*ROCKSTAR* professors

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
1

<p>Those are the buzz words, anyway. </p>

<p>I'm told that most of Columbia's faculty are rockstar professors who don't care to teach - who were hired due to impressive achievements and resumes. That they are highly overrated because of their big lists of accomplishments. Needless to say, there is a great deal to learn from them. But if they can't teach....uh...what's the point?</p>

<p>Please, tell me what you think of the Columbia faculty, particularly the science and core teachers if possible, and if a motivated student can frequently engage in discussion or sit in a room with less than 50 people. So from Columbia students, how good have you classes been, and how well can the teachers actually teach? Are you disappointed?</p>

2

<p>I can't really give perspective on Columbia as a whole(I'm not a student - though hopefully despite my ED deferral, I'll get in), but I can speak about Columbia's CS department(as I know several people there). Here's one quote from a PhD student about the CS department: "They're all great, amazing scientists, but teaching, they're hit or miss." Note that this quote ONLY refers to the CS department, but it may hold true to some degree for Columbia's other departments.</p>

<p>Here's another take on the issue: First, professors have specific interests (again, talking from what I know about the CS department). They're doing research in a very specific niche - so, for some intro classes, you may find yourself being taught by a teacher that doesn't really care about the class so much. Take that in contrast to non-intro classes in the professor's specific subfield. At that point, you start to make use of so called "rock star" professors who are leaders in their field. You get to understand their passion - they're teaching what they love, after all.</p>

<p>Moreover, you get the chance to do research with these so called "rock star" professors, if you're interested in the material. Again, here you gain a huge advantage - you get to research with a leader in a field, in a subject the professor is passionate about.</p>

<p>All of that said, I can say that there are quite a few good intro classes(from what I hear) such as Gulati's Econ 101. Some of the quotes on CULPA about him were to the effect of "It's worth getting up at 9AM for this guy's class! Take it if you can!"</p>

<p>As for the core, I would (again, from what I hear) say that you need not worry. This is Columbia's prime strength; it sets the focus of education on the undergrads, which is not the case at many other institutions of higher education. Columbia makes sure to pick very good professors for the core, and this should not be something you worry about.</p>

<p>I know there are Columbia alums(e.x. Denzera) who can answer more specific questions much better than I can, so please feel free to ask further questions.</p>

3

<p>As the previous poster mentioned, as with any large university, the caliber of the faculty ranges from horrible to extraordinary.</p>

<p>As a first-semester freshman (now second I guess), here's what I can tell you. I took 5 classes this semester. The two "mediocre" professors I had were in Calc III and Principles of Economics with Steinberg (new guy). But let me qualify that a little bit. Calc III is literally taught by about 10+ professors (many different sections), and the nature of mathematics, at least on this level, is that there's really not much difference between "good" and "bad". I only classify my teacher as mediocre, well- because she was a satisfactory teacher. She explained the concepts, did problems on the board, held extensive office hours, and gave you feedback on your work. Does this necessarily make one better at math? Of course not. Math is intrinsically dependent upon the aptitude of the student and how much individual work you're willing to put in.</p>

<p>As for the sciences. I myself come from a very prominent magnet Math/Science HS. And I can truly say, that overall, Frontiers of Science was one of the best courses I took (and not because it was easy). Because, in high school, while we learned the same inane concepts over and over again, Frontiers truly allows you to gain a macroscopic perspective on the "Frontiers" of many fields of science. This semester, we had lecturers that ranged from a former Columbia College Dean who worked in collaboration with Watson (of Watson and Crick) lecture on Evolutionary biology to the environmental climate professor who's "Conveyor belt" model inspired the movie "The Day after Tomorrow". My seminar leader was the brilliant, funny, and inspirational Donald Hood, a leading neuro-optic scientist who enfused the class with knowledge and excitement. </p>

