SOCI W3490

Weekly reading (varies, anywhere from 25-75 pgs/week) 2 exams (one halfway through the semester, another on the last day of class but not cumulative) Final 12-page paper (you get to write it about a documentary, way easier than any other paper I've written of this length)

I took Professor Vaughan's class last fall and absolutely loved it, possibly one of my favorite classes at Columbia so far. I loved the wide range of case studies-- from plane crashes to stock market traders to religious fanatics-- and while there was a lot of reading for this class many of the readings were focused on these interesting cases. Vaughan knows what she's talking about, and she's clearly extremely knowledgeable of her field (she's considered the #1 expert on shuttle crashes, and was asked to testify at the investigation hearings for the Columbia shuttle explosion). While Vaughan is not the most incredibly vivid and lively speaker, her familiarity with everything she talks about comes across in lecture. I worked hard in this class, but I was easily motivated to do so simply because I was interested in the material. If you find this isn't the case, this may not be the class for you. While there is a lot of reading, some of it can be skimmed, and you really get most of what you need to know in lecture. So combining doing (most of) the reading with attending lecture will get you far. In the end, I was really happy with this class and even today much of what I've learned has stuck with me.

2 midterms 12 page paper 3 short 1 page write ups which are not graded - you just have to turn them in

This course is a joke. I learned absolutely nothing and the only thing I achieved from this class was fulfilling a graduation requirement. Vaughan is a very amiable and personable teacher who manages to ingrain no knowledge in your head after an entire semester. She agrees with pretty much anything any student says, often goes on tangents and talks about irrelevant stories about her life, and never clearly explains any theory or concept she talks about. She doesn't ever use the board or follow a progressive teaching process - she jumps from topic to topic with little cohesion. For example, if it's so important for us to know about the Bounded Rationality model and Practical Drift, she should actually take the time to explain them clearly and write down a short definition or quick points on the board. She just asks us about what we learned from the readings and says it's all good (it's not). She assigns an unreasonable amount of reading (easily 150 - 200 pages per week) about boring case studies that get into more detail than necessary. She makes you read 3 entire books in addition to the numerous articles too. The readings can sometimes be interesting and you might actually learn something from a few of them, but by and large, they are meaningless babble about unnecessary details of nuclear power plants or something. I personally didn't do any of the reading for the second hal…

Heavy reading assignments, some of which (The Cuban Missile Crisis) are difficult to follow. Lots of downloadable articles and several books. One midterm consisting of an in class test, and a take home three page paper. One in class final exam, and a twelve page paper which is the culmination of all theories discussed in class. Neither were easy. Grading was a little rough, but I still learned a great deal. Those who attended class on a regular basis did the best.

Mistake, Misconduct, and Disaster was a very interesting course regarding the "dark side" or complex organizations and the deviance they can systemically produce. It consists of applying a causal model, which can get a little complex, to numerous organizations, along with learning some basic sociological theories regarding decision making. Unfortunately, this was the first semester that the course was offered, so it was a little unorganized. Lectures did not always follow the syllabus, which often changed. Additionally, some key points were not easily deciphered either from readings or in class making this course somewhat confounding. Regardless, the course offers valuable and practical insight into the organizations that some of us hope to work for. I enjoyed Professor Vaughan, who has devoted her career studying organizational deviance. She is warm, friendly, supportive, but mostly passionate about her work. Her book on NASA's space shuttle Challenger provides insight regarding how and why such a disaster can occur. It is the foundation of the course. She keeps regular office hours, and I would recommend you go. As long as you sincerely show a concerted effort, she's very helpful. Class discussions were interesting, especially when we split into groups and practiced decision making. Everyone viewed the same information in different ways, yet we have to make a consensus. Lots…

Two midterms, take-home final (12 pages), all generously graded

Vaughan was an enjoyable and amiable professor. Every class she would ask a multitude of softball questions and agree with more or less anything that students said in a sort of "Oh, that's a nice contribution to the discussion," even if it were completely wrong. That said, if you're looking for rigorous instruction in sociology, don't bother. She's well-published and knowledgable, but her agreeableness means that the lectures aren't emphatic enough. You spend the majority of the class learning a relatively simple model and apply it to a bunch of cases. You can do this stuff in your sleep.