<p>One point of clarification. Though advocated by Robert Maynard Hutchins, the great books curriculum was discontinued at the University of Chicago some time ago. Chicago does require a 15 course Core curriculum that is required of all students. However, within the Core there is considerable choice. Students take courses in the Humanities, Civilizations, Arts, Social Sciences, Biology, Physical Sciences, and Mathematics.</p>
<p>The flexibility is reflected in how the requirements can be met, for example:
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The choice is also reflected in the sequences available, for example for the Humanities & Social Sciences:
</p>
<p>There are similar choices in other areas. Of course original texts and primary sources are used, but this does not make the Core a great books curriculum. The Core is not forced upon students, it is selected when one accepts admission to the University, and is perhaps the main reason for attending.</p>
<p>For those interested in a history of the struggle to define what constitutes a liberal education and for a provocative proposal for the 21st century see:</p>
<p>Donald N. Levine
Powers of the Mind: The Reinvention of Liberal Learning in America
University of Chicago Press</p>
<p>An assumption that there is some “knowledge most worth having” recognizes that human beings have a finite capacity for knowledge. We cannot know everything. We have to choose.</p>
<p>Are all books, authors, and ideas equally important? The premise of a Core or GB curriculum is that they are not. I don’t know if Open Curriculum advocates would take a yes/no position on this at all. It seems they would emphasize the importance of the individual choosing process. </p>
<p>In the Teagle study I read (thanks again), the Alumni Interviews section includes questions that seem (in my reading) to reflect some concerns about students’ propensity to choose their courses wisely (“Were there subjects you intentionally avoided?”, “Are there any subjects that you didn’t take that you have since wished that you had studied?”). The study cited 3 “negative themes” in the responses. One of them: “In retrospect, some alumni felt they had not been mature or knowledgeable enough to make wise choices” (“I was 17, what did I know?”).</p>
<p>In this conversation, I’m not too interested in pimping the Core or GB model. I’d like to understand some of the advantages and disadvantages of each model. I’ll say this about my Chicago experience, though. In discussion classes, Professors were not too interested in whether students had read the material or not. They assumed everyone had. They were interested in whether you had thought about it. The process of eliciting that was sometimes a little brutal. Passion and motivation to learn were qualities of a “prepared mind” that students were supposed to bring to the table when they were admitted (if admissions had done its job). The faculty’s job was to temper all that passion, “…to create persons who have the ability and the disposition to try to reach agreements … through rational discussions.”(^^) </p>
<p>(By the way, I attended Chicago years ago, when it was still somewhat more under the sway of the Hutchins College and GB model than perhaps it is today.)</p>
<p>In retrospect, I would agree that “passion and motivation” do need continual cultivation. I am open to persuasion that a well-done Open Curriculum may have advantages in that regard. On the other hand, great faculty and interesting, time-tested material often will accomplish the same thing. My bias is that, if you cannot get excited about discussing Shakespeare, Marx or Freud with 10 very smart kids and a world-class scholar, then being set loose in an Open Curriculum may not do it for you, either. Now, if that curriculum happens to be stocked with the kinds of courses and teachers available at a place like Brown – that’s another thing.</p>
<p>Another aside about the Chicago approach …
Interdisciplinary studies have been a big thing there for years.
