a few students and it was objecting, requiring him to assign extra credit. I don't know if this was for an SEAS class or a CC class, but I assure you some of the graduate students who teach would indeed purposely fail a few students, put power in the wrong hands and thats what happens.</p>
<p>I am a freshman at CC this year and I enjoy the core a lot more than I thought I would. Although I am not looking forward to completing the language requirement, I've spent first semester in LitHum and Frontiers and I definitely can appreciate them both. There definitely is a large disparity in course quality depending upon teacher, but I feel like I have been really lucky. Although Frontier's lectures get monotonous and sometimes you feel like not going, my seminar leader is amazing and covers more science than I would ever have gotten being more of a humanities person. The course could use some improvement, but I am thankful for it overall. As for LitHum, it get a little long at an hour and fifty minutes, but the books are important parts of a complete education and it's great to know that everyone who went here read the same ones. The course could use the addition of some non-western literature, but the core as a whole if definitely something i appreciate as a student.</p>
<p>If the core of the Core is not appealing, then maybe Columbia isn't right for you. It's like the heart and soul of CC.</p>
<p>Yeah. and I actually disagree about adding some non-western literature (and I mean, if Dostoevsky is 'western' but the middle east isn't, someone's getting a little too picky). I think that most of the great fiction achievements of history happened in Greece, Rome, and western Europe, and I wouldn't be inclined to bend over backwards just to find some semi-meaningful African or Indian author. V.S. Naipaul is good and all, but I don't think reading him is an essential ingredient to being considered educated, and I don't think his works are part of our common cultural heritage from which many references are derived. I mean, think by comparisons: in our culture, whatever your religious beliefs, if you haven't read the Bible you cannot be considered educated. There are simply too many facets of our history, too many expressions and stories and elements of the English lexicon, contained in the major books there to be ignored. Can you say the same for great Chinese authors?</p>
<p>Now, for non-fiction (CC as opposed to Lit Hum), I can see the argument for eastern philosophers. Everyone should read Lao Tzu or Confucius. But I think that's about as far as I'd go. When I took Music Hum, there were entire sections of the textbook devoted to african and chinese music that we entirely skipped, and boy was I grateful. If we had covered that to the exclusion of, say, Jazz, I would've wondered what was in those professors' coffee. But we didn't, we stuck to "western" stuff, and it hit all the highlights of what you'd want someone to know in order to consider them "educated" in our society. I don't think that point of view is old-fashioned, I think it's just as important now as it was in 1960. Or 1920, when the course that became CC was first developed.</p>
<p>Sorry, that's my pro-core rant.</p>
<p>Culs2011</p>
<p>It’s nice to hear from someone who actually enjoyed Frontiers! (If enjoyed is not too strong a word) As an alum who was at CC before it was a requirement, I hear from many students that they really dislike Frontiers and the faculty seems to know it. It would appear they have tried to “fix” it several times but no solutions appears to iron out the wrinkles in the curriculum or in its educational format. What did you actually like about it? Why were the discussions interesting? Most of the complaints seem to come from students who are science oriented. Is that your experience??</p>
<p>As far as Lit Hum is concerned the quality variables have always been there and have always been related to the enthusiasm and teaching ability of the instructor. My feeling is the general consensus is it doesn’t matter whether your instructor is a TA or full professor, it matters more that they are enthusiastic about teaching undergraduates and care about what they are doing. The course has also become a bit more standardized over the years which probably helps as well. As far as non-western literature hopefully as the Major Cultures requirement is re-organized to a seminar format, it will take on the shape and feel of Lit Hum and CC and will have a non-western literature and philosophy syllabus to add to the western feel of the more traditional core. </p>
<p>Denzera</p>
<p>I agree with you on not touching the current western “lock” on Lit Hum and CC. There are more than enough great books in the cannon to fill way more than one years worth of material. The Major Cultures requirement was instituted however to answer the “dead white men” critique of the core. You could argue whether this should be a requirement or not but if the “old core” is to remain western in outlook, the more “modern core” probably needs some sort of answer for the dead white men’s criticism. The current shape of the Major Cultures requirement seems to me however to be haphazard, thrown together at the last moment, and too broad to make any sort of impact on the students understanding of how non-Europeans look at the world. Whether it is in the format of a seminar and a requirement or not can be debated, but it is clear that the more traditional core is lacking in non-western ideas. However I agree that teaching Confucius and Gandhi should not come at the expense of fully understanding the western cannon.</p>
<p>WiseOWL - good point. however, sorry, i'm pretty dogmatic on this front.</p>
