money and ranting
Apr. 22nd, 2007 10:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
amatyultareFirst, yay for getting money from the BAC! For buying anime! I'm a bit proud of myself for having it go all successfully, although to be honest it wasn't a tough sell. We're buying it and then donating it to the library. We are so community-oriented it's awesome. It was actually funny because at the last minute I was freaking out that they would be asking if I knew the procedure for donating to the library or random things like that, but basically the only questions were about Anime Society's attendance. I said it was not huge, but we would be focusing more on advertising next year (I definitely dropped the ball on that one this semester--this is a lesson to me to AVOID THEATER if I want to get ANYTHING ELSE DONE. Not that this lesson has sunk in. Did I mention I'm now the activities director for Student Musical Theatre? Moving on....)
Random note: library now open 24/7. People are psyched. All of the empty bookshelves are still depressing, but it honestly doesn't feel that different from the old library--which is a good thing in my mind. But after watching this video, I do miss the old Case. But yeah, that video? Priceless.
Now, a small rant. Two weeks ago, I think, a freshmen wrote an editorial for the Maroon-News about how there are too many required classes at Colgate, particularly bashing on the Core classes. (I have heard that![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
penguincrush37 wrote a response defending the classes, but I haven't read it yet.) For those of you playing along at home: Colgate does indeed have some requirements. First, it requires you take two classes in each of the three 'areas' of Humanities, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences/Math. Each class has to be in a different department (you can't take two Economics classes and call it good for social sciences, for instance). The idea is to make sure you get a broad basic education, blah blah. Classes in your major DO count, so it's 5 'extra' classes (or less, if you have an interdisciplinary major. Int'l Relations majors totally win, as both poli sci and econ classes are required as well as a language, which is humanities--only 3 'extra' classes). Anyway, that's the first part which always engenders much grumbling although all these people CHOSE to come to a 'liberal arts' college so I'm not sure why they're so upset. Am I the only person who knew about this (i.e. looked at the student handbook) before enrolling? Surely not.
Anyway, the second part are four CORE classes, and this is where things get messy. All of them are supposed to be interdisciplinary and deal with, basically, thought and inquiry in general. Two of the COREs are 'Scientific Perspectives' and 'CORE Cultures' and there are a range of choices for classes. Cultures is basically non-North-American culture of choice, and okay, are less connected to the interdisciplinary thing. It's about learning about another country/region, though, which I very much support. Mine was Core China and a lot of fun. Hardly anyone complains about this one, either.
Scientific Perspectives is, I believe, supposed to use science in some sort of interdisciplinary way...ish. Some are a little odd (for example, the class where students appreciate great pieces of art by chemically analyzing paints....) and some are just downright stupid. (Sorry for everyone who thought it was a brilliant class, but 'Atlantis Debate' was hands down the worst class I've ever taken at Colgate, partly because, wait for it, there was absolutely NO SCIENCE INVOLVED. I should have known when I found out it was being taught by a music professor...and I'm sure he's great in his field, but trying to 'discuss' these whacked-out theories when the teacher has no clue about the scientific principles involved just does not work. But this is a lengthy digression. Again, moving on...) People often suggest merging Scientific Perspectives with the Natural Sciences requirement, but I think they miss the point of the class--as do many of the professors. More on this in a moment.
The other two classes, which everyone loves to hate, are Western Traditions and Challenges of Modernity. These are absolutely required, no choices or options. Due to that, there's a ton of sections each semester and professors from different departments teach what's supposed to be the 'same class'. This leads to some interesting experiences, and differences in the curriculum...anyway. Western Traditions is about 'the traditions of Western thought', y'know, in case you didn't get that already. I had it with a Latin/Greek professor so we spent a LOT of the semester on the Illiad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, and Plato's dialogues, rounded out with the Torah/Old Testament and New Testament of the Bible. She kind of taught it like an English class, in the sense of having a lot of discussion of literary themes in the text, not so much about the trends of thought that shaped consequent thinking, writing, etc.
