<p>Don’t let the title of this fool you…I really love the idea of an open curriculum where students can be responsible for their own course of study. But as a junior, I am looking through other colleges and their core curriculums and some of them require students to take classes that may seem redundant, but in the long run, it truly makes them a more well rounded and intelligent person than when they first entered campus. For example, UChicago requires courses where you may need to read “The Wealth of Nations” to really get an idea of how capitalism works. I know that UChicago is not the only place where you can learn this, but I just wanted to know that if one were to attend Brown, and they truly wanted to have the opportunity to take classes like that, that they could. Don’t get me wrong, I prefer a more flexible curriculum, but are such classes offered for those who really want to take them is what I am asking. Any comments would be totally helpful!</p>
<p>Of course you can take them. You can take whatever you want-- that's the point-- you choose and design your core. Wealth of Nations is assigned in the first level political science course (one of the intros, not sure which). Of course, most courses at Brown will require you to read seminal works in the field, etc. Of course if you study philosophy you'll read Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Descartes, etc at some point.</p>
<p>You get the point-- the only difference between Brown and UChicago is that at UChicago they want everyone to read the same important books, at Brown you choose which important books you want to read.</p>
<p>It may end up being exactly the same, could end up being totally different.</p>
<p>I've tried desperately to explain this to my friends at Columbia, with limited success. I'm passionate about Brown, though, so I'll always try :-)</p>
<p>There's this belief at the 'great books' core schools that there is some magical set of ideas that, simply by being studied, make someone 'well rounded'. What I usually here is something to the effect of: 'all of our modern ways of thinking come from these thinkers, so we must study them to understand who we are...' and so on.</p>
<p>I think it's total bull. If I wanted to know the basis of my thought processes, I'd go straight to the source: psychology. What's more important, understanding the source of subtle thoughts that have trickled down through generations of culture, or understanding the biases inherent in all human thought? And why stop there? Those biases are based in part on the limitations of our thinking organ: the brain. Neuroscience is, in my mind, as important as Plato and Kant.</p>
<p>Many disagree with me about this, and that's great. That's Brown - everyone has a different viewpoint about what constitutes the essential liberal arts education. And they each design their curriculum with that in mind.</p>
<p>A final note: don't underestimate the power of learning things from friends. Part of the appeal of a core curriculum for some is the idea that all of your friends will have some common knowledge to talk to you about. I cannot think of anything duller. Every day at Brown I learn as much from my friends as I do in class, and it's precisely because of the lack of overlap between our areas of interest. And, taking the time to teach my friends about what I'm studying has helped me master material. I love it.</p>
<p>The last paragraph, perhaps, is the most important paragraph of the above post.</p>
<p>And open to controversy. I would think that different people learn/see different things despite seeing the same subject matters and attending the same classes, and it is this difference that creates debate and a real exchange of ideas and illumination. Assuming commonality in viewpoint and thinking as a natural extension from commonality in class enrollments is fallacious. </p>
<p>Say what you like, if you want to be worth your weight in salt at uni level you're going to have to devote LOTS of attention to your subject matter, and yeah, you do learn from your friends with regards to other subjects, but it would be scratching the surface (to the tune of: ah that's interesting and providing some really novel and new info to friends is exciting I'd give that but it ain't the same (bull, if you insist) that you get if you are in classes that keep forcing you to approach things from so many areas: neuro science, philosophy, economics, jazz studies, japanese culture with readings, professors, peers etc etc) You'll know things that you never really "knew". Yeah, I'm with you when it comes to learning from friends, but they are far from being the only major source of excitement or information.</p>
<p>And chances are, you'll discover a fierce passion for something that you never knew you had. It gives you the opportunity to break the stereotypes of various subjects. Think math is mindless memorization of formulae? Now discover the axioms. Solve a problem using differentiation, or graphs, or functions. Find out how they are interrelated. prove a theorem using contradiction, or mathematical induction, or using corollaries. Want a bit of econs and political science? Political economy gives you a great way to apply exchange rates, floating or fixed to the ever-changing landscapes of realism, post-positivism or new human security issues. NOW that's the passion of the liberal arts!</p>
