amatyultare (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
amatyultare) wrote2007-04-22 10:48 pm
amatyultare) wrote2007-04-22 10:48 pm
Entry tags:
money and ranting
First, 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!