Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union · History
3 papers-1 midterm, 1 final, 1 review of 2 Soviet Films, each 5-7 pages; also 2 exams of 10 IDs each; reading about 50-75 pages per week, not bad and lighter than most history courses
Overall, I enjoyed this course, but thought it was too general in its content. Professor Von Hagen clearly knows his stuff about the Soviet Union and his knowledge for, and interest in, the subject clearly shows. My biggest problem is that we just did not get deep into the material; the course was more of a general overview. Part of the problem is we devoted the first half of the class to about 25 years and the second half on about 70 years. Still, anyone interested in the Soviet Union or a history that is interesting should take this class-you will definitely walk away with a better understanding of the Soviet Union than when you started
Terrible coure. A total waste of time. I am trying to be respectful, so let me just write that the lack of organization, cohesion, and care undermined the capacity of this subject at a respectable academic level. There was also a Stockholm-type Synderome of affection to a gone empire best described by Reagan as evil.
fair amount of reading (but pretty light for a history class), mid-term: Id's (he hands the list in class) and a take home 5-7 p essay: final: Id's same type as the mid-term and two short take home essays
three reading response papers (3-5 pages), one in class midterm with two essays, one take home final with three essays, discussion section
Professor Von Hagen is an absolutely terrific lecturer. The class was fascinating but Von Hagen was the highlight. He talks at a pretty good pace, but he does not expect you to remember everything he says. He has a good sense of humor. He is pretty well organized too. The readings for the class were interesting and not too heavy (for a history class anyway). My discussion section was terrible but that I think is pretty much luck of the draw. The graded work is pretty light too.
Professor Stanislawski did NOT seem qualified to teach this course. I do not doubt that he is probably a lovely person one-on-one and he probably is a dynamo in his specialization. However, he is living proof that sometimes tenure does not equal great professor. The lectures were unfocused and he rambled. He barely focused on the material necessary not just for having a general knowledge of Soviet history but also for successfully completing his assignments. He focused too much on snazzy quotes and culture and too little on the actual history. He managed to make Soviet history BORING which is a big feat. Additionally, out of all of the scholarship on the Soviet Union, he chose some of the WORST BOOKS EVER, books that aren't even real histories. Robert Conquest is a CIA hack, how is he a historian? I felt bad for the TAs who were stuck trying to teach 60 kids the actual material. One of them confessed to me that he thought Stanislawski was unqualified to teach the course and that the course was going poorly. NOT A GOOD SIGN.
Film paper, one take-home midterm essay, midterm ID in-class exam, two take-home final essays, final ID exam, participation in discussion sections. Very manageable and you don't necessarily have to do all the reading.
One of my favorite classes (if not my favorite) at Columbia. This man is extremely, extremely knowledgeable about his field. Not only is he a bookworm on the subject but he listens to the music, watches the movies and knows the pop icons of the post-USSR, current Russia mainstream. Though his lectures reinforce the class readings, Prof von Hagen sprinkles in his own personal experiences as well as any current information--we frequently received NYTimes articles through our TA's and on email. He is one of those historians who have lived through much of the history he teaches. Take this class for his stories and for a love of Soviet history you will definitely develop.