HIST W3377

Jerk just about sums it up for this man. There is no way you can take a course with Matt Connelly without having to swallow his condescension. It's unbelievable and incredibly disempowering. He is also very lazy which will make you feel like your thousands of dollars of debt are going down the drain. He is the typical researcher who is socially awkward and should not be teaching. He is everything that is wrong with Columbia...professors who don't give a damn about their students. He is passionate about history, very smart and can put together a great syllabus, but he is just not supportive in any capacity. If you know what's good for you, don't take a class with him, TRUST ME.

Every week there are textbook readings, 3-5 longer articles from other historians plus several more short ones, and a reading response to post on Courseworks based on all the readings, due before the discussion section every week. Take home midterm and final each given over a few days.

Even though I've taken other history courses in the same time period, this class made me realize I only knew the bare outlines. The workload is intense but you can get used to it- many long articles and a "reading response" that's more like a short essay, due every single week. Personally, I found you actually have to do at least most of the readings to at all figure out what's going on in class and in the discussion section, but I think some people seemed to slide by with only skimming. The class is focused on International history, with some classes dealing with the Cold War US-USSR dynamic, and other classes on alternative angles of viewing the era, like the rise of third world nationalism. I disagree with the other reviewers who said Connelly only focuses on America, he does talk about it often but not at all exclusively. He's also really knowledgeable about history in general and the Algerian anti-French revolution (one of the other readings we did actually quoted him on it, not in a big-deal kind of way, but it was cool) and on nuclear weapons and proliferation. Connelly stays pretty balanced on controversial issues and really gets into questions about what caused different events and what motivated the different players to act as they did. He makes a point of pausing in class to ask if anyone has questions, and even if your question doesn't get answered then, there's al…

easy except for the heinous midterm and final

I have very mixed feelings about this class. International and Global History is sort of a mis-statement given that most of the material is focused on American History since World War 2, or at the very least the US' involvement in world events. Nevertheless, this class is great for those interested in that type of history. I also feel mixed about the class style. The lectures were interesting, and it was okay to skip a few here and there and not get behind. However, the midterm/final situation was horrible. You had to write two 6 page essays basically in 48 hours based on a packet of filled with many very long and boring articles. The very small time requirement was very strange to me, and I don't think allows people to write very good essays, but that could just be my opinion. Also, Prof. Connelly is not the warmest professor.

A take home final and take home midterm. Both are 2 essay questions, and each test is about 3500 words total (ie each essay is about 1750 words). You'll have 48-72 hours, which will be the worst of your waking life.

I agree with the positive reviews. I thought this was a very interesting class; the lectures were very interesting, people were really animated and had real debates in discussion, and I liked Professor Connelly's lecture style. The readings were really very interesting; I think any history person should like reading the transcripts of JFK and RFK arguing about what to do about the Cuban missile crisis. Also, I definitely thought it was organized, and you could see how there were a few different intertwining and continuing strands. To those who complain that it is too specific to certain subjects and perspectives: maybe you should have considered that a course with such a broad topic will have to concentrate on particular parts of that topic. And, yeah, the tests were a huuuuuge pain, but I really did learn a lot from them; more than I would have with another format.

Heavy readings for each week to discuss in section (20%). Map Quiz (10%). Midterm (30%). Final (40%). There are two coursepacks for this class, $45 and $52, both incredibly heavy and expensive...and the content is certain not worth $97 of your food and drink money.

Professor Connelly is a friendly-looking, black turtleneck wearing, sorta nice guy type of person. He's also pretty smart, all-ivy resume, however, he's rather disorganized and has the amazing ability of turning the most exciting sections of history into the most dry and boring 75min lecture ever. Almost all his lectures are powerpoint slides (he also likes to use a lot of animation, so pictures and words are flying into the slide from left and right). There were a couple of non-powerpoint lectures, but that was because his computer crashed, which happens quite frequently. I agree with the previous reviewers that Connelly takes a poli-sci plus American foreign policy approach to this course and therefore is different to what I thought I signed up for. He also takes his lectures from the reading material, so if you kept up with the heavy readings by chance one week, you'll realize that he summarizes the main points or takes the author's arguments and pastes them into his lectures. The main problem I have with his class is the format of the midterm and the final. His questions are incredibly broad and for the midterm you had 52hrs (Wednesday 12:15pm till Friday 5pm) to write two essay questions with a 3500 word limit (12pages double-spaced). In other words, if you have class on Wednesdays and Thursdays, you're tight for time. He gave us 2 extra days for the final, however, it wa…