<p>modestmelody - Your contagious enthusiasm for brown has lit up the fire in me to “leap” out of my comfort zone to explore the world.</p>
<p>I will be applying to brown. Any chance you can shed some light on transfer admission?</p>
<p>Thank You</p>
<p>hi JasonLJJ, modestmelody announced that he ‘retired’ from posting here after he finished his 5 year Master’s program at Brown. He did say he would read here, but I don’t know why if he won’t reply. There are a couple of current students posting. I doubt anyone knows much about the subject you are asking, transfers at schools like this are few. Just have a great resume and reason for wanting Brown.</p>
<p>Good article! </p>
<p>Haha…i wrote my senior year AP English thesis on the benefits of an open curriculum. I used the Task Force as one of my sources :)</p>
<p>Bumping this classic thread for the benefit of any Brown admits who are wrestling with final-hour decisions on whether to matriculate.</p>
<p>Modest’s post really never gets old…</p>
<p>It doesn’t, but it brings up something I have discussed with my friends a lot, and something that has often been a point of contention among us:</p>
<p>Did I use the Open Curriculum incorrectly?</p>
<p>Sometimes I wonder if it’s just a matter of semantics, or maybe it’s a matter of my high school education, but I came to Brown with very little interest in exploring totally unchartered waters. I knew what I wanted to study, I knew what I didn’t want to study, and I wanted to go to a school where I would spend as little time as possible in courses I didn’t enjoy. By the end of high school, it became very clear to me that being in courses I did not enjoy made me miserable. Enjoy does not mean easy, or fun necessarily. Enjoy means stimulates me intellectually. If I did not feel any energy or excitement about what I might get out of the course, I felt like there was no reason to be there.</p>
<p>What complicates this is that I had two, vastly different interests. One was the human body and all aspects of its biology, the other was reading classical literature in the original language as well as studying its culture. At the schools I applied to, their curricula were liberal enough that I could potentially stick to these areas for almost, if not all of my course work and still accomplish the distribution requirements. At many schools I looked at though, trying to fulfill all of the humanities requirements within the Classics department would not have been allowed.</p>
<p>I did an “ScB/AB” in 4 years (quotes because I technically only have an ScB in Bio with a concentration in Classics), and therefore had only 4 courses that did not need to be concentration requirements (needed 20 for the Bio ScB, 8 for the Classics) since I was too involved in my extra curriculars (varsity athletics, greek life, and eventually scientific research) to take 5 courses in a semester. I ended up using only 2 of those courses on classes that would not have counted towards my concentrations, and even then they weren’t far off (they were Cognitive studies courses).</p>
<p>Classics is a very broad discipline, so despite sticking to one department, I still took courses in literature, foreign language, theater, history, religion, and sociology. Biology is in some respects, equally broad, and I took courses in nearly every subfield of the biological sciences.</p>
<p>In my opinion, exploration and avoidance are not as mutually exclusive as modest’s original post paints them to be, and I am offended by my classmates who used to say that Brown was not intended for what I wanted to do, especially since people were also usually impressed that someone could be so proficient at such polarizing fields. By the time I graduated Brown, my interests had moved somewhat narrower, albeit in a slightly different direction that what I anticipated when I first came to Brown (although things falling just outside these newer boundaries are not as awful to me as the things I had to do in high school).</p>
<p>How conversations usually end with my friends is that my “specific interests” were paradoxically “broad enough” such that our beliefs on how to use the New Curriculum ended up falling in line, but I still always get the feeling that many students look down on someone who knows what they want to study, and simply pursues that.</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Creative minds always find a way to use a tool in a way for which it was not originally intended. If it’s a good tool it will indeed be flexible enough to push to unintended extremes. Every few years someone seems to come along and create a new field or business opportunity combining two very unlikely fields. Crossing psychology with CS to first create AI and later the graphical user interface (GUI) guidelines. Crossing biology with cultural anthropology to create ethnobotany where researchers question rain forest witch doctors to find new pharmaceutical candidates. And a few people crossed environmental science with art to create more realistic natural habitats for zoo animals (and the people who come to see them).</p>
