What other current students think of the Core

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
21

<p>“Is it wrong for people to go to an Ivy to hope for an education that will help them because the next business leader or plain white collared worker?”</p>

<p>It’s not wrong for people to apply, but the idea that the ad com should simply admit anyone who wants to get a good education and enter the workforce is absurd. Columbia’s rejecting 94 out of every 100 applicants who apply. Given how incredibly important the Core is to the identity of the College, it would be absurd for them to select the 6% of students who have little regard for the College’s academic identity. That doesn’t mean the admissions committee “made a mistake.” It’s a subjective process, so by definition they can’t admit the “wrong” student. But it’s still legitimate to question why the ad com would choose a student who doesn’t care about the Core, when the Core is such an important part of the College experience.</p>

<p>And OP, if you’re really struggling in Lit Hum, you’re doing something wrong. The class only requires a minimum of effort to do well in, and slightly more effort to ace. It’s good to do the reading and take the assignments seriously, but don’t psych yourself out.</p>

22

<p>@Iggs: Classes don’t have to be in lecture halls. Simply forcing the students to engage in “real life situations” seems laughably easy given the easy of simply forcing them to go out to upper Manhattan. </p>

<p>@Pwoods. I agree that Adcom shouldn’t let people in because they want to get educated. But the question of the day is what current students, the cream of the application crop who get in…, think of about the core. What is wrong with the 6.4% of kids who got in demanding something more relevant than learning about the Greeks?</p>

<p>Just because you can “do well” in lit hum doesn’t mean other can have similar talents. Some people are math science people, others are athletes, and still others are musicians. Not everyone is apt in the humanities field, which has questionable social value.</p>

23

<p>I’m surprised that anyone who thinks the humanities field has “questionable social value” would even apply to Columbia College. The College certainly does not hide the fact that it believes the Core to be the cornerstone of any rigorous and meaningful liberal arts education.</p>

24

<p>Is it that surprising that someone can exercise restraint and write a college essay that do not reflect their true views? Oh wait… everyone does it…</p>

<p>Ask a current columbia student why he/she thinks the core is important and you will get mumbling and the phrase “well rounded” or “because it’s important.” I have yet to see a legitimate argument for the core from a student.</p>

<p>PS. Is anyone else bummed out about the dining halls closing for like 5 days? Its gonna cost like 100 bucks to feed me through the break lol</p>

25

<p>You reject the main arguments for the core, that they encourage critical thinking, provide knowledge and experiences useful for socializing, and make you well rounded. Then you say nobody has ever put forth a “legitimate” argument. If every argument is illegitimate in your eyes, no wonder you haven’t seen a legitimate one.</p>

26

<p>Critical thinking maybe, “knowledge and experiences useful for socializing” doubtful. </p>

<p>Look at todays society. The people who are successful are specialists. Name a professional group that is “well rounded.” I look and see engineers, researchers, lawyers, doctors, etc… All of these people are NOT well rounded. They go to schools for the sole purpose of working on their craft for 4-10 years (i strongly doubt they teach doctors and researchers about… say the music humanities).</p>

<p>I think critical thinking can be kept but how can you justify the courses that are not: University Writing and Frontiers of Science. University Writing teaches critical thinking better than Lit Hum and CC.</p>

27

<p>You’ve mentioned specific high education, specialist careers. Look at any business executive, any politician, any sales person. You think lawyers don’t benefit from the Core!?</p>

28

<p>U Writing yes. Art & Music hum, global core… not so much. Lit Hum is debatable. I am CERTAIN there is a course that is more useful to our friends who plan to go into law than Lit hum.</p>

<p>Politicians and Salesmen need courses in psychology. They are better off with training tapes and lectures from sales specialists. Business executives also need leadership training in addition to the ability to sell an idea to someone else. All of these people require skills that are not necessarily provided by the core.</p>

29

<p>[Intruder here; I’m not Columbia-affiliated] </p>

<p>I should note that I really don’t know about the specific course content of the Columbia Core, and for all I know, it may really be completely outdated for 2011/2012. </p>

<p>However, the idea that every skill necessary to specific careers should be taught explicitly is rather short-sighted in my opinion. The problem is you never know if you will change career paths, or, if your current career path itself will drastically evolve. </p>

<p>Some of the most interesting breakthroughs occur serendipitously, and sometimes precisely BECAUSE of connections with seemingly unrelated fields. There’s the oft-repeated story of Kekule daydreaming the Ouroboros, and as a result, discovered the molecular structure of benzene. A more recent and equally well-known anecdote, since it’s Steve Jobs-year, involves Jobs’ enrollment in a calligraphy course at Reed. </p>

