HIST UN3604

- weekly reading: there is a fairly significant amount. you certainly don't have to do it to succeed in the class, but as a small seminar, this class is much better if you at least do some of the reading or read summaries, etc.; I can't imagine I would have gotten much out of the class without doing the readings - 3 papers - one reading response type paper about the readings for a class you will be responsible for facilitating, one material history essay on an item that has to do with your family's migration history, and a 15 page term research paper on a topic of your choice. graded VERY fairly

I hated it. He expects too much and gives too little. He is not focused, and he does not listen to questions. He could use refreshment from recent scholarship, and more respect to gender and class issues.

One of the best TAs I've ever had. Obviously extremely intelligent and talented. Kept control over the discussion sessions, and actually managed to provoke some interesting conversations at 9-ungodly-30 in the morning. Comments on rough draft of term paper were harsh, but mostly useful. Nice surprise when he frequently asked the teacher questions during the course of his lectures--usually TAs act as if they're impervious to learning something new in front of their students.

A GREAT course. The structure of this course is designed around geography, with each week focused on Jewish life in a different city. I think the topic matter itself is somewhat niche, but if you're interested in the topic, this course lives up to its promise - the readings are interesting, and this is Rebecca Kobrin's area of knowledge, so getting to do these readings and have these conversations with her is a treasure.

I was just going through the list of History profs on Culpa, planning for next fall, and I am shocked and upet by the negative reviews of Prof. Stanislawski, with whom I am now taking Modern Jewish History. This is a great class, his lectures are crystal clear and well organized, and he is very nice to students. So I don't understand why he has so many negative reviews in the past. In any event, I rate this course and professor a straight A and recommend him highly to everyone.

Presentation of a topic one week, including posting 4-5 questions online and reviewing assigned texts in a short paper of about 1000 words, and a final essay (15-25 pages for undergrads, a bit longer for grads). Also, the weekly reading is about 200 pages and is neccessary for class participation.

I'm writing to counter the last terrible review that totally misrepresented one of Columbia's great professors-- Prof. Stan actually won of the Great Teachers Awards and totally deserved it! I'm afraid some other students will read the stupid negative comments and miss out on this great prof! It's true he often does spend alot of time on the first part of his lecture, but that's only to tell us how historians work, and is often the most important thing he can teach us. His lectures are always well organized and clear, and his book on Zioniosm is brilliant (the student who said it was mostly in French is just plain wrong--obviously he or she never read it!!!!) Stan is also a kind and conscientious professor who really cares for his students, and though he can be real slow in answering emails, he will spend hours with you in his office advising you on academics or life choices. So if you can take any one of his classes, don't miss it, and disregard the creep who said otherwise!!!

This was one of the most genuinely rewarding classes I have had at Columbia, no doubt due to the professor. She was a bit hard to read, but was completely committed to the class and her students. On all our work, she gave us comprehensive comments. She brought a vast library of knowledge to the subject of Jewish history, which all the students benefited from, but always took time to explain more elementary concepts to the class when some students were not familiar with them. She did a good job of getting through the material, although her syllabus was occasionally a bit heavy on the reading. Classes that were rescheduled due to Jewish holidays she arranged to have in the evenings and ordered dinner for us. She also frequently brought home-made and store-bought cookies to class for us. I have seriously never seen a professor so committed to my appetite before. It was crazy, but it was really sweet too. I think sheÂ’s new to teaching at Columbia, but sheÂ’s worth taking a seminar with!

One correction to the previous review: the paper is only 15 pages, not 20. And the midterm and final were tough? Come on, the midterm was open-book/notes and the final was take-home!

I agree with the previous reviewer than Stan is a bit of a tool but Dan S is great. One minor note: I was annoyed that my discussion was in the morning at 9:30 when my first class TuTh was supposed to be Stan at 10:35, but only a consideration if you dread waking up in the morning. I did it anyway. Stanislawski *does* begin most lectures with a long historiographical note about how previous historians/general understanding totally misunderstand Jewish history, usually portraying Jews as victims of something or other when Jews really were not victims to the degree they are portrayed as. That said, with the additional caveat that Stanislawski is *not* a dynamic lecturer, the lectures are *very* interesting, if only due to the material he presents. The material is great, and it takes a little adjustment to his boring style, but I found the lecture consistently interesting. He is also a terrific historical thinker and scholar. His book _Zionism and the Fin de Siecle_ about Max Nordau and Zeev Jabotinsky is enlightening, a book really worth reading that sheds light both on individual characters, on the historical background of the Zionist movement and on the fin de Siecle, the period at the turn of the 19th century into the 20th. His class was good enough that I am registered for History of Israel.