<p>Hi,
Recently, I just met a Columbia alumnus, who had been a professor of computer science at Columbia for 8 years before moving to our state university. He was a computer science major at Columbia college in the early '80s. After graduating, he continued to work on his master and PhD degrees at Columbia university.
What he told me is that as a computer science major, he did not learn any useful knowledge from the Core at Columbia. He thinks that the Core is a waste of time for any science majors because critical thinking, what the Core focuses on, is an aspect at which many science-minded people already excel. Therefore, not many science majors will benefit from the Core. </p>
<p>Because I'm going to apply to Columbia SEAS in the coming fall, I would like to have some insights from the current science majors at Columbia about the Core. Do you think the Core benefits you in some ways? Please share your experience with the Core.</p>
<p>I dislike this kind of condescension (not necessarily from you). The kind of critical thinking that you learn in Core classes is not the same employed in science. For example, in biological research, you must have the intellectual creativity and passion to explore a topic in depth, design an experiment, and then troubleshoot your experiment when things go wrong. When you get unexpected results, you have to find a plausible explanation. This is not the same as the critical reading skills that you learn in Lit Hum and CC.</p>
<p>I’m a bio and English double major, so I get to see both sides of the picture. I loved Lit Hum because I already knew I loved literature. CC was harder for me to accept, but once I did, I enjoyed it immensely. In literature, you read closely because each word is a chance for interpretation. Close reading provides a much richer experience of a work. In philosophy, precision is extremely important because arguments often hinge on subtle differences. You pay attention to words not for their beauty and the images they evoke, but for their contributions to the argument as a whole. These kinds of critical thinking aren’t really the foci of scientific thinking. I’m not saying that learning how to read critically is the only skill that you get out of these classes, but I’d say it’s one of the most important ones. You also learn how to grapple with big ideas and write thoughtfully and cogently - useful skills for any major.</p>
<p>I have met my fair share of science majors who scoff at the humanities for being “useless.” If that’s your (again, not necessarily you the OP) belief, and nothing can change that, then the Core is not for you, and neither is Columbia. However, even for diehard science people, the Core can be eye-opening.</p>
<p>Edit: A lot of people (including myself) have written about their Core experiences here. While most of them probably weren’t science majors, I’m sure their responses would be useful in giving you an idea of what you can expect from the Core (although each experience is different). I’m sure there are links to past threads in one of the stickies.</p>
<p>Also - SEAS Core is very different than the College Core. Fewer humanities courses and in fact follows engineering requirements nationwide in having non-technical classes, it is just that at CU it is more structured than elsewhere.</p>
<p>There are a fair share of anyone who will speak ill of something, but don’t let it inform how you should view it. It is always a manner of perception. If you believe something is useful to you (which they wouldn’t have a class if fundamentally there was something you could gain) then you will enjoy it. </p>
<p>I think with Demeter, of the science folks I know who didn’t enjoy the core (and basically anyone who didn’t), it was often because they didn’t really want to be at Columbia. It was best school they got into kind of deal. I would say this was a very small minority of folks. But their negativity for some reason is at a louder volume than the rest of us who would say otherwise.</p>
<p>The best reason for the Core is entirely personal and self-minded. It lets you figure things out for yourself - it encourages reflection and also demands a degree of perfection, saying things precisely the way you intend them because being intellectually lazy will introduce you to a storm of comments. I can name a number of gaffers out there in the sciences that portend that they have incredible intelligence, but they are bad communicators, lack ability to be comfortable in discussing wide ranging topics, and cannot even explain in layman’s terms what they do. If you value broad education, then probably something like the core sounds great. If you value an education that will put you in situations that will enhance your thinking abilities, make you a better communicator, all the while going through it with everyone at your school, then you will love the Core.</p>
<p>It isn’t for everyone. I can’t imagine not having it, but I understand some people can have legitimate beefs with it. Each their own. If you want to go to CU, you have to accept it, but you don’t have to accept someone’s bad experience has a harbinger of yours. If you grab on to the core, you will like it, love it, and never stop talking about it.</p>
<p>You can’t possibly be ignorant enough to give any weight to a blanket statement of the nature, “He thinks that X is a waste of time for any Y because critical thinking, what the X focuses on, is an aspect at which many Y people already excel.” Life is not so black and white.</p>
<p>Thank you for your insights!