<p>Sales (to return to one of your examples CCsniper), is increasingly becoming a interdisciplinary profession, where art, design, behavioral psychology, UX, as well as data mining and analysis, computing etc and all increasingly entangled together. </p>

<p>The fact of the matter is, you never know what knowledge you’ll need in ten years, and having some general education courses may not be a bad thing. </p>

<p>[Again, perhaps ONLY reading Plato and Hobbes and Beowulf and a small subset of Western Great Books and Art is a bit narrow, but I have no problem with the principle of a general education in the arts, humanities and science no matter what your chosen field–academic or professional–is.] </p>

<p>UPDATE: I took a look at the Columbia Core course requirements. It does seem to lean heavily in the direction of the humanities; I do think it wouldn’t hurt to update the core to be a bit more balanced, as the intellectual tools needed today are really quite beyond just the Homeric epics and Beethoven symphonies [as great as both are]. It’s also rather silly to require 3 courses in lit, art and music but not have students take say, a course in computing or statistics, when the latter are becoming the basic tools for more and more fields. The lumping of all things sci/tech into Frontiers of Science seems really, really perfunctory. (and from the looks of it, that course doesn’t seem all too quantitative either…)</p>

30

<p>I agree with what your saying. I simply wish to put out another idea; Instead of having kids take the core, why not give them free choice over courses to take outside of major requirements. </p>

<p>As of current, here is what I understand to be the break down:</p>

<p>Third of credit goes to core.
Third of credit goes to Major
Third of credits goes to free choice.</p>

<p>Why not make it:
2/3 credit free choice
Third credit goes to major.

  • University Writing and maybe Frontiers of science if it is improved.</p>
31

<p>Obviously you need University Writing if you can’t even spell “you’re.” Jesus. Also, the phrase “as of current” makes no sense. People like you make me rue the day spellcheck was invented.</p>

32

<p>as a biased engineering alum I would say drop music hum, art hum and frontiers of science as mandatory, make principles of Econ, intro to international politics and intro to statistics as mandatory. these 3 classes are not preprofessional but are valuable in most walks of life and thoroughly substantive.</p>

<p>the rest of the core should stay in tact:</p>

<p>lit hum and CC go through many ideas on which our entire western society was founded, from liberty to free speech to capitalism to religious beliefs.</p>

<p>global core teaches you te history of cultures beyond America’s</p>

<p>U writing teaches you to write analytically, succinctly and clearly</p>

<p>foreign languages help you understand another culture more deeply and is valuable in many jobs, can place out if you already know another language</p>

<p>Some might see these suggestions as blasphemy, and some will see me defending current classes as a smitten Columbia alum. </p>

<p>But when I first stepped foot on college walk during orientation, I did not know about the core. When I heard about it, I hated the idea, it sounded restrictive and archaic. I took CC because lit hum was too much reading and majors cultures sounded incredibly boring. I was tone deaf, so I took art hum, and I was forced into U writing. All three were unexpectedly educational and I felt their impact strongest after leaving college walk for good.</p>

33

<p>The SEAS Core is much much better. If people took some economics in college, a lot of the ignorant things that they say can be fixed. We live in a math and science age. Some intro science classes would make our lives a little more understandable.</p>

<p>I am still convinced that Lit hum, CC, and global core have questionable value. Economics does a better job of teaching about capitalism that CC. Foreign language does what global core does. Why do them both?</p>

<p>I am just curious on what sorts of impact those courses had. I am still in college and perhaps am unable to see the benefits currently.</p>

<p>“Obviously you need University Writing if you can’t even spell “you’re.” Jesus. Also, the phrase “as of current” makes no sense. People like you make me rue the day spellcheck was invented.”</p>

<p>@francisvdahlmann. Cool story bro. I typpee how i wannn. “People like me” form the class of 2015 Columbia College. Read some books on the art of influencing other people. When you are done, find me one quote in these books that suggest that personal criticism furthers your argument. You humanities people are grammar nazis because of the dismal job market for you after college.</p>

34

<p>@CCsniper: francisvdahlmann doesn’t have much of a point, but there no need for denigrating ‘humanities’ people…whatever that means. [also, there’s no indication or evidence that francisvdahlmann is a ‘humanities person’]</p>

