I’d like to re-submit a question raised (but not answered) a few years ago by kparcellkparcell:
What is the difference between the History of European Civilization and the History of Western Civilization?
A venerable U of C prof, William H. McNeill, wrote a magisterial book called “The Rise of the West”, an earlier version of which was used as the text providing the narrative accompanying the readings which were the heart of the famous McNeill-Mackauer-Weintraub-created course called “History of Western Civilization.” There was a thesis behind the book, which was in part an answer to Spengler’s “Decline of the West.” McNeill’s overarching concept was that “the West” was a dynamic principle deriving from the peoples of the Eurasian steppe-lands. That was where he began his history. He saw their turbulent and expansive conquests not only in terms of the migrations of peoples but as indicative of a similar spirit constantly manifesting itself non-territorially (though also territorially) throughout the milllenia that followed, as these peoples overran both Europe and Asia. Although the book has large sections on Asian civilizations, the primary thrust is Europe, as that continent absorbed these multiple waves of invaders from the East, modified their spirit, and created a constantly mutating civilization, which then overran other continents and communicated its ideas to the entire world. Most of the details of that history happened in Europe, but McNeill did not call his book (nor the University of Chicago its course) a history of “European Civilization”. That seems significant to me of the larger concept operating behind the details. It was published in 1963, and McNeill had been working on it and its precursors ever since he came back to Chicago at the end of a war that had left Europe in shambles and discredited much of its culture. His was a specifically American perspective and reflected a spirit of American ebullience characteristic of the times. But it also reflected the sense of the importance of the American frontier as developed by Frederick Jackson Turner and many American historians. I see it as an American take on the history of the Old World from which America had derived.
I doubt the book finds much favor today, though it is well worth reading and Is a masterpiece of erudition and comprehensiveness written in the grand manner. I was most fortunate to have arrived at Chicago when McNeill was a regular lecturer in the Western Civ course and when that course itself was almost universally regarded by Chicago students - even by my brilliant mathematical apartment mate - as the high point of a Chicago education. I hope something of its spirit lingers. I would be interested to hear from students or parents who have some knowledge of the European History course that has succeeded it as part of the Core.
A bit of context to supplement Marlowe’s excellent explanation: Karl Weintraub taught Western Civ for decades (he took over the responsibility from McNeill, I think?) and currently his widow (and former student) Katie Weintraub teaches a section of the three-sequence course during the year. Boyer will sometimes teach it in the summer. The curriculum hasn’t been updated in decades. Still, it’s a superb course. My D took it last year and thoroughly enjoyed it as well as Katie as an instructor. The university worked out a deal with the Weintraubs: as long as there is a Weintraub around to teach Western, Western will continue to be offered every year.
Euro was the “update” to Western and is based on more current methods and specialities of historical research, etc. There were also disagreements between Karl Weintraub and younger history faculty as to what is relevant material to include in such a sequence. The Euro course was also designed to accommodate the more flexible choices allowed under the revised Core, and individual faculty could set the curriculum and teach to their specialty rather than rely on (in some views) more “outdated” material.
Read all about it here:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2002-06-02-0206020309-story.html
and here:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~rfulton/trustees_civ.html
and here:
https://www.goacta.org/news/do_not_drop_western_civilization_scholars_tell_university_of_chicago
Those links were most interesting, @JBStillFlying . That in the not very distant past students could become so exercised over a curricular change in a course in “Western Civilization”; that they were prepared to camp out overnight on the quad for the purpose of registering for that course; that it would be a memorable feature of their educations at the University of Chicago - all this was itself illuminating of the ethos of a time and place. That ought to be remembered when it is said too confidently that Chicago students were in those bad old days enthusiasm-challenged drudges.
I couldn’t help thinking of Yale’s recent decision to entirely drop one of its own iconic courses - History of Art: that decision has been explained by reference to precisely opposite student pressures - resistance to the hegemony of the West, and so on. That iteration of tradition if not of art itself has died at Yale, and in its final rendition will be taught from multiple critical perspectives which leave very much in doubt whether these old pictures are worth anything much at all except as counters in someone’s narrative of oppression. Sigh.