Sorry if some of you found my post ignorant. In fact, I have no prior experience with higher education. I’m a first-generation college student who moved to the US one year ago. This guy was the first Columbia guy I met. Besides him, I dont know any people outside of academia. </p>
<p>@admissionsgeek: Are you a SEAS student? How is the SEAS core different from the CC’s Core? How future engineers benefits from such Core?
(I read a lot about the Core from the brochure Columbia sent me; however, I still want to have some insights from the current students.)</p>
<p>@everyone:
If you want to be well-rounded people, why dont choose a liberal arts college with loose distribution requirements.
What are the benefits of a strictly restrained Core?</p>
<p>I think (part) of the point of it is to force students to experience other disciplines - particularly the first two years to aid students in eventually choosing a major. Because some students come in with a solid idea of what they want to do, they might ignore other fields – I guess their trying to say “here are other options, try it, you might find a new major that you enjoy more.”</p>
<p>No, taking these classes aren’t exactly applicable to science majors (I’m in engineering myself) but I think the point is to provide exposure and introduce new options.</p>
<p>Pnptruong, one of the aspects of the Core is that everyone takes the same classes (well, almost everyone) and reads the same things, so all CC students (and, to a certain extent, SEAS students) have the same “core” liberal arts foundation. Yet, at the same time, individual experiences of the Core are incredibly varied. For me, this is a plus because Columbia doesn’t have the traditional close-knit campus feel that other schools have, and the Core is, if you will, the intellectual tie that binds everyone. For SEAS, the situation is a bit different. SEAS students have their own “core” engineering classes, and there are fewer SEAS students overall, so in general, I think SEAS is more closely knit than CC, even without the Core. But as a CC student, the Core is incredibly important to me because it’s common to all other CC students and alumni. Of course, the fact that everyone takes the same classes is a huge turn-off for some people.</p>
<p>The other advantage of the Core is that because everyone has to take these classes, you’re not at a disadvantage if the humanities aren’t your strong point. Sure, you might not do as well as the history and philosophy major in your class, but there are other non-humanities people struggling through the same texts with you.</p>
<p>to emphasize because i thought i was clear above, plus there are other great core threads here pnp, so check them out.</p>
<p>the core provides a framework in which thinking and asking questions are highly encouraged. because everyone goes through it together, there is an across the board emphasis on these ‘soft skills’ - critical thinking, understanding multiple perspectives, articulating ideas; and not something that is just confined to liberal arts students. whereas loose requirements might give you breadth, it doesn’t necessarily achieve the same idea as the Core - which sets the tone for the academic life. if you attend columbia you know that you will be asked to think a lot, forced into sometimes non-preferable situations, but will have the tools to make them into useful situations. it is what makes the core - however simple a concept - pretty incredible because it is at once the same, but allows for so much individual difference. add on top the fact that most kids in your classes are going to blow you away with how smart they are, you feel like you are part of something special and learning and meeting people you never would have.</p>
<p>it is something that is not replicated at any other university (u of c doesn’t have the same concept, they have distribution requirements, let’s be fair - the a similar emphasis on intellectualism and academics), and top lib arts colleges either have loose requirements or schools with strong cores like St. John’s are not going to put you in the same room with the caliber of students at Columbia because CU gets to skim off the top for the most part.</p>
<p>I wonder if the Core has changed over years? (like it was worse in that professor’s time, and CU does not focus on undergrad studies at that time…)
Anyway, it’s really useful to hear the current insights. Thank you all!
I’m applying to SEAS this fall.</p>