<p>But most of all, my Literature Humanities class truly opened my eyes. Some of you may remember that I complained a while back about receiving my first B- on a paper. Well, since then I've truly come to appreciate just how much that class has impacted me. Formerly a student of the sciences and mathematics, now I certainly feel a certain "wordliness" (it could just be arrogance though). I catch on to references made about PLato's Symposium, or some casual mention of the Pelopennesian War (did I spell that right? oh well). </p>

<p>The instructors and students that I've encountered are by and large interested, helpful, and excited to be there. The Core is largely dependent upon who you get as your instructor, but believe you me, if you do manage to luck out, you'll never forget your first semester of Lithum =)</p>

4

<p>
[quote]
Here's one quote from a PhD student about the CS department: "They're all great, amazing scientists, but teaching, they're hit or miss." Note that this quote ONLY refers to the CS department, but it may hold true to some degree for Columbia's other departments.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This applies to any professor at any top university. It's not</p>

5

<p>This doesn't help, but my friend says Jeff Sachs is brilliant/amazing for the one of two weeks that he's actually present each semester lol.</p>

6

<p>Like any research university, Columbia hires top researchers. Unlike some others, however, Columbia also requires them to teach some undergrad classes. Does this mean the superstars are great teachers? Not necessarily. Some are, however. My S had a small class (less than 20) in quantum mechanics with Brian Greene and found his lectures outstanding. Though he travels frequently, Greene arranged the course (because he has the clout with Columbia to do this) so that it could meet on either of two days in any given week, so that Greene would not miss class.</p>

<p>In general, the physics and math departments have many options for small classes, especially once beyond the intro level, and opportunities to work with faculty. There are some truly dedicated teachers, and some lousy ones, and some competent but not especially inspiring ones, just like other universities. S found some mentors in both CS and Operations Research departments, though not majoring in either.</p>

<p>S also had excellent experiences with the core, though none of his classes were taught by profs except for those he took for major cultures. He didn't object to this, because he found that both his LitHum and CC teachers were excellent and -- especially LitHum his first year -- led by instructors who really cared about the undergrad experience. The core lived up to his high expectations. (Except for Frontiers of Science, which he hated.)</p>

<p>Based on his experiences, the one department that seems most undergraduate unfriendly is econ, in spite of the two brilliant lecturers they have teaching the large introductory courses.</p>

7

<p>don't worry most of your classes freshman and sophmore year will be taught by TAs who can't teach, not professors who can't teach.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
don't worry most of your classes freshman and sophmore year will be taught by TAs who can't teach, not professors who can't teach.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Was that your experience? It certainly was not my S's.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
don't worry most of your classes freshman and sophmore year will be taught by TAs who can't teach, not professors who can't teach.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>this is just patently wrong.</p>

10

<p>in my experience the TAs are usually fantastic at explaining things. and the helprooms (like for physics or math), staffed by PhD students, are tremendously helpful as well.</p>

<p>average professor teaching ability varies greatly by department. in my experience, the physics and applied math departments have legions of gifted lecturers. the CS department is ok, certainly not bad, but hey, you're talking about computer geeks, if they were motivational speakers CS probably wouldn't be their calling. the econ department has some legendary professors (gulati chief among them), and others who hide from students. In the History and Philosophy departments, every single class i've taken (~3 in each) has had an absolutely brilliant teacher who made me want to get up even for my 9am classes. I think a lot of the liberal-arts departments average better in professor rating, just by reputation anyway.</p>

<p>browse CULPA</a> - Columbia Underground Listing of Professor Ability to check out ratings of professors in departments you're interested in.</p>

11

<p>Denzera -- I'm very interested in CS. While I know a few people there already, I'd be interested to get another perspective on the department. Can you elaborate on the professors you've had in the CS department and your experiences?</p>

12

<p>Off the top of my head, professors with cults of personality among undergrads who take their classes:</p>

<p>-Sunil Gulati
-Jeff Sachs
-Eric Foner</p>

<p>Also, some of the TAs are great. When I took a second class with a history professor, I made sure I got the same TA. He even wrote one of my grad school recs.</p>

<p>Furthermore, just wait until you get to school. There's a good chance you'll be stunned at your options in the department you end up majoring in. Trust me.</p>