Part of the power of the old Western Civ course was in its methodology of close-reading these old texts for what they could tell us about the representative people of each of these vanished eras. That created great drama and intensity in the classroom. Old white-haired Professor Mackauer with his almost impenetrable German accent and dueling scars would almost seem to be undergoing his own dark night of the soul as he sought to draw from us gormless young middle Americans some comprehension of the significance and meaning of Luther’s “Freedom of a Christian Man.” Luther’s excitement and exultation (with Mackauer’s somewhat superimposed thereon) were what endured in memory, and, yes, one could imagine in the words of that one tormented soul the emerging spirit of a new age and the beginning of the death of an old one. That was unforgettable. The precise mechanics of the Reformation was a matter one could get in more detail from McNeill.
And thus it was for all the representative texts and their authors, from Tyrtaus and Solon to Mill and John Maynard Keynes. This may have been hopscotching from island to island in the eyes of the younger History faculty, but it didn’t seem like that at all to us students who were encountering for the first time these talismanic but strangely different human figures, ones who just happened to have created the world in which we lived.
Let us hope that Katie Weintraub will produce offspring!
^ @Marlowe1 - my D would trade in her mom for Katie W any day. She really loved the sequence and my son is hoping to enroll in the future. *Warning: Not for grade-grubbers. *
Thank you both! My husband and I both read “The Rise of the West” in our youth. McNeill was obviously the very model of a University of Chicago scholar. Our son wants to take the classic, quintessential U of C Core courses. With that aim in view, Western Civ is obviously the one to choose among the Civilization Studies options. As for the Humanities options, would you suggest “Greece and Rome: Texts, Traditions, Transformations” or “Human Being and Citizen”? For the SOSC options, would you suggest “Classics of Social and Political Thought” or “Power, Identity, and Resistance”? Thank you for your time and trouble.
@Mom2Melcs Western is without doubt a classic sequence. Your son will love it. My D has told me that Katie Weintraub highly recommends waiting till 2nd year so that you have some experience with close reading and writing first. Course fills up well before 1st year pre-reg. opens anyway. However, once in a while I’ll learn of a first year having pink-slipped in so it can happen. Perhaps MMV year to year.
My kids embraced Classics for their Sosc. and Greece/Rome for their Hum. However, both Power and HBC get decent reviews. All are quintessential Core courses. Let me know if you need a reading list for either sequence. When your son registers - assumnig it’s like it’s been the past few years - he’ll specify several different hum and, if applicable, Sosc. options (several sections for each sequence and then something like top two or three sequences). So the options you list above can serve as first choice and backup. Fortunately, he has plenty of time to figure all this out!
Yikes! We did not realize that it was difficult getting one’s preferred Core sequence What are the best techniques to ensure that one is able to get the sequence one desires? While a few of the sequences seem almost equally desirable, several of the sequences seem definitely not desirable. He/we certainly want to avoid being forced to take one of the clearly not desirable sequences.
It was not difficult for either of my kids. Not sure whether they got their #1 section (ie time of day), but they definitely got their first choice sequence (ie GRTT, Classics vs. runners up).
One can maximize chances of getting #1 by: 1) considering the “less popular” early morning class (usually 8 am); 2) choosing a large array of sequences and course times; 3) minimizing conflicts so that one subject won’t conflict with another.
My kids definitely did NOT consider some Hum or Sosc sequences. They stuck to the traditional ones. But they were still able to have at least three hum and at least two sosc sequences that they could live with. And if you run out of sequences that you like, just choose more sections of those rather than turning to a sequence you are less thrilled with. Usually there are well over 100 Hum sections offered beginning in the fall (1700+ first years, each seminar having 17 or so enrolled) so plenty of variety.
Thanks for responding so quickly! That sounds pretty encouraging.
Human Being and Citizen is a perfectly wonderful Core sequence that uses the Old and New Testaments, Plato and Aristotle, the Iliad, the Aeneid, Augustine’s Confessions, and the Divine Comedy as tentpoles.
