Mark Von hagen

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

I'm rather surprised by the previous reviews for von Hagen's CC class. I think that he knows his material and tries his best with a class that rarely reads the books. He is also very organized and tries to give the students as complete an understand of the texts as possible. It is true that his teaching style may be boring, but his overall ability does not call for such scathing reviews.

Mark Von Hagan is a very nice man and quite knowledgeable. His teaching style sucks though. He is so pleasant he seems like a doddering fool, but he knows his stuff. He kinda meanders his way through a lecture. Nothing goes in order. He goes through a random slide-show and then explains each picture for 5 minutes. Actually, you don't really have to learn anything but general concepts for this class. I shouldn't complain.

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.

I decided to wait to review von Hagen until I experienced my first class of second semester in a different CC section. I can't find grounds to completely trash von Hagen like the others, but I am extremely relieved that I switched out. It's clear that his teaching skills do not translate well into round table discussion, and he would be the first person to admit this. To side-step his tendency to uselessly ramble on, von Hagen requires each student to lead the class in discussion for one day, or two with another student. This is the best solution for his teaching abilities, while making sure everyone has read at least one book in its entirety. Generally there is a one page response assigned due at the start of each book. I'm having trouble coming to a conclusion... all I can do is shrug my shoulders. Don't sit with him all year, but one semester is bearable.

An intelligent, solid lecturer with a flair for witty jabs at communist dogma. Unlike other scholars of communist history (most notably, those in the political science department), von Hagen has a much more balanced view. This leads him to talk alot about the historiography of the Soviet Union. One of the better history courses I've taken, because the focus is on why historians take up certain positions and consider certain questions important, not just on what actually happened (though there is plenty of that, well-organized and presented clearly).

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.

I came to Professor von Hagen's CC class with a genuine interest in the material to be covered. My enthusiasm was only slightly dampened by what I first perceived as von Hagen's good-natured ineptitude. I soon realized, however, that his mind-numbing incompetence was less that of a well-intentioned bumbler than that of a nervous intellectual fraud. Von Hagen teaches the books on the syllabus in the summary style of Cliff's Notes. Outlining each reading in its entirety, he teaches paragraphs, not ideas. No concept is explored for longer than its allotted five minutes, and at the slightest threat of greater depth he forces conversation back towards superficiality. Von Hagen will ask you to mimic his style in your papers; this drove me crazy. I didn't come do Columbia to write general, thesis-less, what-I-did-over-summer-vacation essays, but they were precisely what he was looking for. Please don't take me for a complainer, and know that I did well in his class (granted any sycophantic ape with a typewriter could); von Hagen is really just this lousy. Thank God he only taught my class first semester. My spirit broken by October, I could have withstood no more.

My feelings about this class are extremely mixed. On one hand, the covered topics are extremely interesting, the readings and assignments pretty much guarantee a thorough understanding of the material, and the TA's tend to have a good rapport with the prof, something that seems to make a difference, especially with history classes. On the other, although I love von Hagen as a person, I don't love his lecturing style, which I find hard to follow for reasons I can't really articulate. I just can't take notes in the class, and thus rely solely on the readings and discussion sections to get the info. Of course, this isn't a problem -- the Thompson textbook is amazing -- but it makes you feel bad that lecture seems to be a waste of time, since the prof is obviously really into it and the material is good. In any case, the class provides an excellent grounding in modern Soviet history, and even if you're like me and prefer more straight- forwarded lecturers, von Hagen is a smart guy who overall orchestrates the class very well. [If Anatoly Pinsky is stil TAing for the class, go for him -- he knows his stuff and is a nice guy/fair grader.]

Von Hagen has been well-reviewed by his history students, but the same quality that they take for careful attention to detail translates in the CC classroom into a dogged and thorough superficiality. Alas, the brute simplicity of his thoughts (as manifest in his in-class confusion and his whimsically illegible paper notes) cannot be attributed to carelessness. He faithfully attends all the faculty lectures and just as faithfully regurgitates them in excruciating and irrelevant detail; he brings reams of notes to every class; he lacks less depth of commitment than depth of intellect. Paper topics are ludicrously general and simplistic (although delivered in rambling, multi-paragraph courseworks documents), and he expects responses to parrot his own dry, analysis-free style. Subtlety is lost on von Hagen. I doubt very much that a chimpanzee could manage to get below a B in von Hagen's class, but I beg you to ask yourself whether a good mark on your transcript is really worth four hours a week with a brain-rottingly boring Mark in the classroom