The buildings housing the main academic divisions (Humanities, Social Science, Physical Sciences, Biological Sciences) were interconnected at construction, to reflect this. When I was there, one unit was called the “New Collegiate Division”, in which one could major in something called the “Analysis of Ideas and the Study of Methods”.</p>
<p>1) The notion that there is a universal knowledge all educated people should have is completely discarded by the open curriculum. The whole foundation is that the mark of an educated person is not what you know, it is how you think and how well you’re able to learn what you do not know.</p>
<p>2) Recall that Teagle looks at many schools which implement an open curriculum, not all of them do as well as others. The recent re-accreditation process at Brown spent a lot of time justifying the open curriculum only to find that our peers were almost unanimous in their praise for the structure we put into place with only some constructive criticism around the edges. I don’t think the open curriculum works for every student or every university-- but I’m equally sure that the Core does not either.</p>
<p>3) Brown’s commitment to interdisciplinary studies has been unprecedented amongst peers. In 1969 we had 40 concentrations already on the book-- almost twice that of all of our peers, not including all the pre-professional programs we don’t engage in. We currently have 95 concentrations on the books, which remains quite high amongst peers even factoring in the many areas Brown does not view as part of liberal arts education. In addition to that, in the 70s, we routinely had 50-75 independent concentrators, working in areas not defined by the 40 which was already out pacing peers.</p>
<p>4) While you talk about the quality of your courses at Chicago (and I have no doubt the Core works for Chicago), consider this model applied somewhere else. There is very little oversight as to how these courses are taught to ensure that it is all about process with the material and not the material itself. Simply having taken a course does not provide evidence to the university that it has accomplished its goal of forcing you to critical assess and become a better problem solver in a translatable way. </p>
<p>5) “My bias is that, if you cannot get excited about discussing Shakespeare, Marx or Freud with 10 very smart kids and a world-class scholar, then being set loose in an Open Curriculum may not do it for you, either.” What excites you has nothing to do with what excites someone else. What gaps exist in your knowledge before getting to university has nothing to do with others. If process truly is the goal, than it would not matter if that same person read Arthur Miller, Max Weber, or Noam Chomsky. Content is transient, process is enduring. For this reason alone, determining what knowledge is more important than others does not make sense.</p>
<p>The faculty at Brown are not in place to “temper passion”, but rather to give students the ability to channel that passion constructively by providing students with the tools they need to be able to construct strong arguments, identify the merits and flaws in the arguments of others, learn new material in depth they had never been exposed to, etc.</p>
<p>Just another point of information about Chicago. The College was established as an interdisciplinary institution almost from the outset. There are no departments in the College, the departments reside in the divisions which are primarily concerned with graduate education. Faculty appointments to the College are made by the Dean of the College. One can be a professor in a department and not have an appointment in the College, and one can have an appointment in the College and not have an appointment in a department or committee (rare). This was done so that College faculty would not have sole allegiance to a department and could create new cross-disciplinary courses. This interdisciplinary focus has been in place at Chicago for decades, and is reflected in its majors as well as the Core.</p>
<p>Also, Chicago takes this all very seriously and continually evaluates and innovates within its curriculum. It also has a center for helping faculty to embrace the Chicago approach to inquiry (or enquiry, as the great Joseph Schwab called it). In 1999, Chicago established The Center for Teaching and Learning, which provides faculty with continual professional development, resources from Chicago and other universities, and a Faculty Guide to teaching at Chicago. Here is a quote from the guide that I think is relevant and sets the tone for the Core at Chicago (and perhaps other places as well):
</p>
<p>And there is this from a speech by Donald Levine who gave a brief history of the Idea of the University:
On that, you and I agree. I venture to say, the adherents of either model would tend to agree as well.
Yes, ideally, a good model should be repeatable. If the GB model is good, it should work not only at St John’s College, but work (or be able to work) at other schools too. Or for that matter,in a book club. By that standard, I think the GB model has “worked” (by some definition) over and over again.</p>
<p>Exactly how well in each case? You’re right, that’s hard to say. But at least it is simple and repeatable. All you need is copies of a Great Book, a competent guide, and one or more willing students. I would not want to be too rigid in what I consider a Great Book, but on the other hand, I would not think just any old book will work equally well. Chomsky’s Aspects contains some very provocative ideas; it may have revolutionized how people thought about language and the mind; any professional Linguist (or anyone seriously interested in the study of language) ought to read it at least once. However, to meet the general education needs of college students, I think many of the 100 or so books in the St. John’s canon would be richer sources of discussion material. Moreover, to get the most out of Chomsky,it wouldn’t be a bad idea to grapple with Descartes and Hume first. </p>
<p>Though, I can see the merits of encouraging a certain kind of student, right from the start in college, to dig into Noam Chomsky. And a good teacher could lead an interesting discussion about learning and creativity starting from Noam Chomsky. </p>
<p>
I can’t speak for every school. I think that at Chicago, there is actually quite a bit of oversight.</p>
<p>There is certainly an enormous amount of talk about the implications of the Core and the content of the Core. Every so many years, there is a fairly significant overhaul. This is a community process of adaptation.</p>