For Sosc, I think Self, Culture and Society is also a classic sequence. The current course description sounds hipper than that of Power, but I suspect if you scratch below the surface there is a lot of overlap.
As long as you take a sequence with serious texts that have withstood the test of time and that is taught by actual faculty (not a grad student or post doc) it is hard to really go wrong for HUM or SOSC. Moreoever, if you get into a sequence and find you cannot stand the professor for another quarter or two you can change sections without much issue as long as you finish the stream.
Be forewarned though that if you sign up for a Core cop out sequence like SOSC for scientists, physics for poets, a non-topical arts class, etc. don’t be surprised if half the students (and probably the prof) do not want to be there and it becomes a huge philosophical drag. Most of the drama around the Core (at least back in the day) pivoted on people trying to do the minimum amount of work in a subject they didn’t like versus embracing the challenge through an appropriate class choice. There are so many options that you only have yourself to blame if you countenance a seat in rocks for jocks (think long lectures about lava and crystals)…
Separately - it depends on the student - but having spread my Core classes out over all three years it took me to graduate I always found scheduling my favored in-major and elective courses took precedence. There is often only one chance a year to take a lot of upper division courses if you are a non-science concentrator whereas you can always find one or two Core courses a term to chip away at that look fine on paper at the outset of the term.
^ Actually, students are expected to finish the Core within their first two years:
“All students enroll in the general education curriculum, designed with the expectation that in the first two years of study a student will complete general education requirements and introductory courses in a major. The final two years of enrollment are devoted to advanced work in the major and elective courses that build on the foundation laid in the first two years.”
http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/thecollege/introduction/
“Meant to be a foundation for later study at the College, the general education requirements are a quintessential element of the University of Chicago experience and should be completed by the end of the second year. Most general education requirements are completed with sequences comprised of two or three courses.”
http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/thecollege/thecurriculum/ (General Education)
In the past, some 4th years who have put off their Arts Core have had difficulty getting a slot because 1st and 2nd years have been prioritized for registration.
Realistically speaking, Civ can probably be put off till third year, especially if you are taking a heavy STEM load and can only fit in one writing-intensive sequence per year (so Hum in first year, Sosc in second, and Civ in third). Other than that, there is little reason to put off your Core courses. If you are doing a humanities or non-sequential social sciences, you can fit everything in your first two years and have plenty of remaining time for interesting upper division courses. A typical pattern would be near 100% Core in Year 1, 50/50 in Year 2, and nothing but major and electives in Years 3 and 4. Plus, let’s face it: do you really want to be taking Core courses while starting your BA thesis? 
Edit to add: @novusdoctrina may have taken a heavier Core load (before the revision in the late 90’s). One of the reasons why the Core was scaled back was precisely because it was difficult to complete in two years while attempting to start a major (especially a more technical one).
@JBStillFlying I was there post the reforms. I think a lot of the sequencing is done in good faith. If you have a compelling reason to control your own schedule they will allow it if you punch above average in grades and appear to know all the ins and outs of getting to graduation. I basically got told what to take my first two quarters but with A- ish average my advisor let me do what I wanted thereafter.
A lot of it pivots too on the high school curriculum you completed… if you are AP Scholar / IB program / or went to a name brand prep school the likelihood you need to go Core heavy early on to avoid getting your face ripped off in upper division classes is less likely. In contrast, I think it is a smart idea if you are a big fish from a small pond high school to start with the basics.
This focus on completing the Core in two years is relatively new. My kids each took both Hum and Sosc their first years, but neither actually completed the Core until their third year, and their advisers did not give them any crap about that. (They only needed one or two quarters their third year.) Some of their best Core teachers were grad students (and faculty), and the worst were (young) faculty.
Re “x for poets”: One of my kids and her friends took Core Bio, and they were completely contemptuous of it (but not so contemptuous that they were willing to share a straight Bio classroom with a horde of grade-hungry pre-meds). They definitely thought it should be eliminated (but only if there was an option to take non-pre-med sections of regular Bio).