<p>Personally, I cannot think of anything more exciting and nerve-tingling ;)</p>
<p>I do get your point about an artificial combination of courses supposedly creating a well-rounded person simply by dint of the different nature of studies, and it ain't as simple as that, no doubt. But for those who want it (and take these requirements seriously) chances are they'd benefit from having both their right and left brains stretched. Learning for the sake of learning - the breadth available at Brown isn't meant to create nice bite-sized mini-pizzas with a little bit of pepperoni, salami, peppers, pineapple, ham, chicken, olives on them, it's meant to make knowledge as it should be - limitless.</p>
<p>I'm not sure whether you're praising Brown's approach or UChicago's approach, but the truth is, all the benefits you speak of are quite true and are things supplied by a liberal education.</p>
<p>Brown offers a liberal education as does UChicago. How they go about offering a liberal education is quite different, however.</p>
<p>One of the greatest misunderstandings of the Brown curriculum is that it is there so that students can take "whatever they want". It's much more than that. It's there to place the responsibility of constructing a liberal curriculum on the shoulders of students and their adapting desires and needs. It's there to provide students with the ability to peruse through the disciplines finding their interests and directing themselves in a dynamic way rather than the static, set approach of UChicago. There is no set of knowledge deemed more important than all other knowledge at Brown-- there is no one way to look at what makes an educated individual. Of course simply taking the same course does not create robots who think the same way, but don't disregard the power of a professor to shape the minds of his pupils-- a well documented and difficult "problem" to "fix". This happens way less at such prestigious places such as Brown and Chicago, but it does happen. However, what this does mean is that each Brown student is able to shape their own educational goals and reach for whatever depths they need to find in that. When you're at a place like Brown, the vast majority of students are capable of seeking out a well-rounded liberal education themselves, and that pursuit is only strengthened when it is self-guided, IMO.</p>
<p>The truth is, no one at Brown would argue against the benefits of a liberal education-- that's exactly what we seek to provide. We just don't believe that what constitutes necessary knowledge, what constitutes what an educated student must learn, etc., is absolute and steadfast.</p>
<p>I also think the open curriculum is misunderstood. I know people who look down on it as being less academically rigorous or not comprehensive. The only thing an open curriculum really requires is independence and intellectual curiosity. If you love history and hate math, fine. Take tons of history classes, some english, maybe some philosophy or psychology and whatever else catches appeals to you. If you believe a strong understanding of all the academic areas is necessary, ok. Take math, chemistry, history, english, PE, bricklaying, reptile psychology and psychoceramics (Brown jokes, anyone?). Liberal education is whatever you make it!!!</p>
<p>It's your life. It's your career. It's your education. </p>
<p>These curriculum systems found in Chicago etc. are premised on the flawed assumption that the only way to understand the origins of modern capitalism is to read Adam Smith. But, even using your example of 'Wealth of Nations', Business schools (who I think should have the final word) have come to see such a curricular approach as silo-ed, inefficient and lacking in dimensions/actor perspectives.</p>
<p>More than that, what's interesting, and somewhat scary, is the notion that adults who's families are paying 160-200 thousand dollars to educate them at one of the best universities in the country will not take on a challenge, seek to expand themselves beyond comfort, and will not seek out new areas which they are not exposed to.</p>
<p>That's exactly what most students go to college for at this level. That's exactly what Brown is designed to allow students to accomplish.</p>
<p>I think most people's cases against the open curriculum- and personally, mine as well- is that it could practically be used as a shelter against the unknown. What you are implying is that students will take the initiative to enroll in courses foreign to their interests and strengths. Yet I've heard disturbingly amounts of times students who are strong in the humanities tout the open curriculum simply because they will never have to touch math again. How is that an example of a multi-faceted liberal arts education?</p>