Challenges of Modernity is about....wait for it....modernism! My professor for that one was from the history department and had a really neat way of presenting different topics; he'd give us one reading from the beginning of the modernist movement and another, more current reading. So, we read 'Souls of Black Folks' and a book by Cornel West, Darwin and Stephen Jay Gould, Virginia Woolf's 'A Room of One's Own' and watched The Hours, etc. It was really neat and also brought up the subject of post-modernism, which I assumed would be a topic in any Modernism class--but apparently not. I was genuinely shocked when Professor Yee asked last week if we all knew what post-modernism was and I was the ONLY person who knew.
Now, my Challenge of Modernity class was wonderful and shaped my thoughts on what these classes should be. Let's be clear, though, my thoughts are not entirely out of left field, as they are based on what Colgate SAYS they want these classes to be. These classes are all about, theoretically, the ways that we view and approach problem-solving. Western Traditions, for example, *should* focus, in my mind, on traditions of western thought and how it has shaped our society and culture. It should not be taught like an ancient-languages English Lit class (alright, what else is significant about the tapestry that Helen is weaving in the Illiad? That's right, it's red! See the blood-symbolism there?). I mean, when you're even analyzing the Bible that way ('so what do you guys think Jesus meant by comparing his story to a seed?'), you have a focus issue.
Similarly, Scientific Perspectives should not be about having a 'fun science class' or 'science used in the most strange imaginable field'. It should be an exploration of scientific thought--because if you believe every students comes to Colgate with an adequate grasp of the scientific method and/or scientific thinking, you are crazy--and how this method of looking at problems works on various not-purely-scientific issues. To be fair, some classes are like this, I'm sure--just not all. Reading four books in a row by Graham Hancock does NOT count, and nor does analyzing how purple oil paint differs chemically from red oil paint, no matter how much the teacher may think s/he is being 'interdisciplinary'.
Core Cultures is partly just about Colgate trying to broaden knowledge of diverse cultures (or if you're cynical, it's a nod to the cult of multi-culti, not that that's necessarily a bad thing). However, it should ALSO be about how non-western cultures have different ways of looking at the world, approaching problems, etc. After all, isn't that one of the most basic aspects of a culture?
Finally, I really think my Challenge of Modernity class was a good example of what the class can be. We didn't spend all of our time on 'the big picture'; we discussed all sorts of smaller topics related to modernism/post-modernism (evolution and changes in scientific thought, trends in religion, challenges to racism and sexism, new forms of government, etc) and debated their individual merits quite a bit. Yet, at the end of the semester, I not only knew a lot about the particular issues, but I had a good sense, without the teacher ever actually spelling it out for us, about what modernism and modernist thinking was all about, how modernist thought in biology and political science and religion were fundamentally connected, and the pros and cons of that way of looking at the world. (This also goes for post-modernism although we spent less time on that topic). That is what a liberal arts education is all about, right? How can we 'learn how to analyze issues and think critically" if we don't even understand why we think the way we do and haven't been exposed to different ways of looking at the world?
I really don't want to give Colgate too much shit about this as I think they do their best, and I give them kudos for having the classes in the first place. I just wish that everyone--students and teachers both--put a little more thought into the reason behind the classes.
Um. That ended up REALLY long. And probably really boring. And did I really just spend an hour and a half writing that, which I could have used to work on my paper? Gah. So, um, yeah, that's it. Must do work (at least my Chinese is done.) Later, all!
Random note: library now open 24/7. People are psyched. All of the empty bookshelves are still depressing, but it honestly doesn't feel that different from the old library--which is a good thing in my mind. But after watching this video, I do miss the old Case. But yeah, that video? Priceless.