On the other hand, both my wife and I took the same Bio for Poets class in college, and it was absolutely wonderful. Taught by a future Nobel laureate, and both he and everyone else were very enthusiastic about being there. And my best friend, then a History major, took Rocks for Jocks first semester junior year and was so enthralled that he begged to be allowed to change majors to Geology. He wound up spending a good part of his career as a high-level officer of Environmental Defense.
They now have a separate pre-med bio sequence for non-science majors:
“The Pre-Med Sequence for non–science majors (BIOS 20170 Microbial and Human Cell Biology - BIOS 20175 Biochemistry and Metabolism), of which two courses will be credited towards general education.” (from the College Catalog)
My son skipped Core Bio and is doing Metabolism which he really enjoys. Non-bio pre-meds are able to petition into the sequence. The first part was taught by the director of undergraduate research for the division and had mean exam scores ranging from high 50’s to low 70’s (out of 100); while the 2nd part was rumored to be “easier”, the exams seem to be tracking the same curve. However, going off enrollments it appears that they only lost a few from first quarter. Anyway, there is only one section of Metabolism so you don’t get the wide disparity of instruction and curving that exists in Core Bio.
I think a good number still finish the Core in third year even with the scaled-back version. However, with the new Latin Honors system, I wonder if that will change since you are also assessed on course selection as well as GPA for anything above cum laude. Can’t imagine that putting off Civ in order to take an upper div. course would be considered unfavorably, but putting off an overloaded schedule and/or basic courses till junior or senior year in order to plump up the GPA might be. At any rate, there is now an element of judgement attached to those honors designations. Hutchins award at the end of sophomore year seems to be strict GPA, however, so you can float through and end up in top 10% - at least theoretically. My kids have met a variety of characters at UC, but they haven’t yet found a true slacker. No doubt some exist, but the culture seems to encourage the opposite (my son knows a couple of kids who were taking five courses last fall, for instance, and/or triple majoring).
However, some kids who come in gunning for major courses right away rather than focusing on the Core can find that this plan will backfire - and badly - if the self-discipline/time management skills aren’t quite developed yet. Yes, it probably does depend on your high school prep; however, not always - and it’s really hard to know unless you’ve been tested with a quarter or two. Core instructors are used to dealing with first and second years; major instructors might be a bit more quirky, expect a bit more basic knowledge, and teach to a more packed classroom. So - IMO - it’s best to be a bit cautious at first. Most take four courses rather than three anyway, and those 10 weeks just fly by . . . plenty of time to ramp up the difficulty of content later on.
Both my kids were skilled close-readers coming out of high school so were/are able to handle hum and sosc together. However, the hum instructor (same guy for both kids) is notable for grading “harsh” and has accelerated the pace this quarter by cutting the time to completion in half for the essays and assigning them a lot earlier on. I’ve been joking that this is the STEM-version of Hum because the instructor is known to be a GPA-killer and the content increases with difficulty as you progress through the sequence.
Advisors at UC were a mixed bag a couple years ago when they first ramped up enrollments by a significant number, but my son has found his advisor to be very helpful this year so maybe he got lucky - or maybe they are just more knowledgable and helpful as a whole now. He had some curriculum choices for winter due to completing the math core in the fall but apparently the two of them decided next steps together. He opted to fulfill his language requirement instead of diving into a major course so he’ll be done with six of the eight core/FL requirements by the end of first year.
YMMV depending on curriculum plan, but IMO my kids made the correct decision to front-load their Core. Among other things, neither came in wanting to rush into a major course of study without first getting a broad-based curricular experience; I also noticed that the more Core courses taken early on, the sooner you can immerse yourself in lots of interesting major and elective choices down the road. You can also switch off to just your major advisor instead of the general academic advisor. My D begins her BA thesis in the spring and has already taken all but one other course required for her major, so her schedule next year (her final year) will be practically all free-choice electives. However, the path might look very different for someone with a heavy pre-req load in first year, or a major that involves strict adherence to course sequence; in that case, spreading out both the Core and your major can make a lot of sense.