35

<p>My mistake. I am taught to be better than this.</p>

36

<p>Okay, so perhaps my remarks about your grammar were slightly juvenile, but I really don’t understand why you chose to attend Columbia if you hate the Core so much. There are plenty of other similar caliber schools that offer a much more open curriculum.</p>

37

<p>Here I disagree with popular consensus, while the core is perhaps the most identifiable aspect differentiating Columbia from others, there is a myriad of other reasons to go to the school and benefit from it. Maybe Columbia houses a very successful debate or dance team, allows the chance to hear from world leaders, has specialty in a specific major, research opportunities in a department, round the year internships in the city, a personal connection to the neighborhood. The students on this forum are in no position to criticize someone’s decision to attend Columbia. The whole point of critical thinking, that you all claim the core embodies, should be to question your assumptions and beliefs. How is criticizing and questioning the core any different? it should be subject to special examination, and why it’s not useless or a bad use of students’ precious time are valid questions.</p>

<p>The truth is 95+% of the population will view the core as a waste of time and just ivy league, naive, intellectual snobbery. you miss the point of the core if you think it is above close scrutiny and harsh criticism.</p>

38

<p>I understand where you’re coming from, confidentialcoll - but I have little sympathy for someone who goes online to whine about the fact that the university he goes to, which is one of the best in the world, has a required curriculum that many people would sacrifice a great deal to take. I certainly don’t think that the Core is the only reason to go to Columbia, and I don’t view it as some sort of golden standard which is above all criticism or modification. However, I still don’t understand why CCsniper, who clearly has a very negative view of the humanities in general, would choose to go to Columbia knowing that these requirements exist and are in fact a part of the essential educational philosophy of the college. That’s all I’m trying to say.</p>

39

<p>Is the Core a defining aspect of Columbia College? Pretty much, you can’t deny that.</p>

<p>Is it perfect? As I’ve said before, there are some things that could be improved (have everyone take UWriting before Lit Hum/CC, replace FoS with econ or math, shorten the syllabus and emphasize depth over breadth, etc.). I’m debating whether or not CC and Lit Hum should be merged, because their timelines are very similar, and it would put these classes more in line with the Global Core (study of a culture through the masterpieces it has produced).</p>

<p>Is it useful? It all depends on what you expect out of it. Sometimes, you’ll be pleasantly surprised; at other times, you’ll be underwhelmed. It really depends on the teacher, this I cannot stress enough.</p>

40

<p>It’s almost impossible to debate the value of the Core with you because of the lens through which you’re viewing the Core. You subscribe to a capitalist ideology and value education only for its economic benefits, i.e. how it helps you get a good job. That’s an incredibly narrow view of the world, albeit an all-too-common one in the United States. </p>

<p>And it’s just that kind of closed-mindedness that a broad-based liberal arts education is supposed to combat. By exposing you to a variety of different perspectives and encouraging you to evaluate them critically and in conversation with one another, it’s supposed to help you view the world in new and different ways.</p>

<p>The Core isn’t supposed to help you get a job; it’s supposed to help you realize that getting a job is not the only measure of worth in life.</p>

<p>Think about it. The “big question” in LitHum is: “What is the good life? What do people value?” For Homer, it might be glory and immortality through fame, or it might be the security of domestic life. Is Achilles a hero for fighting the Trojans and winning glory for Greece or a fool for selfishly choosing personal glory instead of going back and being with his family? What about Odysseus? He seems to value domestic life, since he spends 20 years trying to get back to see his wife. He even chooses the possibility of seeing his wife over Circe’s offer of immortality. But then as soon as he gets home, he goes out on another journey, which suggests that maybe family isn’t the greatest thing there is to Homer. Do these ancient Greek values change over time? The Oresteia suggests a transition between old values based on blood ties and revenge (which seem closer to the Iliad and Odyssey) to new values based on fairness and jury trials in Athens. </p>

<p>And guess what, that debate is extremely relevant to our modern lives. Should war be glorified and soldiers valorized? Or is it better to see war as a necessary and temporary evil and work tirelessly to bring our boys home as soon as possible? What about justice? Are there some crimes so heinous that the perpetrators deserve death? Are some murders understandable, if not justified, by the circumstances? (This also comes up in Medea).</p>

<p>The discussions you’ll have in the Core are incredibly relevant to your life and understanding of the world, even if they’re not relevant to your job. Columbia College is a liberal arts school that prides itself on the liberal arts and disdains pre-professionalism. If you came here expecting to remain closed-minded and take classes just so you could get a good job, I have no sympathy for you. I’m only sorry you took the spot of an applicant who would appreciate the College’s strengths.</p>