[HIST BC1302] European History since 1789

Michal Shapira is, in a word, awful. She insists on attendance at this intro lecture course when honestly I would have learned more by spending the time at home on wikipedia. This course is dumbed-down so terribly that by the end of the semester I took no notes in class and instead used wikipedia to study, and did just fine. Yes, 1789 to the present is a fairly difficult course to teach...I mean, there were more than a few fairly major events and movements that took place over the last 200 years!! However, spending 1 lecture on Freud/psychoanalysis and 1 lecture on the causes,course, and consequences of WWI just doesn't seem right.

Shapira's actual style does nothing to alleviate the problem of the course's conception. She rambles on, repeats herself constantly (every 3 sentences or so, she'll repeat all 3 sentences). She has annoying verbal habits (she said "in a sense" 87 times over the course of one lecture) and she follows her fellow Barnard professors in constantly emphasizing the role of women which is fine and indeed proper except when she claims that enlightenment thought was in fact driven by women, or that WW1, colonialism, and the depression were all caused by 'crises of masculinity'.

Possible IDs and Essay questions for each exam were given in advance.

Professor Tiersten is, hands down, the best history professor offered at Columbia. She is so knowledgeable; the information she is able to convey coherently in a lecture setting is astounding. More importantly, she doesn't assign impossible amounts of work. For either lectures or seminars, her paper assignments are focused on quality, not quantity. Lectures require a crisp 5-7 page paper, and seminars a 15 page paper, both of which are very manageable. As for her reading assignments, I admit that she does demand a large amount of reading, and expect for it to be done. However, the reading material is always carefully selected and interesting. Perhaps the best aspect of her reading lists is that she rarely requires the reading of a whole book, but rather selects choice chapters which highlight the author's key points and argument. Professor Tiersten wants you to enjoy and learn from her classes, which is one of best traits. A true gold nugget!

Professor Tiersten seems like a very nice/interesting/intelligent person, so I hate to write a negative review, but I was not a fan of this class. If you've taken any sort of high-school Euro history class, then this class will be a complete recap. That would be fine if Prof. Tiersten added a new perspective to familiar information, but she doesn't. This is especially frustrating because I am sure she has an interesting perspective on European history (why else would she have been hired?), but she never lets it show in her lectures. Instead, her lectures sound as if she is reading them straight out of a textbook. Not only that, but she talks SO fast. This isn't totally her fault, as 1789-present is a ridiculously large timespan to cover in one semester, but it's hard to absorb anything when she's talking that fast. Also, as much as I hate having to find room in my schedule for weekly discussion sections, I really wish this class had had weekly sections. At least then I would have been accountable for the reading. Instead, there is this awkward arrangement where we miss lecture every few weeks to meet with a TA in a small-ish discussion section. Over the course of four meetings, the TAs barely have the chance to learn your name. Furthermore, the sections are so big that it's easy to get away with not having done any of the reading. Yes, I should have done the reading anyway, but I was not engaged at all with this class and had little incentive to do all the work. Basically, if you're looking for a filler class that probably won't stress you out very much, then this is fine. If you're looking to gain some insight on European history, this isn't the right class for you.

Since most of what needed to be said was already said, I want to add just a few quick points about Prof. Tiersten and the class, trying not overlap in content too much. First, it is easy to notice that Prof. Tiersten was a great gal in her younger years, though she’s not really old – maybe 35-40? – nowadays either. As a result, she’s really sociable in general and really cute to watch; she manages to be adorable even when she lectures. In terms of academics, all I can say is "wow". I don’t think there anything this woman doesn’t know about history. On one hand, this is a good, because if you have a question (though she doesn't take questions during lecture, given the turbocharged style described in previous posts) she has an answer – a good and long and informed and authoritative one. On the other hand, this is quite intimidating, especially if you’re new to history. She’ll tell you what the most common type of bread in Southern France 1790 was, and why that bread was replaced in 1795 with something else, and you’ll be left wondering: do I need to know this?? The good news is that you don’t; it’s just that her mind functions like a fractal – once she gets talking about something, given that she know so much about anything, details like that just pour into her brain. You have a study guide for the exams, and that’s what you need to know.

As for the class, I do have some words of caution, though my final conclusion is that this is a class worth taking. First, there are a lot of posts here saying this is an easy ride. It’s true, you can skip lectures every now and then, and it’s also true that you can cram for a week before the exam and get an A, like I did. However, there’s massive amounts of information that you need to take in, and despite Prof. Tiersten’s great lectures (as someone else said before, don’t take too many notes – just write down the main ideas and enjoy listening to her; it’s really worth it), everything appears disorganized. That’s because the textbook is really poor in organizing history, skipping back and forth between the years until all you’re left with is some random dates and names and nowhere to place them. To add to this, Prof. Tiersten has her own teaching plan, which sometimes deviates from the book. Finally, you’re given a study guide before the exam in which the IDs are mixed with only slight consideration for their historical order. In the end, if you’re looking at "Red Shirts" on your study guide and you weren’t paying attention in class, you have some serious detective work to do until you find the term in your textbook – as anyone from the French Revolution to the fall of the USSR could have worn red shirts (hint: it’s Garibaldi’s troops). With these caveats (don’t expect an easy ride and pay attention in class), I think this is one of the best history classes you could take. The lectures are simply amazing and so is the teacher, the period covered is really interesting (French Revolution, Napoleon, the two world wars, colonialism, communism, post-war Europe), and, overall, it's easy to get a good grade IF you’re paying attention and spend some time studying before the exams. Although the assigned readings are interesting, the discussion sections are not that useful – on the contrary, they’re quite annoying. Make sure you attend though – they count for 15% of your grade.
I have to say that I held back on the praise and addressed the rougher sides of the class solely because everything positive about it was already said in other reviews. This is a class not to be missed, and I highly recommend it. I don't think there are many students in the class who haven't enjoyed it, and that's saying a lot for a class of more than 100.

I have read all of the reviews, especially the ones relating to the euro hist class, and I am baffled as to how anyone can say that L. Tiersten is either a great lecturer or the best professor they ever had. The lectures are so disorganized, and Ms. Tiersten talks as though she is in some sort of a speed talking contest, that it is pretty ridiculous. I would say, skip this class, especially if you are more interested in history than philosophy.