<p>What are the advantages and disadvantages? Should I screen colleges based on that? What do you think?</p>
<p>Open: Advantages - easy to double major, aren't forced to take classes. No disadvantages. Example is Brown.</p>
<p>Core: Advantages - a more well rounded education. Disadvantages - forced to take classes, a bit harder to take classes you actually want. Example is Columbia.</p>
<p>Most schools have an in-between, where you have to take classes in certain fields but you aren't forced to take a certain class. For example, instead of having to take English 150, you can take any English class.</p>
<p>I agree with basically everything thethoughtprocess said, except I would argue that many people feel there are disadvantages to a completely open curriculum. Namely the fact that one is not forced to explore outside of their comfort zone, potentially discovering a subject they did not realize they had interest in, and at the very least, forcing them to be more well rounded. there have certainly been many debates over which form if curriculum is best, and I am not advocating against an open one, I simply was filling in a view I felt had not been expressed.</p>
<p>It is correct that most schools fall somewhere between the two ends of this spectrum, and ttp explains this system pretty well. These requirements are often known as "Distribution requirements," indicating that you must take a class in several different disciplines, though not any one specific class.</p>
<p>If you have a strong feeling about which kind of school would be right for you, then by all means screen colleges based on that. However, I would advise keeping the option of schools with distribution requirements open, regardless of which way you lean (and of course, these schools in between the two extremes fall in different places along the requirement continuum). If you say "I ONLY want schools WITH a core", you'll be left with very few schools. Likewise, if you say "I ONLY want schools with NO requirements."</p>
<p>Thanks a lot!
Really helpful. But do you think that an open curriculum college has no limitations as thethoughtprocess said? It is sort of an understatement. If that is the case, then why are there only, what is it 8 or sth?, open curriculum schools???</p>
<p>
[quote]
Open vs Core Curriculum.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You framed the question in a way that eliminates 90% of the colleges and universities in the country. Most schools have distribution requirements: typically three Humanities courses, three Social Science courses, and three Science/Math courses. This is VERY different than a "core curriculum" school that mandates specific courses or courses from a small menu of mandatory courses.</p>
<p>lol, it is very rare when a college has an absolutely open curriculum - the majority of colleges are in between - as in, you need to take classes in certain subject areas.</p>
<p>Which colleges, other than Columbia and Brown, are on the extreme ends of the spectrum?</p>
<p>Amherst is totally open. Chicago has pretty strict requirements.
Those two, along with the two you already have, are most often cited when people are talking about open v. core, though I'm sure others can chime in with more.</p>
<p>UChicago has an extensive core. Occidental too, (at least it used to.)</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, (and I might not,) Grinnell College has an open curriculum.</p>
<p>brown is open, uchicago is core, northwestern is distribution requirements.</p>
<p>to be honest, the lazy person in me would prefer an open curriculum, but those schools are very rare, and the academic in me says they are not as edifying as schools with some requirements across different disciplines.</p>
<p>Interesting; I just looked at the Columbia website and it's core is pretty darn rigid, except for maybe science. Guess I know to avoid that extreme.</p>
<p>It might be worthwhile pointing out that an open curriculum does not mean no requirements, because there are still required courses for a major. So, it's not absolutely true that you will never have to take a class you don't especially want to take, even at Brown.</p>
<p>One advantage of the rigidity of Columbia's core curriculum is that everyone in each year is taking the same core classes, reading the same books at the same time. So, it's a shared experience. On the other hand, if that's not what you want to be doing with your undegraduate education, I would absolutely not apply there.</p>
<p>In their own ways, both core and open curricula are good for students who do not know for sure what they want to do going in. The core, because it forces a quantitative student to take a heavy dose of humanities and vice versa (and I can absolutely guarantee you my S would never have taken an art history course if not required to take Art Humanities, yet he appreciated what he got out of it.) An open curriculum, not only because you can wander between departments, but because the students in any given class (at least at the introductory level) are there because of their interests but will not all be potential majors.</p>
<p>Personally, I like both options better than distribution requirements. I like the core because you come out with a good all round education, no matter what your major. I like the open curriculum because there is more room in the schedule for you to follow your curiosity. Distribution requirements can (I'm not saying will, but can) end up with the worst of both worlds: classes you have to take because they fit in your schedule and you need to meet the requirement; coming out without a really rounded general education. Just my opinion.</p>
<p>I can see sac's point of view, but at Rice there was no problem getting classes that fit my schedule and I was able to take what I wanted to fulfill distribution requirements. I would say that my education was not as well rounded as a student with a core curriculum, but I was an engineer and there wasn't much room left in my schedule because engineering has so many required courses. That will be true anywhere. I took art history and French literature as well as lots of economics courses. What I was scared of was writing essays and history papers so I avoided history and English classes, probably to my detriment. I can certainly write well enough for technical documents and business letters so it isn't that I'm not educated, but I found out after college that I love history so I missed out on a lot of good courses.</p>
<p>I'd personally prefer distribution requirements better than both. There are plenty of classes that interest me in many disciplines, but without the requirements would never take as I would focus in only a few fields.</p>
<p>Colleges love the core curriculum because the mandatory courses mean forcing signficant portions of the student body into very cost effective (i.e. large) classes. </p>
<p>I'm a conservative free market guy. If a student wants to go out of his or her way to spend $45,000 a year and not get a solid liberal arts education, why should I care? I see absolutely no reason for a college to shove some arbitrary definition of "western canon" down a student's throat, especially since most students have already read half the stuff two or three times in high school.</p>
<p>As a practical matter, distribution requirements present no meaningful obstacle to course selection for 95% of all students. Most students find that they are plenty interested enough in a range of courses to fulfill the simple 3/3/3 requirements without breaking a sweat.</p>
<p>
[quote]
especially since most students have already read half the stuff two or three times in high school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>can i tell you how many times i have read john locke's Leviathan, judith jarvis thomson's A Defense of Abortion, or Oedipus the King because of distribution requirements??</p>
<p>I had to read Leviathan once. I don't remember what its about. Some sea monster and civil liberties...or something. That what happens when you have to read stuff for a mandatory seminar hehe.</p>
<p>Well, there is nothing that says core courses have to be large. However, that does seem to be the efficient way to teach them. It also means that demand for these courses is completely predictable, no worrying about how many professors or TA's to assign. They are easy for the faculty to prepare, since the Western canon does not change much from year to year. No pesky choosing reading lists or revising lectures. </p>
<p>Let's face it, well educated people come out of open curriculum colleges, rigid core colleges, and everywhere in between. Most important for students to decide which approach suits them.</p>
<p>maybe not the biggest contribution to the thread-- but i know vassar is pretty close to an open curriculum- i think they have maybe 1 requirement.</p>
<p>I chuckled when I saw "Pride and Prejudice" on the mandatory core reading list for juniors at St. Johns -- thinking that my daughter read it so many times for fun in high school that she had practically memorized it.</p>
<p>If I recall, St. John's great books curriculum stopped at 1945 -- just like high school and does not include a single book on Asia, South America, Africa, India, or the Middle East.</p>
<p>Someone once said that the "western canon" is the ideal education for the 20th century.</p>