Five pillars theory - Revision history

Admin at 22:05, 8 December 2013

2013-12-08T22:05:43Z

2012-11-22T02:00:28Z

2008-12-20T08:25:22Z

2008-12-20T08:24:35Z

2007-05-31T07:19:13Z

2007-05-04T20:14:29Z

2007-05-04T20:12:36Z

2007-05-01T17:31:04Z

2007-03-30T17:09:51Z

2007-03-29T23:51:29Z

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 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.
 [[Category:Humor]]
-[[Category:Opinion pieces]]
+[[Category:Universities|*]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:00, 22 November 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~Somewhat~~ controversial theory formulated by [[Tao Tan]] in 2004.	+	The '''five pillars theory''' is a 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):		Basically, it goes like this. There are five pillars that define the greatness of a university. They are (in no particular order):

@@ 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):
-:* Graduate education and quality of life
+:* Undergraduate education and quality of life
 :* Law
 :* Business
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 :* Science & engineering
-Columbia's institutional agenda ought to focus on strengthening those five pillars, and not things like undergraduate education, sustainable development, globalization, public health, arts, or postmodernist feminist deconstructionist antihegemonist critiques of Marxism.
+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.

@@ 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):
-:* Undergraduate education and quality of life
+:* Graduate education and quality of life
 :* Law
 :* Business
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 :* 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.
+Columbia's institutional agenda ought to focus on strengthening those five pillars, and not things like undergraduate education, 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.

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 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 made 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.
 [[Category:Humor]]
 [[Category:Opinion pieces]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:12, 4 May 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~{{delete}}~~
−
	Somewhat controversial theory formulated by [[Tao Tan]] in 2004.		Somewhat controversial theory formulated by [[Tao Tan]] in 2004.

Line 15:		Line 13:

	[[Category:Humor]]		[[Category:Humor]]
		+	[[Category:Opinion piece]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:31, 1 May 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	{{delete}}
		+
	Somewhat controversial theory formulated by [[Tao Tan]] in 2004.		Somewhat controversial theory formulated by [[Tao Tan]] in 2004.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:51, 29 March 2007
Line 10:		Line 10:
	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.		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.	+	Note that this theory fails for schools such as Princeton and Amherst which lack Law, Business, and Medicine. Then again, those universities made indeed be low-grade.
		+
		+	[[Category:Humor]]