Difference between revisions of "Five pillars theory"
| 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. 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:Humor]] | ||
| − | [[Category: | + | [[Category:Universities|*]] |
Latest revision as of 18:05, 8 December 2013
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):
- 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.
