Alan Brinkley

I'm glad I took this class, because it exposed me to a field of conservative authors and ideas that I was comfortably unaware of in my liberal cave. Nonetheless, I feel as if I didn't come out of the class with a whole lot -- it really just opened the door for me to now go out and do the digging on my own. I mostly attribute this to my own lack of background knowledge in political philosophy, but I do believe that Lilla and Brinkley could have done a better job of crafting a narrative for the class. Be aware that a good deal of background will be essential for your participation in discussions. This was not necessarily enforced by Lilla or Brinkley, but by other students who sometimes brought the discussion to areas that were uncharted territory for some of us. I also learned once and for all that I prefer the Foner-style course approach of historical monographs supplemented with primary documents, rather than primary documents supplemented with some light monograph reading. Obviously, this is an intellectual history course, but if you prefer to learn about the intellectual developments through the lens of historian authors, you're not really going to get it from a syllabus by Lilla (who is an ideas man through and through) or Brinkley (who does seem to like monographs more than Lilla, but is still more document-driven than Foner). I found the Phillips-Fein and McGirr readings…

People here swear by Brinkley, and you might see why: he runs a class with incredibly detailed, well thought-out lectures that always leave you buzzing for a bit after leaving IAB 417. They're like NYROB essays, down to his obsession with quoting Archibald MacLeish. A worthwhile class, without a doubt. Big lectures, consistently attended. But you'll soon find yourself, if you study American history at Columbia, in one of two camps: the love-Brinkley camp or the love-Foner camp. And after a bit of time with both, I'd go with Foner. Brinkley's lectures are a bit more detached from the students--he reads off something like a script, and has PowerPoint. He also allows laptops. The multimedia will keep you awake, but it also distracts you (and sometimes him!). He's dry by big-shot lecturer standards: he doesn't crack jokes and he has a gentle timbre. (Of note: Foner needs no microphone to lecture, Brinkley uses one.) But this might be your thing. Where Foner's readings are primarily conventional, academic histories, Brinkley's are a mixed bag: you get speeches, you get essays, you get Tom Wolfe, alongside the academic histories. You'll like this, probably, if you're not a history major, but you might groan if you're used to picking apart theses and topic sentences. Then again, Foner makes you focus on historiography. We didn't do much of that in Brinkley. Perhaps that's a relief. B…

TAKE THIS CLASS!!!!!!! Doesn't matter what year you are, what your major is. What an amazing experience. The class is humongous, but don't let that deter you. Each class is like watching a segment of an incredibly interesting documentary. Brinkley is a fabulous orator, and his powerpoint photos and video clips are the perfect addition. You quickly see why, even though no one ever takes attendance or would notice if you were gone, almost the entire class shows up every time for the whole semester. You really don't want to miss class, because Brinkley lays it all out there for you. He gives you the barebones outline of the lecture online, but each time i went to class I ended up having probably 5 pages of notes. When it came to the midterm and final it was a breeze to study because Brinkley's notes cover absolutely everything that would be needed to answer the essay questions, aside from what the readings covered. There was a fair amount of reading, but they were always super interesting, and the small, mandatory weekly discussion section you attend helps you digest any difficult parts of the books and link it to Brinkley's lectures. I'll miss going to that class.

His lectures use up every possible minute and are packed with facts. You will learn a ton of history from him, and you'll even get excited about it from time to time, since he lectures so well. (Warning: political analysis ahead) It is interesting to learn from a historian as brilliant and piercing as he is, whose political views differ from my own... you will never find a more pragmatic and honest adversary in a debate. He is also very helpful, and he makes a great mentor when he has free time. Chat him up during office hours.

Overall, this class was rewarding. You will leave it with a more thorough understanding of the various breeds of conservatism, their constantly mutating relationship with one another and the transformations the different ideologies underwent over time. More significantly, the course compels you to consider the nature of American democracy in ways other "straight" (e.g. non-intellectual) history courses might not -- its fundamental precariousness, the inherent religious devotion of Americans, etc. That being said, there was a bit of a learning curve (it may have just been me) at the beginning of the class; I came in with very little background in American politics or current events and felt like I lacked a basic framework many of my classmates already had. This is not to discourage people who are interested in the class more for its philosophical content; I would, however, suggest coming into the class with a specific question in mind (pertaining to the broader themes of the course) as a way of anchoring yourself for the first few seminars. Both Brinkley and Lilla were great; each was very generous with his time and resources, willing to meet with everyone and soothe our final-paper neuroses (often multiple times, although at one point Lilla will want to "return the baby monitor"). By and large, Lilla ran the class discussions; he asked "big picture" questions that were thought…

Brinkley is a good professor. But it is a big lecture class so if you don't like lectures, this is probably not for you. The reading is pretty heavy for this class, but my main issue is that there was no textbook reading and I found the reading while they helped to flesh out the lecture, unless you attended every lecture and took AMAZING notes, you would struggle. The tests were also a little broad and too open to interpretation to my taste. However, I am glad that I took the class overall. I mean...he is Brinkley.

Great lecturer. VERY organized. Decent human skills. His books on Liberalism in the 1930s-40s are excellent methodologically. Classes reflect his research. TAs are ten leagues below him, though, which makes their mandatory sections a chore.

This man is brilliant, and it's such a shame his lectures are so boring. Depending on your TA, it's not necessarily worth your time reading all the material; save your caffienated beverages for before and during class, where Brinkley will spew fact after fact in lectures that seem endless. He spends a lot of time on some RANDOM stuff, and goes into quite a bit of detail about everything. And watch out--his tests cover all of it

Medium to heavy; start your readings early in the week so you can do an early post before others dominate the discussion boards, leaving little room to intervene; there was only one larger paper, though, and we were given plenty of time to complete it

Alan Brinkley has such a reputation here at Columbia that a review seems almost superfluous. I lucked into having him as a professor for the first semester of my freshman year, and this is only unfortunate in that every professor I've had after him has failed in comparison. His lectures are fascinating and always interwoven with intersting quotes, pictures, stories, and occasional video footage, all of which enhance the lecture immensely. When I had to miss a lecture I found myself genuinely disappointed. You'll probably want to take a laptop because he often gives so much information that I found it hard to keep up with pencil and paper. Yet, it never seems like "information overload," and I've yet to hear a student say that they didn't enjoy the class.