Global Core: A First Step To Change?

It’s understandable if you had to read the official announcement ushering in the new “Global Core” a few times before you could figure out what it meant.

The newest tweak to the Columbia College Core Curriculum does not seem to depart much from the existing Major Cultures, though its proponents say that it is just the first step of a holistic makeover for the controversial Core requirement.

The Global Core was unveiled in mid-August after years of discussion about what to do with Major Cultures, a relatively recent addition to the Core. Major Cultures was intended to offset the largely European curriculum offered in Literature Humanities and Contemporary Civilization, but has been criticized for being superficial. The critiques of Major Cultures came to a head during last fall’s hunger strike, when protestors demanded that the University reform the requirement. As part of a settlement ending the hunger strike, Columbia committed to converting Major Cultures classes to seminars.

What the Global Core amounts to thus far is a consolidation of Major Cultures courses into one list. The Global Core will apply only to the class of 2012 and its successors, though continuing students can elect to pursue it in lieu of Major Cultures.

Administrators of the Core say that it lays the groundwork for further reforms and has been a long time coming.

“The changes to the [Major Cultures] requirement—and really, the beginning of more formal discussions about the requirement—are the result of two years’ work discussing the requirement with faculty and students,” said Patricia Grieve, chair of the Committee on the Core and a professor of Spanish and comparative literature.

Professors didn’t keep quiet about their opinions of Major Cultures, either. “From the very beginning, concerns expressed by faculty had to do with the structure and teaching of the courses,” said Kathryn Yatrakis, dean of academic affairs at Columbia College. “When the Global Core was approved ... it was clear they were so eager to start having a place in the curriculum.”

“The classes had no connection to one another and ranged from simple historical overviews to language classes,” agreed Jessica Becker, CC ’10 and a student representative on the Committee on the Core.

In an effort to resolve this disunity, the Global Core will shift to a single compilation of courses grouped by the department they come from rather than the breadth of material they cover.

The language used in naming the Global Core reflects what many view as the increasing importance of global forces in shaping perceptions of culture. “Comparative and interconnectedness are words we use a lot when talking about the Global Core,” Grieve said, referring to the theme of integration the committee intends to make the epitome of the program.

To communicate those messages in a uniform way, the average class may ultimately become a seminar.

“A seminar fosters conversation, allowing students to develop a more thematic understanding of the chosen cultures,” Becker said.

But that kind of structure still seems a long way away for the new requirement.
“That will take just a little bit of time,” said Yatrakis, who was unable to estimate exactly when the courses would become seminars. “It has to do with expanding resources—space and faculty. If you’re designing a course that is four 20-person seminars, more classrooms will be needed than for an 80-person lecture.”

scott.levi@columbiaspectator.com