Difference between NO/DISTRIBUTION Requirements and OPEN Curriculum?

<p>Clarification, anyone? I didn't want to hijack the thread that the question came from, and I thought it did deserve a thread.</p>

<p>An “Open Curriculum” grants students freedom to design their own programs of study, typically in consultation with a faculty adviser. It may or may not work within a framework of conventional single-subject departments (Hampshire eliminates them,some other OC schools do not). Typically there still are concentrations (or “majors”) but these tend to be interdisciplinary and highly individualized. There may also be more or less strong expectations that students will strive for an appropriate balance of breadth and depth.</p>

<p>Brown is one exemplar of the OC model. Chicago, in contrast, follows a “Core” model. These two schools may seem worlds apart, but I like to think of them as approaching similar goals from different directions. At Brown, each student is challenged to come up with his or her own individual Core. At Chicago, the Core was invented (and is continually refined) in a community dialog.</p>

<p>A “distribution” model does not specify a set of community-shared core subjects, but it does not place all responsibility on the individual student and adviser for designing a balanced program, either. Instead, it takes something like a “Chinese Menu” approach (one from column A, one from Column B, etc.) As far as I know, all schools that follow this plan have a conventional system of single-subject departments and divisions (Humanities, Social Sciences, Biological and Physical Sciences). Typically, the requirement is to take a certain number of courses within each division, without specifying particular courses or sets of courses. In my opinion, it is the least interesting model (but probably the most popular), because it does not (as a model) encourage meaningful dialog by communities or individuals about what it means to be an educated person.</p>

<p>The Core Curriculum programs at Chicago and Columbia (and the Humanities 110 course at Reed) have been influenced by the concept that it is possible to specify a set of ideas, authors, or disciplines that are particularly worth exploring by all people who want a liberal education. This idea is taken a step farther at St. John’s College, where there are no departments or majors at all. Instead, all students (and faculty too) study the same 100 or so “Great Books”, in the same sequence, in small discussion classes. All students (faculty too, I think) learn two languages, French and Ancient Greek. At one time, I believe, everyone learned ballroom dancing as well. </p>

<p>The best practitioners of each model can point with pride to some evidence of success. This variety is one of the defining characteristics of our American system of higher education.</p>

<p>Wow, that was very informative. Thanks A LOT for clarifying/explaining these different educational models. I have to say, OC is the most appealing, considering your education is tailored to your exact interests.</p>

<p>Thanks for typing that up!</p>

<p>Yes, OC has a lot of appeal. Schools that offer an Open Curriculum include: Brown, Amherst, Wesleyan, Antioch, New College (FL), Sarah Lawrence, Smith, Hampshire. Note that three of these (Amherst, Smith, Hampshire) are co-located in a consortium.</p>

<p>Two other OC schools are Bennington College and Marlboro College. Both of these operate on something like the Brown model. Students develop a plan of concentration in close collaboration with faculty, often within a framework of single-subject departments. At Bennington they call it the “Plan Process”; Marlboro refers to the “Plan of Concentration”; the two sound very similar.</p>

<p>Note that even Chicago, with its strong “Core” model, has long had something called the New Collegiate Division (“to provide a place for diverse collegiate experiments unconstrained by those boundaries that separate the several departments and divisions of knowledge.”) That program would shape your 3rd and 4th year studies, but does not allow you to bypass the core.</p>

<p>Any of these models might work (or might not) for a person who wants to put together an individualized program of study. The curriculum model is not the only important factor. Suppose for example you wanted to concentrate on “Numbers and Civilizations” (drawing from some mix of Math, Astronomy, Anthropology, History, Languages/Linguistics, etc.) You could study this from an Ethno/Anthro perspective (there’s a professor at tiny Eugene Lang College who does this), or from an Ancient Studies perspective. If the latter, a small Liberal Arts College might not work too well if you thought you needed to learn less-commonly-taught ancient languages (such as Sanskrit, Egyptian, or Classical Chinese) - unless you could convince the school to let you go off and do that somewhere else.</p>