<p>the world as we know it today was shaped by dead white men. politically-correct types may not like to be reminded of this, but it's no less true. In the sole exception, I think that Confucius has his place among the philosophers in CC, but I doubt I'd strike Kant or the Federalism Papers in order to squeeze it in. So perhaps the major cultures requirement is the ideal solution.</p>
<p>The SEAS portion of the core is, "take one of Lit Hum / CC / Major Cultures", "take one of Music Hum / Art Hum", plus UW. I kind of regret taking Lit Hum and not electing to take CC, but man am I glad I at least took one.</p>
<p>no foreign language requirement. no major cultures requirement. no frontiers of science requirement. it's about as sweet a deal (for me anyway) as it gets. Of course, you DO have to take physics, calc, chemistry, compsci, a preprofessional engineering course, and so on. But if you're in SEAS it's because that's your bread and butter.</p>
<p>PS - in non-military contexts, the word you're looking for is spelled "canon". The western cannon won the battle of Vicksburg :)</p>
<p>WOOPS</p>
<p>Denzera-thanks for the spelling correction-spell check changed it back to cannon (Yeah I know-lame excuse)-My Lit Hum professor Ann Douglas (still at CC-still going strong) would be very embarrassed I made that mistake-and so am I.</p>
<p>As far as dead white men- I agree with you 100%. Dead white men is “their criticism” not mine-you wont find a greater enthusiast for the western core than this alum. I do however think the major culture requirement has its place just not the way it is formatted today. I do think that a whole years worth of material may be a bit much and as a one year requirement may not allow the student who is already “requirement heavy” to explore other areas of interest. As it stands in the old core I had only space for 4-5 electives as a science major in CC. That was not enough and I would have liked more. Maybe a one semester seminar style format exploring non-western ideas, literature, philosophy, concentrating on the relationship between the rest of the world and the west might be an interesting compromise. </p>
<p>Finally I do agree with you about Lit Hum-despite a world class professor for Lit Hum, I actually enjoyed the content of CC more.</p>
<p>Denzera: I've applied to SEAS ED. The abbreviated core seems very nice to me with one exception - I want to be able to take both Lit Hum and CC. Is this possible while in SEAS(i.e. will someone prevent you from taking both)?</p>
<p>you won't be prevented by anything other than time constraints. and CC is one of the more demanding courses you'll have at Columbia. Many people skip the readings wholesale and slack off. If you're going to voluntarily elect to take it, make sure that your semester is light enough that you'll be able to put in 100% on it and get the full value - otherwise you might as well just do one or the other and get back to your machine lab or something =)</p>
<p>Every semester I took a very challenging course that requried huge time commitments (i.e. quantum mechanics, video game design & development), I made sure to take the minimum # of classes. Definitely wouldn't have been possible otherwise. But maybe you'll do better at time management than I did, it CERTAINLY is possible :)</p>
<p>I've known SEAS students to take both. I think one even took them simultaneously...</p>
<p>I watched "The Core" once. It was terrible. I'm pretty sure no one actually likes it.</p>
<p>don't quit your day job.</p>
<p>lit hum followed by CC is great, but very difficult to do if in seas and not doing the 4+1 (where you get a CC degree in 5 years along with your BS). Choosing between the two should be a personal preference, i.e. do you like literature(more fun to read) or philosophy (difficult to read, incredible to debate and ponder). If indifferent, i'd say do CC, it's a more solid course, because you really delve into the ideas, need to be logical, and constantly have to criticize the ideas. It also makes you realize where all/most of the stuff we take for granted comes from, and what we omitted/over turned in favor of what we believe today.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It also makes you realize where all/most of the stuff we take for granted comes from, and what we omitted/over turned in favor of what we believe today.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>what an excellent description</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>Alluding to the core in my "why columbia" essay could be an effective strategy, right? I need to find a balance between honesty and not-being-cliche-ness, since sometimes they unfortunately overlap.</p>
<p>Sorry if this question has already been answered, but if you are a science major, is it possible to skip out on the Frontiers of Science class? -As a future science major myself, the class sounds like an undeniably boring class tailored to humanities students less interested in the actual SCIENCE part of science than its social applications and implications, etc.</p>
<p>I'm gonna let you in on a little secret. The core was invented not only to ground college students in the fundamentals of the western intellectual tradition, but also to instill a sense of camaraderie among each class via collective suffering. Frontiers just carries this tradition on in new ways.</p>
<p>You may not appreciate this now, but one day you'll be in an elevator in Carman with 7 people you don't know. You'll mutter "effing Frontiers homework" iunder your breath, and all of them will respond with recognition and understanding. That's a powerful bond. Never forget that.</p>
<p>...as beautiful a vision as that is, CN, it's my understanding that science majors don't have to take Frontiers. SEAS students definitely don't have to take it, though that means little.</p>
<p>Thank goodness!</p>