<p>That’s really the issue. I am increasingly of the belief that the open curriculum is one of Amherst’s major “brand attributies”, i.e. that many students choose Amherst because it allows them to blow off science or math or English lit.</p>
<p>That’s perfectly fine. In a free market, consumers should have those options. On the other hand, Amherst needs to be honest about it. When only 44% of graduates take a lab science course, a college really needs to stop saying that they believe in “breadth” in the academic program. That is clearly not true in practice.</p>
<p>Here they are with Swarthmore’s numbers. I’ve used four-year averages because that’s what I could easily tally. I assigned some predefined special majors like Biochem and Chem Physics to Chemistry for consistency. I’ve added Engineering, because it is a signficant part of the math/science/tech/computer curriculum at Swarthmore.</p>
<p>Math:
44 Williams
15 Amherst
24 Swarthmore</p>
<p>Computer Sci:
12 Williams
13 Amherst
12 Swarthmore</p>
<p>Chemistry:
25 Williams
13 Amherst
12 Swarthmore</p>
<p>Biology:
54 Williams
25 Amherst
47 Swarthmore</p>
<p>Physics:
13 Williams
10 Amherst
10 Swarthmore</p>
<p>Geology/Geosciences:
9 Williams
9 Amherst
0 Swarthmore</p>
<p>Astronomy/Astrophysics:
5 Williams
1 Amherst
4 Swarthmore</p>
<p>Engineering:
0 Williams
0 Amherst
21 Swarthmore</p>
<p>Total, all above fields
162 Williams
86 Amherst
130 Swarthmore</p>
<p>Total, all majors (includes double and triple-majors)
683 Williams
561 Amherst
439 Swarthmore</p>
<p>Science/math majors as % of total
23.7 % Williams
15.3 % Amherst
29.6 % Swarthmore</p>
<p>My comment: I think the percentage of math/science majors is a clear, substantive differentiating characterisitic of Amherst, relative to its two east coast peers. These percentages along with the broader implications of the open curriculum may well be Amherst’s most differentiating characteristic as no other uber-endowment LAC has an open curriculum. In that sense, Amherst is perhaps most analagous to Brown from an academic standpoint.</p>
<p>I’m not an expert on Amherst history, but most open curriculums were products of the 60s and 70s. They were kind of the rage at the time, with experimental schools like Hampshire and New College offering anything goes curriculums.</p>
<p>A reasonable case can be made that, if students don’t want to take math or science, they should be able to decide for themselves. The downside is what we see in the percentage of math and science majors at Amherst. At what point does it stop being a liberal arts education? At what point can you no longer justify all the (hideously expensive) science departments. Scripps/Claremont McKenna/Pitzer have a “joint science department” shared betweeen the three schools with a skeleton factulty, just the bare-bones course offerings in Bio, Physics, and Chemistry. The three schools have virtually no science majors. That, of course, has implications on campus culture, even dorm life, that ripple across the college. In the opposite direction, it could be argued that the lack of non-science majors in the community is the biggest disadvantage of tech schools.</p>
<p>I fear your criticism of Amherst is without merit. I welcome you to read Amherst’s “Mission Statement,” so that you have a clearer, correct idea of what it stands for and what it purports to do.</p>
<p>Amherst College educates men and women of exceptional potential from all backgrounds so that they may seek, value, and advance knowledge, engage the world around them, and lead principled lives of consequence.</p>
<p>Amherst brings together the most promising students, whatever their financial need, in order to promote diversity of experience and ideas within a purposefully small residential community. Working with faculty, staff, and administrators dedicated to intellectual freedom and the highest standards of instruction in the liberal arts, Amherst undergraduates assumesubstantial responsibility for undertaking inquiry and for shaping their education within and beyond the curriculum.</p>
<p>Amherst College is committed tolearning through close colloquy and to expanding the realm of knowledge through scholarly research and artistic creation at the highest level. Its graduates link learning with leadership—in service to the College, to their communities, and to the world beyond.</p>
<p>I don’t have any objection to an open curriculum. It appears that being able to dodge science and math is a positive selling feature with at least some appeal to Amherst students.</p>
<p>It is Amherst’s own educational policy committees that have placed importance on breath of study. One way to achieve that would be to reserve more admissions slots for science and math students. It’s tough to find the slots though. Plus, the lower numbers of science majors becomes a self-fulfilling feedback loop as it is harder to attract science and math majors. Both Swarthmore and Williams have spectacular new science facilities and large, vibrant science communities doing cool stuff like building hydrogen fuel cell powered motorcycles. That makes recruiting top science and math students easier, just like having a top soccer team makes it easier to recruit top soccer players.</p>
<p>With Merrill Science Center renovations on hold, I think Amherst might be better off simply pitching the heck out of the Open Curriculum. Anyone smart enough to have a shot at Amherst can figure out that means they don’t have to take science or math. Think East Coast version of Claremont-McKenna. It’s obviously working for Amherst. If it ain’t broke, why fix it?</p>
<p>Thanks. I stand corrected. Grinnell does have an open curriculum. It also has a lot of math/science majors. Adding Grinnell’s 5-year averages (with BioChem added to Bio):</p>
<p>Math:
44 Williams
15 Amherst
24 Swarthmore
23 Grinnell</p>
<p>Computer Sci:
12 Williams
13 Amherst
12 Swarthmore
18 Grinnell</p>
<p>Chemistry:
25 Williams
13 Amherst
12 Swarthmore
14 Grinnell</p>
<p>Biology:
54 Williams
25 Amherst
47 Swarthmore
45 Grinnell</p>
<p>Physics:
13 Williams
10 Amherst
10 Swarthmore
14 Grinnell</p>
<p>Geology/Geosciences:
9 Williams
9 Amherst
0 Swarthmore
0 Grinnell</p>
<p>Astronomy/Astrophysics:
5 Williams
1 Amherst
4 Swarthmore
0 Grinnell</p>
<p>Engineering:
0 Williams
0 Amherst
21 Swarthmore
0 Grinnell</p>
<p>Total, all above fields
162 Williams
86 Amherst
130 Swarthmore
114 Grinnell</p>
<p>Total, all majors (includes double and triple-majors)
683 Williams
561 Amherst
439 Swarthmore
423 Grinnell</p>
<p>Science/math majors as % of total
23.7% Williams
15.3% Amherst
29.6% Swarthmore
27.0% Grinnell</p>
<p>Clearly, Grinnell has not be “branded” with its open curriculum the way Amherst has. It’s the only game in town for an elite LAC in that part of country (MN and OH are something else) so obviously many science based kids are attending Grinnell as well.</p>
<p>Thanks Corbett. This is an eye-opening addition to the statistics that help understand the “culture” that defines each college - statistical puzzle pieces like diversity, percentage on fin. aid, SAT scores, per student endowment, and so forth.</p>
<p>Here’s a sample of interesting schools from the IPEDS data base for five years (2003-2007), totalling first/second majors in the science fields we’ve referenced above as a percentage of total first/second majors. I’ve listed them by percentage of science math majors:</p>
<p>30.4% – Princeton University
30.0% – Carleton College
28.9% – Swarthmore College
26.3% – Grinnell College
26.0% – Haverford College
23.5% – Williams College
23.2% – Harvard University
23.1% – Bryn Mawr College
21.2% – Dartmouth College
19.1% – Brown University
17.8% – Pomona College
16.9% – Yale University
16.8% – Davidson College
16.6% – Bowdoin College
16.1% – Smith College
15.6% – Washington and Lee University
14.8% – Amherst College
12.2% – Wesleyan University
12.0% – Claremont McKenna College
11.7% – Wellesley College
11.2% – Middlebury College
10.8% – Vassar College</p>
<p>No question. Grinnell is making the open curriculum work and still maintain impressive balance across divisions, at least on a macro level.</p>
<p>One of the surprises on this list, in part because it’s the only game in town, is Davidson. Davidson has a reputation as a very academic place and also a big pre-med feeder. I’m surprised by the small number of science majors. </p>
<p>I’m also surpised by Amherst, Yale, Pomona, and Bowdoin.</p>
<p>I know Williams has a “potential science PhD” tag in the admissions office. They target math and science majors as an explicit admissions priority with an eye on overall PhD production rates. I think most of these schools probably do that to some extent as declining numbers of math/science majors has been an issue in US higher ed for some time. Imbalances create all kinds of problems from overenrollment in Econ courses to unpleasantries like deciding if you can continue to justify a Physics department. These issues are mostly hypothetical at the big-endowment schools, but there are schools that have to be taking long hard looks at the per student cost of science departments.</p>
<p>For my S having a vibrant astronomy and physics department and distribution requirements was wonderful. He had always been a strong science student and had always expressed an interest in medicine. He was an adequate math student as well.</p>
<p>I was surprised when he made an abrupt about face in college and announced he never wanted to take biology again and was jettisoning medicine as a goal.</p>
<p>However, the reputation of the physics/astronomy department and the folklore about some of its professors piqued his interest and he had a wonderful time in some really interesting courses offered only because the department is alive and kicking. For instance once of his courses was on Newton and Einstein’s theories of space, complete with problem sets and a lot of quantitative work. Others involved much star gazing. And he’s a Classics major.</p>
<p>So, even Humanities students lose out when science departments wither. I am not pointing a finger at Amherst, just offering anecdotal evidence of some of the value of distribution requirements.</p>
<p>I confess, you’ve bested me in numbers (must be that terrible quantitative education I’m getting). I thought total number of majors was more relevant than going by classes; the page I found the Williams info on (somewhere on the admissions page) didn’t specify it was a five-year average. </p>
<p>I still don’t think Amherst’s lower showing in quantitative subjects is either a bad thing or a product of the open curriculum, though. Bowdoin does have a core curriculum, yet its numbers are very similar to Amherst’s, whereas Grinnell has an open curriculum and far more science majors than many schools that require science classes. From reading this thread I’ve gotten pretty convinced that it all depends on the individual school, not the number of required courses it has. Admissions is very good at selecting the type of students the school wants overall, and I don’t think we should credit the curricula with molding the aspirations of the student body.</p>
<p>It’s a mistake, I think, to look at any of these statistical measures as “good” or “bad”. They are simply descriptive and the colleges they describe will appeal to different students. For example, being as diverse as Amherst on a continuum from “diverse” to “lily white” may be important to Student A, while Student B couldn’t care less about diversity.</p>
<p>I think a good way to look at colleges is to start assembling statistics on a number characteristics such as:</p>
<p>a continuum from urban to rural
large to small
region of the country
per student endowment
diversity
PhD production
percentage of science majors
SAT scores (to target schools you can possibly get into)
finanial aid (merit versus need, etc.)