<p>The most important oversight, in my opinion, is the oversight that happens in the classroom. That’s how Socratic instruction works. Several of my teachers had been taught by a prior (even pre-Chomsky!) generation of gifted teachers at Chicago, so they’d been observed to “get” the process before they were invited to teach. Other, younger teachers came in from other places and did not necessarily do as good a job in leading dialog. Over time, one hopes, they improve. But yes – there probably needs to be better oversight there, to ensure it happens.<br>
That’s what I meant by tempering passion. I do believe we agree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure to find it interesting. Thank you. I am glad to hear (though not surprised to hear) that students and faculty at Brown are engaged in continually reexamining the meaning of liberal learning. This is a process that has been going on at Chicago, too, for many many years.</p>
<p>(And thanks iDad for your posts. Earlier today, I ordered a copy of the Levine book you cited above. Yes, those are good clarifications about “departments” at Chicago, one could wander around the College for a while before noticing, “Oh, something’s missing!”)</p>
<p>By what definition has this worked? Simple and repeatable are important aspects of extensibility, but so is effectiveness. I think that “competent guide” and “willing students” when it comes to liberal arts education is actually a complex proposition. I believe the unfortunate truth behind both a GB/strong Core model and the Open Curriculum is that they both required high level of competency and buy-in from students and faculty to work at all. I don’t think that either model is likely to engender that intrinsically. Luckily for Brown and UChicago, this is not something either school has to combat, but for most universities in this country it’s quite difficult.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) Socratic instruction has some great benefits and severe limitations even when conducted properly. Observation of effective instruction rarely leads to effective instructors-- we see this all over the field of education. Quite frankly, this isn’t a method of any oversight at all. Perhaps oversight is not important, if only there was some mechanism which systematized the processes by which students are engaged in and assessed by when learning? For Brown, this is sort of the approach we take with the open curriculum, applied in a way that did not infringe on the autonomy of faculty and departments to formulate curriculum and “localized” assessment.</p>
<p>Btw-- the Chomsky example was essentially a completely random choice of a complex body of work which could create in the minds of students the same processes.</p>
<p>idad–</p>
<p>UChicago is hardly alone. While we do appointments by department (approved by the Dean of the Faculty), Brown has had University Courses which do not fit into the mold of any particular department since the 50s. We beat you guys to the Center for Teaching and Learning by 12 years ([The</a> Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning: A Short History](<a href=“Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning | Brown University”>Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning | Brown University)), and acculturation to the curricular practices of a university is hardly a distinguishing characteristic amongst schools that take curriculum quite seriously. You’re misinterpreting our discussion on liberal arts education as an attack on one model and the promotion of another. Really, I’m just discussing why both and neither model works. The truth is, the open curriculum, by my research and understanding, is easily as effective as the GB/Core when it comes to the pursuit of liberal education. However, there is a stigma attached to the open curriculum since its inception at Brown and we have revisited our justification for the open curriculum time and time again as a result. The truth is, the assumed accepting of the core for liberal arts education as easier to manage, as a sound model whose specifics are up for debate but general approach is unquestionably secure, and as effective in the first place in these discussions illuminates a clear bias. When examined deeper, there is no better evidence that a core is effective than there is that an open curriculum is-- simply different evidence.</p>
Oh, I was not suggesting that observation of effective instruction necessarily leads to effective instructors. I hope you do not think I meant that, by sitting in a chair and watching a great scholar lecture, the one sitting in the chair can easily learn to be an effective instructor. It has to be a contact sport.</p>
<p>Nor was I referring to a process of having master teachers go into a classroom, observe a young instructor’s approach, and then offering a critique. I have no idea if that is effective or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I think something like the Socratic dialog is that mechanism. It should occur not only in the classroom, but also continually among the faculty. iDad cited something interesting about a brand of academic civility, one in which any student or any faculty member is allowed to ask the hardest question of anyone else and be entitled to expect gratitude rather than resentment for one’s effort.</p>
<p>As we are doing now. You are asking good hard questions, questions not easily answered, but I am grateful that someone is out there asking them. Not to me particularly but, I hope, to people with a more direct stake at Brown and other schools.</p>
<p>Actually, you could get a terrific liberal arts education at MIT, though that’s not what it’s best known for and relatively few admitted students go there for liberal arts. MIT’s School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences has departments or programs in anthropology, international studies, economics, foreign languages and literatures, history, linguistics, literature, music, philosophy, political science, science-technology-and-society, theater, women’s and gender studies, and writing and humanistic studies. Many of these faculties are among the world’s most distinguished in their respective fields. What’s missing from this list, of course, are math and science, core elements in a liberal arts education, but MIT’s got those in spades in its School of Science. And if that’s not enough, MIT students can cross-register for classes at Harvard, Wellesley, the Mass college of Art and Design, and the School of the Museum of fine Arts in Boston. Bottom line, I’d say MIT has one of the finest liberal arts programs in the country, but it’s a hidden gem.</p>
<p>A recent discussion I had with a U of C undergraduate admissions officer I know socially was about the difficulty she was having convincing applicants and potential applicants of the value of a liberal arts education. That was perhaps the biggest reservation applicants and potential applicants to the U of C were having.