<p>Dionysus-- the truth of the matter is, that all indications are that that fear is completely unfounded. On the whole, well over 90% of students complete what Yale (maybe it's Princeton, I'm not sure) considers a set of distribution requirements. That number is higher in the sciences (close to around 96%) and lower in the humanities (about 87%). On top of that, the use of pass/fail and the ability to fail two courses while at Brown and still graduate are all in place to encourage students to move to foreign concepts.</p>
<p>The simply truth is to be a student at Brown you're not going to be the type to simply "avoid" and "ignore" areas foreign to you. It happens so rarely that Brown largely considers this a "problem" that's, "worth it", due to the fact that our curriculum will allow at least an equal number of students to do something they absolutely could not do anywhere else in the world (Hampshire is the closest, but they don't benefit from the research resources we have due to the graduate school).</p>
<p>For what it's worth, over 50% of Brown students take a math class in their first year at Brown. It's hardly avoided.</p>
<p>I'm not from Brown, but for what it's worth, I think nearly all the students at Brown are extremely capable and independent and driven. </p>
<p>Sometimes, to insist upon a 'liberal arts' education in the sense of forcing people to take courses in things they hate may be counter-productive to the nurturing of these minds. Not that they shouldn't take a subject foreign to them or two - there may be benefits to have had, but it may not be the best way to mould the minds of some students. </p>
<p>I agree about the fixed core requirements in Chicago. But I would venture to say that sometimes these fixed classes do have their merits as a tool to build foundations. Chances are, during the college application process, the UChicago students who eventually enroll will most likely be the ones attracted to this sort of fixed-liberal (what a paradox) core. And they may be the ones who benefit the most.</p>
<p>What can I say, it's laissez-faire. haha.</p>
<p>I'm 100% with you. I think that both forms of curriculum work to the same ends, but some students do better in a Brown system to reach that end and some do better in the UChicago system.</p>
<p>One of the best parts about Brown is that not only does it offer a liberal education, but there are benefits to an open curriculum that allows people to do things they couldn't possibly do anywhere else at Brown in addition to receiving a liberal education.</p>
<p>That's in my opinion. I would never suggest that one is a blanket better system over the other, but I do believe that both work towards and succeed in the same fundamental goal.</p>
<p>Throughout this discussion there is the implicit assumption that students at Brown and elsewhere are incapable of knowing what their passions/deep interests are at the start of college. Although a broad education can challenge or confirm these preferences, we must be mindful that perhaps some people have decided they want to be an anthropologist in high school, or a reporter or what have you. I count myself as one who is happy not to have to face math again. Still, that sentiment is not one made in haste or in ignorance. </p>
<p>There is a difference between pursuing a challenge for a purpose and pursuing a challenge for the sake of it being challenging. I am not going to judge those in the latter and would hope that they, in turn, would not judge those of us in the former. Still, for me, I have other concerns and issues which I wish to explore which will be far more relevant to my career and my interdisciplinary interests than math. </p>
<p>One could make pointed critiques against the western-centric Columbia core too.</p>
<p>I am totally in agreement with the above posts regarding the cores specific to Columbia and Chicago (among others) - they are right for a specific subset of students, and those are the students who attend.</p>
<p>The amazing thing about Brown, for me, is that it has a potentially infinite number of core curricula that are just waiting to be designed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
some people have decided they want to be an anthropologist in high school, or a reporter
[/quote]
See, to me the open curriculum becomes a haven for pre-professionals in these cases. A true liberal arts education is founded on the principle that the material that the student learns in college must have both depth and breadth. If you are only taking courses in one field, you are not realizing the latter situation.</p>
<p>It is worth noting that only four concentrations could really be considered preprofessional at Brown-- public health, Business-Econ, COE, and engineering. </p>
<p>There is strong resistance amongst faculty and administrators (and students, to a lesser extent) to include any concentration that is pre-professional.</p>
<p>Dionysus - If you were aware of the degree to which pre-professionalism is deliberately NOT part of Brown's culture, I promise you wouldn't be worried.</p>
<p>Apart from Brown, which other colleges have an open curriculum?</p>
<p>Dionysus, I think your analysis overlooks one critical point. The extent to which coursework is cross-disciplinary. Further, I don't know why knowing what one wants to do would preclude other interests. People can have a career in mind and have more than one dimension to their course of study.</p>