<p>The New Curriculum is a buffet, a Las-Vegas-style feast. No one should feel guilty at such a feast in only loading up on the goodies from Table One or only loading up on the goodies from Tables One and Six or instead by trying something from every table possible. There’s no right or wrong way to enjoy a buffet and no right or wrong way to enjoy the New Curriculum.</p>
<p>God, I was already infatuated with Brown, now after reading this it makes me realize how much it sucks that I have absolutely no chance of ever attending Brown. Thanks for further advancing my infatuation with Brown; I’m sure Summer@Brown’ll also do the same thing, and though I’m glad I’m attending Summer@Brown for 3 weeks (Anatomy of a Case course, the only pre-college law course offered), it stinks that there’s no way I’ll ever get in. Thanks for the information though, it’s great to know that now, and I personally find it to be a seemingly great system, as someone like me who likes politics, law, history, writing, philpsophy, foreign culture, and psychology could potentially gain alot of knowledge in ALL of those areas! Thanks for feeding the unattainable dreams!</p>
<p>i<em>wanna</em>be_Brown-- my 2 cents, which are worth considerably less than that:</p>
<p>One of my consistent examples of how the Open Curriculum can function in a really unique way is looking at my own studies. It would appear that I took a wide breadth of courses. By the time I was done at Brown (for undergrad), I took classes in about 15 different departments if you count a few cross-listed courses. However, a closer examination of my course work would show some very clear and intentional threads. I took quite a few courses on Judaism, but many were methodologically disperate. I used my interest in my own heritage to take a history course, an anthropology course, archaeology, foreign language, etc. Different departments, but a common element. For my chemistry degree I took courses in nearly every science department at Brown, but they all connected back coherently to my interest in chemistry and the physical sciences. I took GE23 because I wanted to learn more inorganic/crystal chemistry before I threw myself into organic work. I took CS classes so that I could do data analysis in the physical sciences more efficiently. You get the picture…</p>
<p>Anyway, the unique thing about the open curriculum is that it enforces and inspires intentionality. I find no matter how focused people say they are in one particular area, if they are intentional in their course selection they end up with a wide array of skills that are complementary and coherent while being disparate at the same time. The Brown student, who never consults a list when taking courses outside of the concentration, is able to construct a coherent and meaningful path as they become self-aware of their own intellectual needs.</p>
<p>It is my belief that the intelligent, highly responsible, and engaged student body at Brown are driven to recognize their own needs and seek resources to complete their education rather than being told what their needs are and passively partaking in a liberal education. This active process creates far greater ownership, provides Brown students with the tools to perpetually expand their abilities, and leads to earlier intellectual maturation compared to peers.</p>
<p>I’m going to be a cynic for a second.</p>
<p>One significant issue with the Open Curriculum is that everyone wants to make sense of it, to decide what it is and is not, and how one should use it effectively. A lot of people come to Brown thinking one thing about the Open Curriculum and change their minds when they get there.</p>
<p>I take the classes I want to take or am required to take by virtue of my concentration (let’s face it, most people have at least one class in their major that they’re not wild about). Sometimes I take things, as modestmelody did, that might not be required of me but will be ultimately useful in the long run. I thank the Open Curriculum for allowing me the opportunity to do what I want, but I don’t spend too much time dwelling on how I should take advantage of it.</p>
<p>Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think most students at Brown take what they want (whatever that is and whatever their reasons), but few are explicitly concerned with “making the most of the Open Curriculum” (i.e. “I should take a class in at least half the departments at Brown because I can”).</p>
<p>thefunnything-- that’s not cynical, that’s reality. I don’t think a lot of people at Brown are concerned with how to use the Open Curriculum effectively, they just use it. The end goal of your college education should have virtually nothing to do with the Open Curriculum. The Open Curriculum simply facilitates accomplishing what you want out of your education, however deep or shallow that is, in a unique fashion.</p>
