David Eisenbach

My first semester Lithum professor took a sabbatical so I only had Eisenbach for second semester. He was running for Public Advocate of New York while teaching our class. Showed up late and cancelled all the time. Would assign legit whole books in between Monday and Wednesday, and then spend 30 minutes playing clips of his debates. If you're midterm answers weren't the exact wording he was looking for, or you didn't reference the quote he thought most pertinent in an open ended question, you didn't get points. Not available for meetings. We did not receive a syllabus nor any paper assignments. The assignment was "write the paper I've never read before." Like cmon. On the other hand, if you don't plan on putting much effort into a class, and don't mind when your teacher speaks over you constantly, I think most people walked out of this class with at least a B+. He is really smart and he is a super engaging lecturer and I did learn a lot from him--just not a space for open discussion, and certainly not a fair grader.

Take this class. Prof. Eisenbach is the chillest guy and one of the most engaging lecturers I've had at Columbia (probably the most engaging). I took this class in the summer so it was 3+ hours starting at 9:30am - not only did I never fall asleep, but I don't think I ever even stopped paying attention. He is that good. Having said that, if you are VERY familiar with American history, this class might be a little slow just because it is not as focused on the Presidency itself as I might have expected. Either way, this class is the kind of class I came to Columbia to take, and Eisenbach is a dude.

I completely agree with the post below. Not only did Eisenbach FAIL to show up to class on several occasions, but he also expected us to complete a midterm, 2 papers and a final ALL after spring break using material we never really went over or even read. He was an unnecessarily harsh grader, completely unavailable for meetings longer than 3 minutes, often failed to respond to emails (and if he did, they were always just a few, misspelled, jumbled words) and yet he expected everyone to participate in every class but didn't do anything to foster such participation. Most classes, he let just a few people dominate the class while he scribbled random, nonsensical words onto the board. The most frustrating part of Eisenbach's class, in my opinion, was the way he constantly questioned every comment made in class with a "so?" or "what are you trying to say?" or "what's your point?" There was no way for a student to simply make a comment or an observation, because Eisenbach was always looking for an "argument" or a "thesis" of sorts. This made participation very awkward at times, and I don't think this is what anyone wants in a class like CC, where we're supposed to feel free to express our thoughts on the readings and different philosophies of life. How can you do that if your teacher always wants you to have a formed opinion before opening your mouth? All in all, avoid Eisenbach. Th…

Professor Eisenbach is one of those rare professors with a gift for public speaking and ingenuity that actually listens to his students. Unfortunately, to really get out his true genius, one must do a bit of digging. He doesn't like to answer questions about his opinions very much but prefers to keep discussion going, which is great for discussion, but not-so-great if you really want to see him at work. I felt like a lot of this class was a teaser for his American Presidency class he teaches now and then. He has such a talent for drawing people's attention and keeping them entertained and stimulated that it's almost a shame that LitHum isn't a lecture course. A word of warning - though he was great to listen to when he occasionally spoke, because of the way he runs his seminar, the overall quality of one's experience will greatly depend on the people in one's class.

I can't really add to the praise that has been thrown on David Eisenbach, because I am also one of the converted. I think many people walked away from Eisenbach's American Presidency class finally understanding where $50,000 was going (or should be going). Amazing lectures, very topical, funny, engaging. I had been turned off politics and took the class as a pass/fail curiosity, only it to become my favorite I've taken here. If he teaches it again (and it won't be the same without the 2008 primary to analyze), do not even second guess yourself before signing up.

Ah, what can I say about David. What can I not say about David. David Eisenbach may have once been an amazing teacher who was really attentive to his students and cared about them. Well, I can assure that this is no longer the case. David has recently had the pleasure of getting a television show to be aired on the H2 network, entitled "10 Things You Didn't Know," that cover everything about American history from Wyatt Earp to Mormonism, with a completely random travel into Roman times (Caligula anyone?) I say all of this because on the whole, I've felt more interest in his show than in his CC class. Perhaps I'm just a little bitter from the fact that he missed class or cancelled EIGHT TIMES. That in itself wouldn't even be an issue but for the fact that he also expected us to be responsible for the material that we never read...um yeah right. Will he put material on his midterm/final about things that you didn't talk about? Hell yeah he will. If you do have the good luck that I've had to have him, make sure to pester him about when he will actually return your work, so that he can grade your paper while you take your midterm. Or so that you can even get your final from last semester back. I'm not sure if he is a difficult grader, but he does give slash grades, which are hard for me to fathom, particularly grades like B+/A- which don't actually correspond to real grades...89.5…

Had him for LitHum a few yeas ago, so maybe he has changed his style. Yes, he is engaging and energetic and looks like those hobo clown statuettes your grandmother has in her guest bedroom (well, mine does), but each time you looked back on each session, you realize he didn't really say anything after two hours. By the second semester, I had checked out-- not because the texts were uninteresting, and I was actually very happy that he assigned us some Joseph Conrad-- but because nothing was happening in the class. David Charles keeps his discussion very safe-- and hey, I don't mind safe, because I think the basics are vital to use as a springboard for further discussion. But we never got past that. Yes, he explained some of the knottier parts of the readings, but that was done in the introduction of the books if you had bothered with it. He kept calling on people who had stimulating comments like, "It's because Achilles? He was a warrior?" Okay, sure-- everyone should have their say, but to happily entertain such comments for 15 minutes as if it's something viable in the discussion makes for something more akin to spinning our wheels than striking forth into the magical world of deep and deeply felt textual investigation. On the other hand, if someone brought up something that was perhaps not quite what David Charles was trying to push but was still a logical, thought-out idea,…

Prof. Eisenbach's class was the most enjoyable as well as one of the most interesting I've ever taken at Columbia. Going to lecture was like going to the movies--I would stop at the snack machine outside 417 IAB, grab some M and Ms, get a good seat and just sit back and enjoy. He taught history more like a great storyteller than a professor. Prof. Eisenbach also had the distinct talent of making our class of 200+ students seem like a seminar-- for the first 20-30 minutes of each lecture we would discuss the 2008 campaign, and students would participate from every corner of the room, speaking and then responding to one another. As far as the material goes, I feel that I now have a very good overview of 20th century presidents and even 20th century American history as seen through that lens.

Dave is an awesome professor. He was engaged, exciting, and made a two-hour long class seem much much shorter. He's a really hard grader, though, and does not believe in helping people's GPA to make Columbia look good. (He said so himself.) The days we got essays/ midterms back were days to groan. An A- is amazing and an A is near impossible in his class. So it's your choice.

David Eisenbach is a narcissistic braggart who will do anything to draw attention to himself. Better yet, he is the Paris Hilton of academia. The man might as well have lectured about himself for fifteen weeks instead of enlightening the class about the complexities of the modern American presidency. The American Presidency is not an intellectually challenging class by anyone's standards; rather, the true challenge comes in the form of vegetating through a lecture composed by a man who is so self-obsessed. Indeed, on various occasions Eisenbach touched upon a few enlightening points. Of course, those occasions did not occur until he took a break from staring at himself in the mirror. Perhaps I am being too harsh, but I am 99.099457% certain that Eisenbach possess the kind of ego that would drive a man to read about himself on Culpa. With that in mind, I hope he reads this and discovers that while he stands in front of the lecture hall and dreams about making out with himself, the rest of us are dying for some intellectual stimulation from his class. If you want to learn about the American presidency, take Richard Pious.