<p>Hey guys. So I'm basically a math/sci beast, going premed. I don't really have any interest in studying art or music, and I hate literature with a passion. The only parts of the core curriculum i think i would like are the frontiers of science class, and philosophy. I really want to take many upper-level science courses in college years. To me, college is about doing what you WANT to do. Nonetheless, Columbia students almost always advocate the core curriculum, and how it makes you a more "complete" human. </p>
<p>So how long does the core generally take to complete? Also, for a person like me, do you see any benefit in the core?</p>
<p>wow how cliche are you....i do see a benefit of the core for you since it'll open up your mind and make you from an asian math/sci beast going premed to a more complete individual b/c it'll force you to take courses in music, art, and lit. there's a lot more to this world than just what career you are going to follow up on. if you aren't someone who's willing to take advantage of expanding your mind, and learning about other ways of thinking through art or music or literature or w/e which are great outlets, via the Core curriculum, then I dont see Columbia as a fit for you. thats just my opinion, i think people go to Columbia b/c they are excited by the Core and WANT to do it to better themselves in an intellectually stimulating and very different environment. i dont know how long this takes, I'm assuming the first two years, columbia students i'm sure could comment on this more, but I think, that if you are willing to change your mindset a little bit and be more open to the Core and what it advocates, you will surely benefit.</p>
<p>The core takes up about a third of your classes. It's not for everyone. I definitely would not recommend Columbia for someone who resents the curriculum, as I think it will be a miserable experience for you. There are a ton of other colleges.</p>
<p>The core was perfect for me because I happen to be good at math/science, but have interests all across the academic spectrum, from history to literature to law to music to sociology, etc. What the core gave me was:</p>
<p>1) A well-developed and carefully considered curriculum in many of the above
2) No competitive disadvantage to taking those classes.</p>
<p>Point 2 is somewhat subtle: basically, at, say, Brown, anyone taking classes outside their area of expertise gets somewhat penalized competitively, because mostly they will be in classes with students who are specializing there, and will not be as prepared to excel. As a result, your GPA may suffer if you take academic risks. However, in a core curriculum, EVERYONE has to take those classes, so if you like the subject matter, it is not a competitive disadvantage to take them - because your class is full of people who also are not passionate about, say, classical music.</p>
<p>The core also gives some people:</p>
<p>3) An eye-opening experience that jump-starts newfound passion for a particular subject, one they wouldn't have had if they had stuck to what they had always known and excelled at.</p>
<p>College is a place for taking risks, and the Core nudges you in that direction. If you find the idea of required classes offensive, other schools may suit you more.</p>
<p>Um, if you don't want to study those things, I can't possibly see how it would be beneficial if you're just going to think about what a waste of time it is.</p>
<p>i agree with the above, dont bother applying to columbia.....also, there r more things out there u can do other than becoming a doctor, u dont have to do what ur parents want u to do or what u think is the pinnacle of achievement.</p>
<p>yea, except i want to be a doctor...a pediatric hematologist, to be specific...my parents dont really care what i am as long as im moderately successful..and to me the pinnacle of achievement is Hugh Hefner...i'm just sick of bs-ing my way through english and history papers about random crap that doesn't hold any practical significance...i mean who gives a damn about Willy Lowman and his psychiatric problems (he's not REAL)...i'd rather spend my college years on something significant and useful</p>
<p>I'm an engineering student and I used to think exactly like you as an undergrad. History, writing, and reading classes do come in handy later on. It broadens your views and your mind.</p>
<p>so what your are saying is, if i would rather spend my college years on something significant and useful, then Columbia isn't the place for me...that's hilarious...way to diss your school viva..haha... that's just brilliant</p>
<p>
[quote]
i'm just sick of bs-ing my way through english and history papers about random crap that doesn't hold any practical significance...i mean who gives a damn about Willy Lowman and his psychiatric problems (he's not REAL)...i'd rather spend my college years on something significant and useful
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because there's no random crap that is totally useless in math and science, like memorizing the steps or the Kreb's Cycle or all the reaction mechanisms in organic chemistry, right?</p>
<p>hey man...the krebs cycle is very important...the stages of substrate-level phosphorylation is quite important in research involving oxygen transport efficiency, with applications in current biotechnology</p>
<p>I think what is trying to be said is that Columbia is very liberal arts-geared, and NYC is relatively liberal. Columbia definately would not be a top school if it was a terrible school, but if you are not a liberal arts-geared person, it's just not a good match. Different people fit in at different schools--nothing wrong with the person or the school, and different people think different things are important. No offense to the person or the school! (And this really isn't meant to be condescending, it might just sound that way, cuz a lot of typed things do)</p>
<p>Oh, and one more thing! When I had my interview, my interviewer was a computer science engineer (completely different from what i want to do, but oh well) and we discussed the pros and cons to the core, and he said at first its tough because you want to be able to jump in to the things you love, and that a lot of people felt that way, but in the end it was definately worth it and that he ended up getting as much time in his area as anyone else at another college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
so what your are saying is, if i would rather spend my college years on something significant and useful, then Columbia isn't the place for me...that's hilarious...way to diss your school viva..haha... that's just brilliant
[/quote]
if you honestly believe that this is an accurate interpretation of the post you replied to, then Columbia DEFINITELY isn't the place for you.</p>
<p>I disagree with this "Columbia isn't the place for you" mentality. If more schools were like Columbia, such ignorant dismissals of its core curriculum wouldn't be made. Even the most recalcitrant math geek benefits from the core, and will help stop spreading misapprehensions about it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I disagree with this "Columbia isn't the place for you" mentality. If more schools were like Columbia, such ignorant dismissals of its core curriculum wouldn't be made. Even the most recalcitrant math geek benefits from the core, and will help stop spreading misapprehensions about it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>but more places ARENT like columbia...that's what makes the core special in its own elitist way.</p>
<p>It is somewhat of a Catch-22. It's at the same time necessary and what makes Columbia unique. Were it ever to truly catch on, Columbia could only really say it was the first and the best at it. Example: Estonia's president (a CC grad) is attepting to import aspects of the Core into the country's education system, and everyone knows it originated at this university. </p>
<p>It's a strategy that worked for the standard legal curriculum first devised at Harvard Law...</p>