<p>I'm not at all sure what I want to major in or do with myself after college. Can a person like me still go to a liberal arts school with no core requirements and figure it all out, or does that seem like a little too much freedom for someone as unfocused as I am?</p>
<p>under, no core curriculum and no requirements are two different things. Only a handful of schools have a true core, meaning courses that everyone has to take. Many have distribution requirements which usually means that you are free to choose from general categories -- for example three each in the arts/humanities, math/science, social studies.</p>
<p>Schools that are totally open -- no core and no requirements -- (Brown and Amherst come to mind) will still have counselors to help you choose your classes. They want students to select and experience a wide range of courses. </p>
<p>I don't think that there's a liberal arts college in the country that doesn't encourage its students to experiment and try new things. Some make it easier than others. </p>
<p>Don't worry about being undecided and unfocused at this point in your life. It's actually a good thing if it means you are open to exposing yourself to a wide range of disciplines and ideas.</p>
<p>Some people (like the author of choosing the right college and his various supporters) would say that the core is the cause of real learning. Others are far more free and open and say "study what you want." I would think most people want a balance or a place that allows certain things to be learned (the scientific method, for instance) through a class the student finds interesting (Pomona comes to mind.) People who graduate from St John's with basically only core classes are quite bright and well rounded, and the same is possible with the Brown degree. It's really about you. If you think you will take only one subject while in college, avoid completely open curriculums like Smith, Brown, and Amherst. If you dont want an entire four years of requirements, avoid places such as St. John's. Columbia is known for its solid core, as is Chicago, but some people don't attend these places because they do not want to complete such a core sequence. It's all up to you.</p>
<p>The advantage of a core curriculum is that there has been a consensus among the faculty about the essential knowledge required to be an educated person. So not only are particular courses required, but the content of those courses are more or less fixed to cover certain material. In theory, this should insure a well rounded look at the major foundations of knowledge in western civilization. The downside of the core is having to take courses in areas that you don't have initial interest in, taught by faculty who may not want to teach the course but have to because everyone has to take it. If you are very intellectually curious a core curriculum is great. If you are very focused on a particular discipline and could care less about subjects outside your interests, a core can be very frustrating.</p>
<p>Core curriculum, however, can often be an annoyance, rather than a tool to explore other disciplines. Universities in the UK and Australia don't have a core curriculum. You start taking major classes right away. There is no need to take mathematics when you're going into English, from their point of view. That sort of system benefits those who have their major set and are focused.</p>
<p>On the other hand, core curriculum helps those who don't have an idea of what they want to major in and forces them to explore different disciplines.</p>
<p>Brown grad here. I loved the open curriculum. </p>
<p>If you are a student with wide-ranging curiousity who will challenge yourself, it does not matter that you don't know what you will major in. The open curriculum actually lets you experiment MORE because you are not required to go down avenues which you have already decided do not interest you. Especially now, Ivy-bound kids are getting to reasonably sophisticated levels of their HS subjects. If you don't love math by Calc, it seems to me unlikely you are going to love it or major in it in college. It seems to me Calc is about as much math as a painter or historian ought to be expected to have to know.</p>
<p>I believe that one retains and remembers material that is of personal interest better than material one was 'forced' to take. I know my most intense learning experience was my thesis, which was (a) optional and (b) completely driven by my own passion.</p>
<p>Knowing I was humanities-heavy, my own conscience dictated trying other fields. For example, I tried Econ-- and loved it. I wound up taking nearly a minor's worth of Econ. </p>
<p>Anyway, I remained totally excited about learning for 4 years and (for me) the notion that I had complete freedom of choice made each of my 32 classes precious... I had 32 coins to spend at a place with 300 classes that looked incredible, and it would be insane to waste even one on something I was walking through.</p>
<p>I believe that if you are a passionate learner (whether you have a specific goal or not) you will be fine in an open curriculum. Furthermore, you have the rest of your life to fill in any gaps. The best book I read last year was on string theory-- though I never took Physics at Brown, I remain curious!! :)</p>
<p>Finally, I think a big part of the admission decision at an open curriculum school is finding the kids who will prosper in that system and use it to great advantage.</p>
<p>i feel much better about the open-curriculum now. thank you all so much for your input. =)</p>