I attributed this to the pre-professional orientation many young people have today. I work with U of C undergraduates everyday and there has been a clear change in the last ten to fifteen years in the Chicago student body toward a higher percentage of those who are contemplating and planning a professional career from the moment they arrive on campus. For many of them, the U of C was not a first choice, but the best academic school that accepted them. There has been some discussion on campus about U of C students becoming more like the students at most other schools and criticism of the admissions office on that account. But I tend to attribute this the echo-boom overflow from the Ivy League. Certainly the undergraduate student body today is much stronger than it was ten years ago.
There are liberal arts educations and liberal arts educations. Somehow or other I don’t imagine Brown admissions officers spending much time convincing prospects of its value. It is not completely clear in my mind why this is so. But I can imagine some future doctors thinking various core courses are a waste of their time.</p>
<p>I think that there are some important distinctions between the core and great books models that are being overlooked. My understanding is that a student at reed or chicago will take some humanities classes focusing on the western tradition and will have to fulfill requirements in other fields (traditional math, science, language classes etc). At St. John’s, while we are also required to take, for instance, math each year, our tutorials are more concerned with the philosophy of math than core classes required at chicago or reed. So while we are aiming to understand Euclid, Cartesian mathematics, etc. we are also concerned with addressing questions of epistemology and other themes we deal with in the program. Likewise, when we read Bacon’s moral philosophy in seminar, we might explore the ways in which it is an outgrowth of the baconian method we’re dealing with in lab. In this sense, it seems that a gb program is slightly more interdisciplinary than the collection of classes that constitutes a core curriculum at another school. </p>
<p>Also, just to echo what was already said, the great books approach is absolutely as concerned with honing a certain set of skills as it is with the books themselves. Along with receiving a broad survey of the history of western thought, the program teaches students the importance of free inquiry, persistent questioning, liberality, and measured skepticism.</p>
<p>I really believe a school like Hampshire or Brown accomplishes the same end as a school like St. John’s. Both breeds of schools attract a similar cross section of adventurous students who are looking for a nontraditional education.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, to achieve all the objectives listed on the Dean’s letter you linked (i.e. work on your speaking and writing, understand difference among cultures, learn what it means to study the past, experience scientific inquiry, develop a facility with symbolic languages, etc.), one would probably have to study modern languages, social sciences, history, natural sciences, arts, and mathematics simultaneously, in other words, follow an exceptionally broad curriculum !</p>
<p>Of course, although mastering all those subjects was not uncommon in classical Greece or even in the early modern age, it is no longer a feasible goal today with the increasing specialization both in science and humanities disciplines and the exponential growth in content. In other words, it is quite difficult for someone to be simultaneously an accomplished historian, social scientist, mathematician, natural scientist, and artist. In a “well-rounded” “core liberal arts” curriculum as we see in US universities and, especially LACs, those subjects would probably be studied only superficially, which, quite frankly, could be done at the High School Level instead.</p>
<p>Perhaps it would make more sense then to go back to Modestmelody’s original concept that, in order to acquire broader analytical, verbal, and quantitative skills, one does not have necessarily to study n to the n different subjects in completely different areas, but rather perhaps only study a few key subjects properly (meaning also in depth). Again, however, that’s not what the letter from Brown’s Dean implies.</p>
To re-frame ModestMelody’s question, what is the antecedent of its?
“Liberal arts education”, or “Brown”?</p>
<p>“Ivy League” is a successful brand. People know and crave the brand, whether they are informed consumers or not. I would imagine that many good students apply to Brown without having a strong commitment to liberal learning, or a very clear understanding of the “Brown Curriculum”. One hopes that among admitted students, the level of understanding and commitment runs a little deeper.</p>
<p>In contrast, the University of Chicago has long had something of a brand image problem. One manifestation is the running inside-joke, “Oh, you go to the University of Chicago? Champaign-Urbana?” Another is the “where fun goes to die” myth (which sorta took off from another student-created inside joke).</p>
<p>My understanding is that, when long-time Admissions Director Ted O’Neill started pushing those off-the-wall essay questions on the U of C application, one of his purposes was to suppress the number of casual, drive-by applications. He wanted to keep the rate of “self-selection” high and devote a lot of personal attention to assessing the personality behind the numbers. </p>
<p>By the way, I’m glad to see somebody from St. John’s jumping in. You folks are a rare breed.</p>
<p>Keep in mind, the primary goal of liberal arts “core” courses is not technical competence in a particular academic discipline or mastery of its subject matter.</p>
<p>Most HS students (many college students for that matter) probably do not have the maturity (the “prepared minds”) to benefit from the best liberal arts programs. Germany and Japan do things rather differently, though; it would be interesting to try to compare outcomes. Britain / Oxbridge would be interesting too, because although the goals may be similar to the goals of US liberal arts colleges, specialization comes early.</p>
<p>ModestMelody, take a look at the Wikipedia article for St. John’s College.