Now, a small rant. Two weeks ago, I think, a freshmen wrote an editorial for the Maroon-News about how there are too many required classes at Colgate, particularly bashing on the Core classes. (I have heard that
penguincrush37 wrote a response defending the classes, but I haven't read it yet.) For those of you playing along at home: Colgate does indeed have some requirements. First, it requires you take two classes in each of the three 'areas' of Humanities, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences/Math. Each class has to be in a different department (you can't take two Economics classes and call it good for social sciences, for instance). The idea is to make sure you get a broad basic education, blah blah. Classes in your major DO count, so it's 5 'extra' classes (or less, if you have an interdisciplinary major. Int'l Relations majors totally win, as both poli sci and econ classes are required as well as a language, which is humanities--only 3 'extra' classes). Anyway, that's the first part which always engenders much grumbling although all these people CHOSE to come to a 'liberal arts' college so I'm not sure why they're so upset. Am I the only person who knew about this (i.e. looked at the student handbook) before enrolling? Surely not.Anyway, the second part are four CORE classes, and this is where things get messy. All of them are supposed to be interdisciplinary and deal with, basically, thought and inquiry in general. Two of the COREs are 'Scientific Perspectives' and 'CORE Cultures' and there are a range of choices for classes. Cultures is basically non-North-American culture of choice, and okay, are less connected to the interdisciplinary thing. It's about learning about another country/region, though, which I very much support. Mine was Core China and a lot of fun. Hardly anyone complains about this one, either.
Scientific Perspectives is, I believe, supposed to use science in some sort of interdisciplinary way...ish. Some are a little odd (for example, the class where students appreciate great pieces of art by chemically analyzing paints....) and some are just downright stupid. (Sorry for everyone who thought it was a brilliant class, but 'Atlantis Debate' was hands down the worst class I've ever taken at Colgate, partly because, wait for it, there was absolutely NO SCIENCE INVOLVED. I should have known when I found out it was being taught by a music professor...and I'm sure he's great in his field, but trying to 'discuss' these whacked-out theories when the teacher has no clue about the scientific principles involved just does not work. But this is a lengthy digression. Again, moving on...) People often suggest merging Scientific Perspectives with the Natural Sciences requirement, but I think they miss the point of the class--as do many of the professors. More on this in a moment.
The other two classes, which everyone loves to hate, are Western Traditions and Challenges of Modernity. These are absolutely required, no choices or options. Due to that, there's a ton of sections each semester and professors from different departments teach what's supposed to be the 'same class'. This leads to some interesting experiences, and differences in the curriculum...anyway. Western Traditions is about 'the traditions of Western thought', y'know, in case you didn't get that already. I had it with a Latin/Greek professor so we spent a LOT of the semester on the Illiad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, and Plato's dialogues, rounded out with the Torah/Old Testament and New Testament of the Bible. She kind of taught it like an English class, in the sense of having a lot of discussion of literary themes in the text, not so much about the trends of thought that shaped consequent thinking, writing, etc.
Challenges of Modernity is about....wait for it....modernism! My professor for that one was from the history department and had a really neat way of presenting different topics; he'd give us one reading from the beginning of the modernist movement and another, more current reading. So, we read 'Souls of Black Folks' and a book by Cornel West, Darwin and Stephen Jay Gould, Virginia Woolf's 'A Room of One's Own' and watched The Hours, etc. It was really neat and also brought up the subject of post-modernism, which I assumed would be a topic in any Modernism class--but apparently not. I was genuinely shocked when Professor Yee asked last week if we all knew what post-modernism was and I was the ONLY person who knew.
Now, my Challenge of Modernity class was wonderful and shaped my thoughts on what these classes should be. Let's be clear, though, my thoughts are not entirely out of left field, as they are based on what Colgate SAYS they want these classes to be. These classes are all about, theoretically, the ways that we view and approach problem-solving. Western Traditions, for example, *should* focus, in my mind, on traditions of western thought and how it has shaped our society and culture. It should not be taught like an ancient-languages English Lit class (alright, what else is significant about the tapestry that Helen is weaving in the Illiad? That's right, it's red! See the blood-symbolism there?). I mean, when you're even analyzing the Bible that way ('so what do you guys think Jesus meant by comparing his story to a seed?'), you have a focus issue.