<p>I think this Core/Requirements/Curric thing is another layer of the college search that I didn’t even REALIZE until now. I don’t think I could go to a school like UChicago because of the Core. Right now in HS, I am limited in my electives and what academic classes I want to take because I have a “core” to follow so I can graduate from my school. It’s killing me. I was talking to this senior from Brown about his experience with OC and I am just sold on it. He told me of this one student who basically majored in PPE (politics, philosophy, economics) at Brown with his independent study major, which he was able to do because of Brown’s OC. That is just amazing.</p>

<p>^ Agreed. I’ve also experienced a relatively stringent core in HS, and I’m quite done with it, thank you very much. (Long story short, I’m a humanities gal stuck at a math/science school. Not very fun, academically.)</p>

<p>Is it like a magnet school or something like that? For example, with the right scores, NYC’ers can go to a school like Bronx Science.</p>

<p>Kind of? Independent charter school affiliated with a public district. De facto magnet, except with an obligation to admit all qualified “in-district” students.</p>

<p>There is no core curriculum at Oberlin, although you do have to declare a major by end of sophomore year.</p>

<p>^ Re: Oberlin, which I love dearly, it is worth noting that there ARE distribution requirements. 3 courses in 3 academic divisions, with no more than 2 from a single department and maybe a lab science requirement? I’m paraphrasing from memory.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>B Man, you surely are not unique in this respect; kudos for asking the question. The curriculum model is an important distinguishing feature of any school, but seems to get less attention on this board than some other features such as selectivity and prestige.</p>

<p>It would be interesting to try to lay out a clear taxonomy that covers schools as different as St. John’s, Cooper Union, Deep Springs, Olin, Hampshire, and Columbia. Tricky, though, when you start making distinctions among different varieties of Open Curriculum, hybrid models, “alternative” schools, or even Core vs. distribution requirements.</p>

<p>Something like this:</p>

<p>I. Vocational
A. Art Schools (MICA, Cooper Union)
B. Technical and Trade Schools </p>

<p>II. Liberal
A. **Technology and Engineering Schools<a href=“Olin,%20MIT,%20CalTech,%20Rose%20H.”>/b</a></p>

<p>B. Arts and Science Schools
1. Faculty Directed
…a. Fixed Program (St. John’s)
…b. Interdisciplinary Core Program (Columbia, Chicago)
…c. Department/Distributional (Penn, many others)
…d. Hybrid (Reed)
2. Open
…a. Adviser-Moderated
… i. inter-departmental (Brown)
… ii. inter-divisional (Hampshire?)
…b. Self-Directed (?)</p>

<p>C. **Work-Study Schools<a href=“Deep%20Springs,%20Warren%20Wilson%20…”>/b</a></p>

<p>Self-directed: maybe New College of Florida / Antioch? I’m not really seeing the distinction between self-directed and faculty-moderated.</p>

<p>By “self-directed” I had in mind a program that would leave students pretty much to their own devices in developing a program. No adviser, no strong guidelines. I cannot name a school that follows that model. Maybe it is not a useful distinction.</p>

<p>Self-directed sounds like a nonexistent college education to me. The entire point of an open curriculum is individualized advising.</p>

<p>Yes, the OC schools I’ve been investigating all seem to have advising (or “sponsoring”) mechanisms. To devise an individualized plan, Wesleyan has a “portfolio” system, New College has “contracts”, and Sarah Lawrence has “conferences”. So the terminology may differ but in these cases, it sounds like the student not only is advised, but also is expected to demonstrate the coherence of his or her plan.</p>

<p>Moreover, although the OC schools generally speak a language of “expectations” not “requirements”, there are some distribution requirements at Sarah Lawrence, Smith (for honors students), New College, and Hampshire. At Antioch, first year courses are chosen from a Core curriculum. Amherst requires a First Year Seminar. However, Wesleyan and Brown offer total choice outside the majors.</p>