Princeton Review:</p>
<h1>No. 1 in the nation for “accessibility of teachers”.</h1>
<h1>No. 1 in the nation for “best class discussion”.</h1>
<h1>No. 4 in the nation for “best overall quality of life”.</h1>
<h1>No. 4 in the nation for “best overall academic experience”.</h1>
<h1>No. 6 in the nation for “best teachers”.</h1>
<p>And (for outcomes):
“According to a study published by the Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium, based on data from 1992 through 2001, St. John’s ranked first nationally in percentage of graduates attaining doctorates in both Humanities and English literature. In addition, the college ranked among the top ten institutions in political science, linguistics, foreign languages, area and ethnic studies, and math and computer sciences.”</p>
<p>That’s from a school that has no departments in any of these fields.</p>
<p>The kicker:
“The school accepts 75 to 80 percent of applicants, primarily based on three written essays and, to a certain extent, grades. There is no application fee, and standardized tests, like the Scholastic Assessment Test, are optional. About three-quarters of the enrolled students ranked in the top half of their high school class, but only one fifth graduated in the top tenth.”</p>
<p>Now, do we attribute SJC’s success solely to the quality of instruction, accessibility, etc.?
Or does the Great Books model perhaps have something to do with it?</p>
<p>[sorry for the 3 posts in a row. yes i do need to shut up.]</p>
<p>I think Modestmelody’s post about liberal arts education being a process is dead-on. It is generally marked by a discussion-based, small class approach to education. Students are encouraged to study outside their major to gain breadth in addition to depth. Often, you’ll find that major requirements have fewer required courses than at other, non-liberal arts universities because the institution wants students to have the time to study abroad or take courses in a variety of disciplines. Professors both educate and facilitate; they are generally more accessible than at other types of colleges. That’s not to say that lectures are absent or that all professors are friendly, or that less-liberal arts educations don’t have discussion-based courses, only that the liberal arts’ emphasis is on discussion and close mentorship. </p>
<p>A liberal arts education-based university is not divided into undergraduate schools. If students can enroll in a school of business or a school of education or a school of engineering, then it’s not liberal arts.</p>
<p>Brown and Dartmouth are the closest to the liberal arts education model, both because of size and philosophy. Cornell and UPenn are known to be the farthest. The others fall along a spectrum between those, with Princeton edging toward liberal arts and Yale toward non-liberal arts. Does this mean that one type of education is better than another? No. It depends on what you value.</p>
<p>Of course, Princeton Review does these based upon student surveys where students self-report satisfaction. I’m not surprised that these things are reported so highly at St. John’s since a) It’s a small LAC and never tries and pretends to be anything else so accessibility to teachers and teaching quality should be high b) Satisfaction amongst students with their experience should be high when the program is so clearly articulated, meaning that students who attend have high “buy-in” to the educational philosophy. If that’s the case, and the school is accurately conveying its expectation and model, these are the results I’d expect regardless of whether it was a GB school or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, Ph.D. production is always much higher in LACs (look at Reed, Harvey-Mudd, etc), and especially high at an LAC which has a very strongly articulated liberal arts education philosophy, GB or not. Not super surprising to me, and not based upon what happens at St. Johns, rather, those who would be interested in St. Johns in the first place.</p>
<p>As for how are they successful without high selectivity-- 1) A good education in general, 2) Measures are stacked in such a way that other peers may perform similarly, 3) Students who would study political science, literature, and various other humanities at the Ph.D. would likely engage in the kind of GB theoretical basis before/as part of specializing in those areas, so for them the additional work is solely in the sciences. CS being the anomaly with this explanation, unless you take into account the general proclivity of LAC students toward earning PhDs and figure that CS is one of the few fields where expensive equipment is not necessary to do top notch research.</p>
<p>I’m not saying these aren’t really interesting numbers and great examples of outcomes to be proud of SJCs success, however, I don’t find that kind of evidence to be particularly compelling for a GB curriculum or even necessarily connected to GB. Why isn’t Columbia on some other playing field when it comes to Ph.D. production when they’re more selective and also follow the GB model? In this case I think we see correlation and not causation, and many factors which come with an environment that would accept or construct a GB curriculum (rather than the effectiveness of the method itself) being the causes.</p>