Similarly, Scientific Perspectives should not be about having a 'fun science class' or 'science used in the most strange imaginable field'. It should be an exploration of scientific thought--because if you believe every students comes to Colgate with an adequate grasp of the scientific method and/or scientific thinking, you are crazy--and how this method of looking at problems works on various not-purely-scientific issues. To be fair, some classes are like this, I'm sure--just not all. Reading four books in a row by Graham Hancock does NOT count, and nor does analyzing how purple oil paint differs chemically from red oil paint, no matter how much the teacher may think s/he is being 'interdisciplinary'.
Core Cultures is partly just about Colgate trying to broaden knowledge of diverse cultures (or if you're cynical, it's a nod to the cult of multi-culti, not that that's necessarily a bad thing). However, it should ALSO be about how non-western cultures have different ways of looking at the world, approaching problems, etc. After all, isn't that one of the most basic aspects of a culture?
Finally, I really think my Challenge of Modernity class was a good example of what the class can be. We didn't spend all of our time on 'the big picture'; we discussed all sorts of smaller topics related to modernism/post-modernism (evolution and changes in scientific thought, trends in religion, challenges to racism and sexism, new forms of government, etc) and debated their individual merits quite a bit. Yet, at the end of the semester, I not only knew a lot about the particular issues, but I had a good sense, without the teacher ever actually spelling it out for us, about what modernism and modernist thinking was all about, how modernist thought in biology and political science and religion were fundamentally connected, and the pros and cons of that way of looking at the world. (This also goes for post-modernism although we spent less time on that topic). That is what a liberal arts education is all about, right? How can we 'learn how to analyze issues and think critically" if we don't even understand why we think the way we do and haven't been exposed to different ways of looking at the world?
I really don't want to give Colgate too much shit about this as I think they do their best, and I give them kudos for having the classes in the first place. I just wish that everyone--students and teachers both--put a little more thought into the reason behind the classes.
Um. That ended up REALLY long. And probably really boring. And did I really just spend an hour and a half writing that, which I could have used to work on my paper? Gah. So, um, yeah, that's it. Must do work (at least my Chinese is done.) Later, all!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-23 03:37 am (UTC)(I have absolutely NO complaints about CORE Cultures and Scientific Perspectives--CORE Japan and Advent of the Atomic Bomb rocked my world. That Scientific Perspectives was EXACTLY what Colgate wants that class to be--I balanced chemical equations, learned how to build a plutonium bomb, and engaged my hindsight in political analysis based on what we knew about the bombs)
I completely agree that people need to be aware that Colgate is a liberal arts school before they get there. Did I LIKE taking Phys. Ed. or science/math classes? HELL NO! But, I knew what I was getting into before I agreed to go there. And seriously, if Colgate graduated people who couldn't do basic math or name some great works of literature, I'd doubt its reputation as an elite university. Besides, I had to take Calc anyway for Phi Beta Kappa, and it wasn't a hassle to take Comp Sci 100 at all--trust me, people can find classes they can handle.
My only Colgate academic regret is that I didn't have the time to take all the classes I wanted to. Sigh. So many un-learned bits of information. But . . . so many Mongols. Sooooooooooooo many Mongols . . . (with a Social Sciences class like "The Mongol Empire," HOW can people be complaining?! I would take that class again if I could)
And re: the video . . . man, there's some people in that video I haven't seen in a long, long time. Not that I ever liked Case very much, but still, seeing the people is kind of nostalgic for me.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-23 03:54 am (UTC)I also found science/math courses that were manageable. Some people complain about how many class slots all of this takes up, but really, as much fun as random classes can be, the primary point of college IS to get some basic broad knowledge (breadth requirements) and specialized knowledge in a particular field (your major), right? Right?
But that reminds me--they're offering Mongol Empire next semester at the SAME TIME as Chinese 405. I was so depressed when I realized.
Oh, by the way, according to one of the latest editions of the Maroon-News, we're going to get an LGBTQ minor starting in 2008. I don't have a problem with it, although I sometimes wonder if all of these segmented studies don't lead to further isolation and division (as in, OMG gay people are SO DIFFERENT that their very MODE OF LIFE must be STUDIED! Clearly they have no common experiences with straight people!) But perhaps I am being overly concerned.