Notwithstanding Novus’s generally excellent perspective, the above quote seems a bit shortsighted. Not sure about “Rocks for Jocks” or “Physics for Poets”, but I do have a bit of perspective regarding some of those Sosc courses. I’m assuming the reference to “serious texts” is supposed to be a contrast to the later critique on “SOSC for Scientists.” Perhaps the thinking is that “Classics” or “Power” would be preferable to “Social Science Inquiry.”
What’s interesting is that not only has the field of social science undergone a significant shift in methodology over the past 100 years, but UChicago is credited with leading the way in quite a bit of that trend (or at least it was known for hiring top quality social scientists who conducted their research using the newer, more empirical and formalized methods). We are talking nearly 90 or so years ago, while the university was still reasonably young. Back in those days the original Core (dubbed the New Plan at the time) included empirically-oriented social science courses that utilized the current research methods of inquiry and were taught by highly-regarded faculty. It was only a bit later that Hutchins, under the sway of Mortimer Adler and his enthusiasm for instituting a “Great Books” curriculum at the College, ultimately decided to jettison what he called “facts” for “ideas” and introduced a more Classical approach. This pedagogical debate - that of Philosophy vs. Empiricism, or perhaps Humanism vs. “Scientism” - went on between faculty and Admin. for awhile and the recounting in Boyer’s History is a great reminder that all the so-called rancor of today is a sandbox fight compared to what happened during earlier administrations. Even the Maroon was involved in the fray!! (surprise, surprise . . . )
Fast forwarding several decades: Looking at the archived Catalogs from the past 25 years (see link below), we can see that in the mid-90’s, Core Sosc was pretty much along the lines of Classics, Power, Self, and Mind (not sure people realize that Mind has been around for at least 25 years now!). However, by 1998 the College re-introduced an option to consider more contemporary social scientific methods (including data interpretation and analysis) with a sequence called “Democracy and Social Science,” Social Sciences 131-133. Many know it today as “Social Science Inquiry,” Sosc 13100-13300.
http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/thecollege/archives/
So, we can see that a “SOSC for Scientists” course - actually, “SOSC for SOCIAL Scientists” is more correct - has been around the university’s undergraduate program for awhile now. It began with the original Core back in 1930 and was effectively re-introduced by the late 90’s. Years, even decades, of exile from the Social Sciences General Ed. sequence doesn’t change those facts. Fortunately, one can rest assured that SSI is not something that came into existence only recently and with the goal of making things easier for those STEM kids (or whatever it is that Conventional Wisdom is saying about that . . . ). An examination of contemporary social science methods is absolutely a legitimate topic for something referred to as a “Social Science Core.” That should be obvious.
(NB: at least a few years ago when one of my kids was pre-registering for her first quarter, the College strongly recommended mixing it up a bit. For example, if you were an empiricist at heart, consider taking Classics. If you were a Hum person, take SSI or Mind. Very good advice, IMO, but guessing most opt for what they are most interested in or comfortable with)
In the interest of understanding better the College’s (perhaps) evolved goals for the Core and its timing, I took a look at Boyer’s book as well as those archived catalogs. Here’s what I found:
Boyer specifically mentioned that the reformed Core of 1985, while sorely needed at the time in order to reintroduce some cohesiveness into the general education portion of the College curriculum, was begging for simplification by the mid-90’s. At 21 required courses - half of the total needed to graduate - it was simply too big and prevented students from customizing their course of study, including the option to take more electives or specialize more in their major.
Importantly, Boyer mentioned a specific defect: the larger Core “pushed many general-education sequences into the third and even the fourth years of undergraduate study. This pattern contradicted the assumptions of the original architects of the Core in the 1930s—namely, that general education should come first, not last, for it prepared younger students for the methods and learning learning skills necessary for higher-level university work and exposed them to broad areas of knowledge before they were expected to focus on one field of study.” In addition, “the deflection of parts of the Core into the later years of the College made it virtually impossible for students to study abroad in their third year, since many students were forced to spend that year taking yearlong general-education sequences that they had been unable to fulfill or had postponed fulfilling in the first two years of their studies.”