percentage of varsity athletes
percentage of frats
surveyed binge drinking rates</p>
<p>These are all desciptive pieces that fit together to form a puzzle picture of each college or university. Then, you are not just stabbing in the dark. You can say, diversity and being near a city is important and the college search begins to focus in some meaningful way. It also forces you to start prioritizing. Is location or per student endowment (proxie for financial resources) more important?</p>
<p>Well, at Davidson, you find a lot of kids who are pre-med but also majoring in another discipline. There are loads of Pre-Med english, poli-sci, etc. majors</p>
<p>^^^^^^Good advice, though I must say we fuzzy humanities types in my family followed a way more intuitive process. DS ending up at Williams. Go figure. He’s very happy there. His major criterion was good classical music. Now he has abandoned his music major, but he is still quite happy with the school</p>
<p>DD had one criteron: NYC. She liked Barnard better than Columbia (and I liked the admit rate better), so she applied ED, and voila. If she had checked the per student endowment she might have drawn a very different conclusion.</p>
<p>Turned out to be the absolute right place for her.</p>
<p>Yeah, the intuitive way works for a lot of students. On the other hand, I think we’ve all seen applicants here who describe themselves and what they are looking for in a college. Then they give their list of schools and you just have to scratch your head? Like the Latino/a kid asking if Washington and Lee is pretty good with diversity. Or the gay kid asking about Baylor.</p>
<p>Or the kid who simply cannot decide between the school with the $100,000 per student endowment and the one with the $1 million per student endowment and you just want to go “DOH! If you like them both the same, go to the one with ten times more money to spend on you!”</p>
<p>I didn’t really know enough to suss out the key statistical indicators til later. I think this science one tells a lot about various schools.</p>
<p>Adding some more schools of potential interest. Some top regional private universities, some top publics.</p>
<p>35% – Stanford University
33% – Rice University
31% – Duke University
31% – University of California-Berkeley
30% – Princeton University
30% – Carleton College
29% – Swarthmore College
27% – Columbia University in the City of New York
26% – Grinnell College
26% – University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
26% – Haverford College
26% – Vanderbilt University
25% – University of Chicago
24% – Williams College
23% – Harvard University
23% – Bryn Mawr College
21% – Dartmouth College
20% – University of Virginia-Main Campus
19% – Brown University
18% – Pomona College
17% – Yale University
17% – Davidson College
17% – Bowdoin College
16% – Smith College
16% – Washington and Lee University
15% – College of William and Mary
15% – University of Pennsylvania
15% – Amherst College
14% – Oberlin College
13% – University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
12% – Wesleyan University
12% – Claremont McKenna College
12% – Wellesley College
11% – Emory University
11% – Middlebury College
11% – Vassar College</p>
In some cases, you may have to look at the degree statistics carefully to see what’s really going on. For example, I think the numbers above probably underestimate science/math majors at Bowdoin.</p>
<p>Bowdoin has several traditional science majors, like those at other LACs. However, Bowdoin also offers a number of inter-departmental science majors, including biochemistry, computer science/math, chemical physics, geology/chemistry, and geology/physics. The biochemistry major is particularly popular; in fact, it appears to attract more students than the traditional chemistry major. But these joint majors – even though they involve science/math exclusively – seem to be classified under “Interdisciplinary Studies,” rather than under “Natural Sciences/Math.”</p>
<p>However, the number for the Bowdoin Class of 2009 rises to 22%, if you include biochemistry and the other interdisciplinary majors offered jointly by the science/math departments. That moves Bowdoin over to the Williams part of the spectrum.</p>