Difference between revisions of "Five pillars theory"
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Basically, it goes like this. There are five pillars that define the greatness of a university. They are (in no particular order): | Basically, it goes like this. There are five pillars that define the greatness of a university. They are (in no particular order): | ||
| − | :* | + | :* Undergraduate education and quality of life |
:* Law | :* Law | ||
:* Business | :* Business | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:* Science & engineering | :* Science & engineering | ||
| − | Columbia's institutional agenda ought to focus on strengthening those five pillars, and not things like | + | Columbia's institutional agenda ought to focus on strengthening those five pillars, and not things like sustainable development, globalization, public health, arts, or postmodernist feminist deconstructionist antihegemonist critiques of Marxism. |
Note that this theory fails for schools such as [[Princeton]] and Amherst which lack Law, Business, and Medicine. Then again, those universities may indeed be low-grade. | Note that this theory fails for schools such as [[Princeton]] and Amherst which lack Law, Business, and Medicine. Then again, those universities may indeed be low-grade. | ||
Revision as of 03:25, 20 December 2008
Somewhat controversial theory formulated by Tao Tan in 2004.
Basically, it goes like this. There are five pillars that define the greatness of a university. They are (in no particular order):
- Undergraduate education and quality of life
- Law
- Business
- Medicine
- Science & engineering
Columbia's institutional agenda ought to focus on strengthening those five pillars, and not things like sustainable development, globalization, public health, arts, or postmodernist feminist deconstructionist antihegemonist critiques of Marxism.
Note that this theory fails for schools such as Princeton and Amherst which lack Law, Business, and Medicine. Then again, those universities may indeed be low-grade.
