<p>I am thinking others parents and hopefully students must be facing this consideration.</p>
<p>I have a student looking at a school with an Open Curriculum and another school with Core requirements. This is a student who does not have a master plan of med school, law school or postgraduate schooling at all. The immediate gratification self is drawn to the Open Curriculum - no math classes, no foreign languages or science; the Core Curriculum would require a course of each, perhaps more for the foreign languages. Both schools see themselves as providing a liberal education. The Open C school is ranked, for what it is worth, as one of the top LACs. But it seems to me the Core curriculum actually provides the liberal education if a student is the type that is tempted to avoid certain subjects.</p>
<p>I would love to hear parents and students thoughts and experiences... it's a big decision in so many ways, financial is definitely one way but even beyond that is where does that put the student at the end of 4 years if they are "missing" important parts of their education?
The understandable desire and need to make one's own choices is something I encourage but there is still some brain maturation going on and I would rather do the guiding at the front end of the college process then be staring at the likely unwelcome and unsuccessful exercise of checking in on choices once they are already enrolled at an institution with the Open C.</p>
<p>My undergrad had a very strong core curriculum and I am for it all the way. I love being able to understand and participate in both technical and social arts discussions. It is also valuable in my work.</p>
<p>If your child has no interest in math or science, and doesn’t see that changing, maybe his/her time in academia would be wasted in such cases. </p>
<p>My school had a core. My brain may not have been fully matured, but even then I knew I’d rather be taking an extra writing or American history class than Plant Taxonomy. (Thank you, science requirement.) On the other hand, there were some classes I probably would not have taken if it wasn’t for the requirements (Critical Thinking, one of the best college classes I ever took, comes to mind), so there are benefits and disadvantages to either type of school. </p>
<p>Most colleges, even those with an open curriculum, require a major, so your child will at least be taking in-depth classes in one subject. </p>
<p>As for “missing” part of his/her education, I wouldn’t look at it that way. Nobody can study everything. In England, in fact, I believe students study one thing and that’s it.</p>
<p>my first instinct is to say that it is time to let go and let your child direct his / her own education. I agree totally with gettinin not to worry about “what’s missing” because there will be plenty that can’t be studied no matter what. </p>
<p>But, to help you, one question is: how good is the advising at the Open school? My son attends Grinnell, which has an open curriculum, along with intensive, personal advising by a professor who knows them well, which supports the students in making thoughtful choices. I attended one of the “Top” LACs which had distribution requirements across the disciplines, but non-existent advising (my advisor was a sports coach, not a professor) so my curriculum choices and approach to my major weren’t well-thought out at all.</p>
<p>In addition to SDon’s point about good advising, I think you’d find that open curriculum schools make an extra effort to offer classes that will attract students to subjects outside their comfort zone. My experience with core curricula, though there are lots of variations and YMMV, is that they also make the requirements pretty painless to satisfy with the “physics for poets” or “rocks for jocks” type classes. In reality, I’m not sure that the range of courses taken by a typical student is that different between the two models, and it’s definitely possible to avoid a specific subject like math or chemistry in both.</p>
<p>I also wouldn’t worry about missing stuff. Education does not end with college, and it’s far better to pick up a course when you’re interested in it than take it because you have to.</p>
<p>Are we really talking about a “Core” (Chicago, Columbia) or are we talking about distribution requirements? A true Common Core is not about making History majors take a course in Plant Taxonomy. It’s about integration at least as much as breadth. At Chicago, a prospective Humanities major might take a Biology topics course called “Biological Diversity” or “Plagues: Past and Present” as part of the Core sequence. The Humanities Core offerings include sequences such as “Human Being and Citizen” and “Philosophical Perspectives on the Humanities”. You would not satisfy the Humanities requirement by taking, for example, an English 101 course on Jane Austin. There are not even any departments, per se, at the undergraduate level. Chicago professors who teach undergraduates are appointed to “The College”.</p>
<p>Chicago encouraged interdisciplinary work even before it had the Common Core. Majors include programs like “Fundamentals: Issues and Texts”, which build upon the Core. These programs encourage professors as well as students to cross traditional academic boundaries. The environment in this respect is quite “open”.</p>
<p>One great thing about an open curriculum is that everyone who is in the class actually wants to be there, which often makes for a livelier class and more enthusiastic teaching.</p>
<p>Some types of classes, such as basic foreign language instruction, are better learned by other methods, such as by total immersion within the native speaker’s country.</p>
<p>The number of different classes one can take in college is limited; everyone will be “missing” something, either in breadth or in depth, when one graduates. The notion that one needs a college classroom to learn is false, however – books, videos, the Internet, enthusiast groups of all kinds, from organic gardening to Civil War re-enactments, are all ways to continue or to supplement one’s education during and after college.</p>
<p>LoremIpsum, great point about the classroom experience. I do wonder how some of those professors in “rocks for jocks” types of classes feel knowing that most students are in there because it’s perceived as a “gut” class to fulfill distribution requirements…</p>
<p>Grinnell College (which as an open curriculum) found that 97% of the students had voluntarily fulfilled whatever definitition of distribution requirements was under consideration at that time (this was in the 70s, I believe). I suspect that at top schools, most kids are still doing this. </p>
<p>I’d rather let the 3% who don’t, go their own way, then create a ‘requirement’ for the other 97%. Also many majors are going to have requirements that force students to take classes in other areas. You can’t major in most (any?) of the social sciences without some statistics, for example. And most humanities majors are going to have a language requirement. And even at Grinnell, all students have a writing intensive freshman seminar requirement.</p>
<p>I guess I’ll be the odd one out in saying that there is a strength in requiring a strong core curriculum and forcing students to gut it out. In many ways this is the ultimate liberal arts education.</p>
<p>I do lean towards Erin’s Dad’s thinking and other who noted their surprise of taking classes through a core curriculum that they would not have ordinarily entertained signing onto and having significant experiences. I am not a stranger to letting the offspring find their own way but providing guidance and encouraging them to be aware of what the choices are and what they mean is still part of the job. I agree with responsible well thought out immersion programs, I learned 2 languages the old fashioned way by living them.
In terms of the schools considered and the course offerings they have it is likely specific to the school philosophies and culture- it just so happens that the one with a core curriculum has the greater number of range of opportunities to fulfill them and the Open curriculum doesn’t offer as many options so it is “easier” to avoid things because IMO the variety of courses do not appear to be as interesting or palatable. If I had a magic wand to switch which was Open and which was Core I would, 'cause it seems as if it would work better in engaging a student to try explore outside their current preferences. This student of mine is actually quite proficient at the Math and Science and Languages but the interest is greater in other areas.</p>
<p>Many schools offer an integrated set of interdisciplinary humanities courses that can be elected as an alternative to the hodge-podge of scattered courses that often result under the distribution model of gen ed. So, even when a traditional core curriculum is not required, a student might have some pretty good alternatives. </p>
<p>The Integrated Liberal Studies program at Wisconsin is a good example of this. [Integrated</a> Liberal Studies - University of Wisconsin Madison](<a href=“http://ils.wisc.edu/]Integrated”>http://ils.wisc.edu/)</p>