Who ARE the kinds in the video? I feel like I should recognize them but I don't....
(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-23 03:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-23 04:46 am (UTC)I'm just not sure what people DO with such a compartmentalized minor. Sure, you can go to law school with anything, but other than that? Work at a non-profit? Be a professor? It's a good thing people will have a more applicable major to go with it (I hope). And yeah, I agree that it separates gay people from the rest of society, but all of those specialities are like that. Like, Women's Studies--apparently, we are SO DIFFERENT from men that mere Psychology is NOT SUFFICIENT to study us. Oh, no, we need a separate area of study! Without penises! Penises are evil! Penises are all Karl Rove in disguise! Did you ever think that these sorts of classes are more vehicles of propaganda than actual academic experiences? (I'm sure I've now offended someone or another...I'm used to that. Enough professors have insulted me that I'm getting immune)
The only one I can put a name to is Tozer, but I recognize a lot of the other people just from around campus.
Oh, did I tell you Josh's weather theory yet? See, I was explaining about Dick Cheney's weather machine and how he caused Hurricane Katrina to kill black people, and how Josh should be careful or he would be hailed on. Then Josh was like, "No, Dick Cheney may have a weather machine, but Al Gore is in touch with nature. He can control the elements without a machine!" So I said something derogatory about Al Gore (use your imagination--it was probably about how he invented nature like he invented the internet), and Josh walked away from me so he wouldn't get hit when Al struck me with lightning. I was highly amused. Also highly amusing? Al Gore forming a secret presidential election exploratory committee. Oh, Al.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-23 04:52 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-23 04:02 am (UTC)One of the courses I took for my Arts and Letters course sounds like it has the same sort of aim as the Core Scientific Perspectives class. I lovingly referred to it as "English for Science Students", but it was a really interesting class. The dynamic was really different from a lot of classes since it was an English prof talking science to a bunch of science students. The theme that ran through the course was that there is an element of aesthetics running through science too. She claims that we're the only class where teaching meter in poetry isn't met with annoyance, because that's the math part of the course, along with discussing the idea of an elegant proof. Biology talked about Darwin and once again the idea of beauty. Physics was philosophical about the beginning of the universe and even made me not hate an Margaret Atwood Novel. We also read poetry about atoms and below, and analyzed it from the English and Science perspectives at the same time. The chemistry section was a collection of short stories where a character would have the characteristics of an atom. It may make me a chem geek, but I loved reading the author wax poetic about carbon as the last story in the collection.
So, umm, that was long, my point is that these courses don't hurt you! It's good to take a look at this other stuff! :p
(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-23 04:45 am (UTC)See, I think it's usually not the science kids upset that they have to take an English or history class; it's always the sociology majors (sorry soan majors...no offense meant) who are all 'I have to be able to take a science class and do basic math? No fair!'
Hm...the only Margaret Atwood novel I ever read was The Handmaid's Tale, and I wasn't thinking about scientific accuracy at that point, just about how freakin' depressing it was. Why do you hate her, and how did you stop hating her? I'm curious now.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-23 06:30 pm (UTC)Our arts students got lucky because Psychology is listed as a science class here. :p There's also things like Physics of Daily Life (Physics for arts students!) and Chemistry of the Environment (NOT to be confused with Environmental Chemistry, which is a fourth year chem course. :p) and a computer science course that is just HTML. :p
Scientific accuracy isn't why I hate her. I hate her because she's pompous and pedantic and yet she's unavoidable in English courses here. She's basically the epitome of Canadian Literature that's so busy being Canadian Literature that it forgets to be GOOD. Plus, she's trying to be a feminist writer but portrays men completely unrealistically. That, and I'm still bitter at her for claiming that The Handmaid's Tale isn't science fiction because science fiction has martians and space battles and her book didn't.
Our discussion of Cat's Eye managed to get away with me not hating it because it didn't focus on the standard Margaret Atwood things (as demonstrated by CanLit Bingo :p), it was a completely different focus of discussion in keeping with the themes of the course. :p