(Boyer, John W. The University of Chicago . University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition). [NB: in those days the College hadn’t yet incorporated Core courses into the Study Abroad program like they do today]
So it appears that a good reason for the “controversial” simplification of the Core under Sonnenschein (which, in reality, was about the fourth iteration/revision since it was first introduced in 1931) was to make it easier to complete in your first two years of study, although having a more flexible and open curriculum was also a worthy goal.
The archived catalogs make it pretty clear that the College had no realistic expectation of students completing the larger Core in two years. For instance, in 1995/6: “All students, except those taking precalculus, should normally have finished their physical sciences requirement by the end of their second year. Students are urged to complete their natural sciences requirement by the end of their third year.”
http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/thecollege/archives/catalog95/aa.Front.95.html (scroll down)
However, after the Sonnenschein revision (1999/2000) we see more optimistic wording as to the General Education nature of the Core and the expectation of completion within the first two years:
“Undergraduate education at Chicago begins with a common core curriculum, conducted from the standpoint of multiple disciplines but beholden to none, which provides opportunities for critical inquiry and the discovery of knowledge. Chicago’s longstanding commitment to a rigorous core of general education for first- and second-year students emphasizes the unique value of studying original texts and of formulating original problems based on the study of those texts. The objective of our faculty-taught general-education courses–which constitute the major component of the first two years in the College–is not to transfer information, but to raise fundamental questions and to encourage those habits of mind and those critical, analytical, and writing skills that are most urgent to a well-informed member of civil society.” http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/thecollege/archives/catalog99-00/htm/LibEd99.html “Liberal Education at Chicago”
Of course, the Core’s structure and requirements probably so lag - and will porbably always lag - the latest developments in academia (such as the introduction of new and highly technical majors, or revised preprofessional curricular requirements, or even the admission of ever more talented and prepared high school students). Thus, it may still not fit perfectly or smoothly within someone’s course of study. Perhaps the solution to that dilemma isn’t to ignore the two-year completion goal but, as suggested above, to use the opportunity for trying something new. Or - also suggested - maybe the solution is to pay careful attention to the choices and select something truly intriguing. From the College’s perspective, the solution might be to continue to expand the opportunity set of relevant and interesting Core curricular choices, exactly as the College has been doing over the past 20 years. They seem to believe that it’s possible to accommodate a variety of preferences and still be able to offer a “Core” curriculum. Interestingly, they also seem to be satisfying not only student preferences, but faculty’s as well: the Core is likely “due” for another controversial update about now, but so far we haven’t heard of any such storm brewing.
Versions of that statement in the College Catalog of '99 have resounded throughout the history of this institution. I remember reading something like those words in the Catalog for '62, which somehow found its way to deepest West Texas, where a kid picked it up and wanted to join the conversation.
A College dedicated to the big questions and the essential thinkers and how to read, analyze, and write about them and to do all this in the company of like-minded others - these were magnets for kids in the big cities as well as the hinterlands. I also liked the whiff of “storms brewing” that came from my distant reading of the Hutchins’ experimentations and confrontations. I even liked the dangerous allure of the city of Chicago and of the neighborhood in which the University was situated.
Whether the Core (called simply “the Gen Ed requirement” in my day) is best completed in two years or two and a bit seems inessential to me. The tinkering with its content and size is always going to be part of the debate at Chicago, where there are always storms brewing over the meaning, the content, and the future of liberal education. The decisive factor is that, unlike in almost all the peer schools, this common reading and analysis of the great thinkers continues to exist, no matter the names given to the courses.
If one has to name only one component of a Chicago education that makes it different from almost any other education it is the existence and the persistence over many decades of the Core. There must be many who avoid this school because of it. There are others who choose it for this very reason. Quite aside from the merits of the thing itself the Core functions as a screen to deter all those many very bright kids who only want to learn what they need to learn to enter a particular profession or master a particular field. These are worthy objectives, but being willing to spend a year and a bit reading and thinking with others about the most important human questions - that is a privilege that comes only once in a lifetime. Those who even at an early age see the beauty of this are the ones that should come to the University of Chicago now as they have in all past years.