<p>Has anyone else noticed that Columbia, Reed and UChicago are all schools noted for their liberal student bodies, yet they all have conservative, very structured curriculums, that include an emphasis on “Dead White Men of the West” (greek philosophers and the like). </p>
<p>Pretty interesting.
That’s all.</p>
<p>A lot of the “Dead White Men of the West” were far more radical than we’re led to believe–at least, prior to close study of them.</p>
<p>More importantly, you’re conflating several different notions of conservatism here.</p>
<p>Yes, I supposed. I meant “conservative” mostly in the rigid-structured nature of the curricula, as compared to an open curriculum.</p>
<p>I agree with nuveen. Different meanings completely. And don’t place too much stock in liberalism in education. Except for religiously affiliated schools, and maybe a few others, all places of higher education will be liberal. That’s pretty convincing to me that a liberal outlook/political view is probably better. Think about it, there’s definitely a consistent trend of liberalism with higher education. I go to a magnet high school in Nashville (a liberal city in a conservative state, we recently voted to ban gay marriage 80-20, it made me so sad, and want to move), and my school is markedly more liberal than other surrounding public schools.</p>
<p>Ouch. If Chicago’s known for anything politically, it’s not “liberal” in the sense of Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. With all the econ majors running around extolling the virtues of free market and the legacy of Milton Friedman, plus our non-East-Coast location, I would say that we run more conservative than most schools. It’s not an unfriendly place for Democrats, though.</p>
<p>Also, only Reed’s core (or Hum 110, at least) focuses on the true Dead White Guys (Greek and Roman classical traditions) whereas I think Columbia and Chicago try to balance off antiquity with healthy doses of Jane Austen, Simone DeBeauvoir, Frantz Fanon, Emile Durkheim, et. al., which are, even though dead, far from what you’d think of when you think of “Dead White Guys”</p>
<p>@spencer</p>
<p>A liberal outlook is probably better because academics think it’s better? That’s like saying that a conservative outlook is better because businesspeople think it’s better. Business majors tend not to stick around in the ivory towers of academia, and thus you have a bit of bias in the selection of academics.</p>
<p>I for one think a core curriculum steeping students of the world’s best universities (all of which are in the West and this is not by accident) in the history of ideas that have served as the foundations of the world we know today.</p>
<p>Which has had more of an effect on humanity? the diatribes of Howard Zinn and Chomsky, or Plato’s Republic, Augustine’s Confessions, Mongtaigne’s letters, Adam Smith, Locke, Hobbes, Rosseau…</p>
<p>Without such knowledge we risk our students considering solipsistic crap like “post-colonial studies” to be real, enduring knowledge. When a civilization forgets its history, collapse is inevitable.</p>
<p>If I had my way I would implement the Columbia/Chicago core at my own university tomorrow.</p>
<p>Yeah, you’ve got to know your own civilization in order to understand others.</p>
<p>I was half joking about my liberal outlook comment. It’s just a trend I’ve noticed, I don’t actually defend my political positions by saying more academics are liberal. And yes, I know Friedman was a huge supporter of free markets and was staunchly anti-communist/socialist/marxist, and I agree wholehardedly with his arguments. But there’s a big difference between being fiscally conservative and socially conservative.</p>
<p>JohnnyK clearly knows nothing about post-colonial studies, which partly serves to revive the history of great civilizations ruined by colonialism. </p>
<p>Without such knowledge, we risk our students considering such solipsistic crap like “Western Civilization” to be the only source of real, enduring knowledge.</p>
<p>Fortunately for the world, Chicago’s Core (I haven’t looked at Columbia’s at all) teaches students to avoid this error.</p>
<p>oh, i wasnt agreeing that other cultures are unimportant. buddhist and muslim outlooks have more enduring legacies than christianity and greek epics in how they affect peoples lives and shape events.</p>
<p>Along that line, what about schools that are politically conservative but not affiliated with a church/religion?</p>
<p>I don’t consider the West to be THE only source of civilization, champ. However in the rush to “multiculturalism” Western civ is actually being devalued, the negatives overemphasized and tne positives ignored.</p>
<p>remember “hey ho western civ has got to go” at Stanford? My point exactly.</p>
<p>St. John’s in Maryland aside, Columbia remains the standard for the classic core curriculum based on western philosophy. And that’s the key; it’s a foundation. The great works of American and world literature are explored at length in other departments.</p>