Join our editorial board by applying here or become a columnist at the Spectator by clicking here.
Better Together?
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 20, 2007
Lost in the frenzy of the recent hunger strike was news that the Task Force on Undergraduate Education has begun to examine the possibility of a merger between Columbia College and the School of General Studies. The idea has been discussed on some level for decades, but recent talks have taken on a more serious tone, focusing on the reality of combining the schools' curricula and administrative services. A move to unify the undergraduate experience and integrate the two administrations would be a smart one, but the differing needs of CC and GS students—both curricular and logistical—should not be ignored if such a proposal is enacted.
In recent years, GS students have raised concerns about the disparity between the school's quality of life, educational experience, and resources as compared to those of Columbia College. By eliminating redundancies between the two institutions, a merger could reduce operational costs and the bureaucratic inefficiencies so familiar to the University, as it did when SEAS and CC joined to form a single Division of Student Affairs.
But more importantly, the merger would correct the considerable differences between the CC and GS curricula. As it stands, GS students hoping to enroll in Literature Humanities or Contemporary Civilization must apply for a limited number of spots in designated sections. The Core, as a central part of the University's identity, ought to be made readily available to its nontraditional undergraduates. There are certainly logistical issues involved in such a change, first and foremost the need to dramatically increase the number of available sections. Likewise, the two schools would need to decide whether GS and CC students should be able to participate in the same seminars, given that the Core may have different meaning to students at different points in their lives.
Consolidating the schools' admissions processes could also present significant complications. Any such system would have to recognize that there are major differences in the life experiences of the two groups. It would not be sensible to compare the application of a student with previous work and college experience against a student still taking SATs and AP tests. But in considering both demographics separately, it would be essential for admissions officers to avoid skewing the population too far toward either side. The composition of a combined student body should maintain a proportion of traditional to non-traditional students relatively consistent with the current ratio, such that the missions of the two schools are kept intact.
Students often complain about the sprawling nature of Columbia's administration, and combining CC and GS would likely combat such decentralization while cutting operational costs. Still, the merger should not be viewed as merely an opportunity increase efficiency, but as a chance to address administrative inequities between the two schools and ensure that Columbia's undergraduates, traditional or otherwise, have comparable access to a world-class education.
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 10)
Post a Comment
Anyone have information about GS athletes?
I'm pretty sure the 35-year-olds wouldn't be too enamoured with sharing a dorm with a bunch of 18-22 year-olds either. Older does not equal creepy, let's keep that in mind, hmm? I'm 27 (GS) and I'd incline to live near my own age range, preferably in a real apartment, thanks very much. I don't think it's a case of "protecting the younger from the older" as it is using common sense and acknowledging the very different stages of life GS students are in, as opposed to kids fresh out of high school. If anything, people balancing established lives need to be protected from those who are stepping out into a new identity, which might not always be the most graceful process.
Now, if I had been offered housing in the first place, and with expediency, that would have applied. Alas, owing to the limited number of apartment units available to GSers I wasn't even offered housing until long after I'd been forced to seek out housing on the market- a nightmare for someone not from the area.
This, along with financial aid, (which does not even come CLOSE to covering my costs) are the issues I'd be most concerned about as far as parity between the schools is concerned. The Core holds no importance for me personally, for no particular reason, though if it had been required, I wouldn't have complained. Besides, the GS Core is similar enough that I feel I'm getting a mostly comparable value.
This is indeed encouraging. The issue at hand with regard to GS being afforded the same respect as CC lies primarily (if not essentially) in the curriculum. The fact that Literature Humanities and Contemporary Civilization are not required for GS students is the main barrier preventing them from maximizing their Columbia education. As a GS alumnus who took both Lit Hum and CC, I urge the administration to ensure that GS students be required to take, at the very least, one of these year-long seminars. Doing so would incorporate them more fully into the academic exchanges in the classroom, and would strengthen ties between the student body as a whole.
I'm pleasantly surprised to see the Spec take this stance. I would say the inability to enroll in CC and Lit Hum was one of the major disappointments of my Columbia education. Not only were such courses the reason I went back to school in my 30s in the first place, but not being able to take these courses impacted my performance in literature classes, in which professors referred back to CC and Lit Hum.
The reason I could not take these courses was that I entered Columbia with 60 transfer credits and most were credited as electives, so I had no elective wiggle room and could only take courses required for the Core and my major. There was simply no room in my schedule for these courses with all the requirements I had to take.
One thing the administration also needs to look at is how previous coursework is credited. The policy not to accept equivalent courses for Music Hum, the Quantitative Requirement, etc. meant a lot of redundant coursework for me, instead of courses in which I could have gained new knowledge. In particular, it was absurd that my Statistics course was not transferrable, but the course at Columbia to fill the requirement (Evaluation of Evidence) wasn't even quantitative in the first place.
i hope not.
Indeed. God forbid everyone get what they paid for out of their education rather than taking their place below you on the privilege totem pole so you can feel (delusionally) superior.
i think that's a bit unfair. the commenter to whom you responded is probably taken aback by the idea of extending access to undergrad dorms to all GS students, some of whom are quite old. if it were to occur, a sudden influx of older people into a network of college dorms (if only for socializing--i'm not suggesting that the university would house all GS and CC/SEAS students together) would throw off the social dynamic of the residential experience. i can see why that would make someone uncomfortable. it may not be a totally rational reaction, but it's natural.
As a 22-year old GS student, I only have one question: will I finally have swipe access to dorms? Because getting signed in is such a pain in the ass.
I hope not. I'm all for GS integration, except there. I think GS students should instead be allowed to apply for undergraduate housing (when everyone registers for housing), go through an approval process (basically an age check) and then get swipe access.
Post new comment