<p>Anyone who doesn’t think the Open Curriculum creates a pervasive and unique atmosphere can do a quick check. Think about the conversations you and your friends about about course selection, even if you’re a pre-med double concentrator in X and Y and always knew that would be the case and carefully planned everything. That conversation about choosing courses that I found to be absolutely universal at Brown is completely unique. Almost none of my friends at other schools knew their course book as deeply, discussed selection of courses so vigorously, or carefully selected their third, fourth, and fifth classes seeking balance, coverage, and enjoyment in quite the same way. The few people at other schools I met who really treated their course selection the way Brown students did were exceptions, not the rule. At Brown, everyone goes through the same process and struggle to some extent. It’s a major part of what unifies a culture at Brown. More than a football team or thriving Greek scene, Brown students are united on largely one bit of culture-- the selection of courses.</p>
<p>The point is that even floating through the Open Curriculum without reflecting at all on the curriculum itself, the act of course selection at Brown and culture around produces a different experience. I believe it makes it far more likely that people leave Brown owning their experience, finding obscure connections between disparate course work, and being capable of seeking out new learning and experience in far flung areas independently to fill their gaps. I think a Brown student is more likely to leave knowing what they don’t know and having a strong sense of how to get “there” if they need to. Of course students everywhere have that ability, but I think Brown’s culture and the Open Curriculum does a lot more to assure this.</p>
<p>^^
agreed</p>
<p>While I was at Brown, I never really thought about whether I was using it right. These conversations I was referencing were usually when talking about the curriculum to others.</p>
<p>BUMP! This thread should be at the top of the list during this time of year when students are looking and asking questions re applications and trying to figure out what Brown is all about. (and really should be up in the more active lists than “what would you do to get into Brown” which is rather silly).</p>
<p>I am somewhat surprised that I have not read more comparisons between the University of Rochester and Brown. Both are small universities and both have a similar if not identical
open curriculum. I imagine that students at Rochester also have many of the same conversations about choosing courses as students at Brown. In many ways these schools have more in common than say
Columbia and Brown or Penn and Brown.</p>
<p>Like many schools, Rochester has distribution requirements – although they don’t appear to use that term – and a required writing course. I think it’s nice that Rochester chooses to highlight the relative freedom permitted by its curriculum, but it is not an “open curriculum” as that term is used at Brown. An open curriculum, like Brown’s, is one in which the choice of courses outside one’s major is totally free. </p>
<p>Rochester also does not have some of the grade reform features that complement Brown’s curriculum, like unlimited use of a satisfactory/fail option or non-reporting of failing grades.</p>
<p>Most of the schools with a colorable claim to having an open curriculum participated in a [white</a> paper](<a href=“http://www.teaglefoundation.org/grantmaking/grantees/forumsfull.aspx#BROWN]white”>http://www.teaglefoundation.org/grantmaking/grantees/forumsfull.aspx#BROWN) on the subject a few years back; they included Amherst, Antioch, Brown, Hampshire, New College, Sarah Lawrence, Smith, and Wesleyan. (In reality, the freedom provided by these schools is somewhat varied.)</p>
<p>mgsinc: </p>
<p>I do agree that Brown is different. However many students seem to agonize over whether
to go to Brown or Columbia or Penn. I was suggesting that Brown and Rochester
are in some sense more similar than say Brown and Penn.</p>
<p>^I agree about Columbia and Penn. But, I think there are more similar schools with equal measures of curricular freedom. I was mostly responding to the idea that Rochester has a “similar if not identical open curriculum” to Brown.</p>
<p>I understand that in some ways that Amherst is perhaps more similar to Brown.
In other respects they are very different. At Amherst or other small colleges
the focus of the faculty is on the undergraduate student. At Brown much of the focus
is on graduate studies. This is not good or bad. It does mean that
a faculty member at Brown in the sciences would usually only teach one undergraduate course each year. Most of their energy would be devoted to research and the supervision of graduate students and postdocs. Of course this does not exclude undergraduate students
becoming involved in the research.</p>
<p>At a college such as Amherst a faculty member would usually teach at least
four undergraduate classes. The research done in the lab would usually only
be done by the professor and undergraduate students. This has some positive and
negative points. The experience would however be quite different.</p>
<p>It is in this way that I would imagine Brown to be more like Rochester
or another small university with very good research programs.</p>
<p>Is brown more graduate focused than Amherst? Yes. But brown is definitely far from “graduate focused”</p>
<p>First I’d like to say that this thread is quite informative. Thank you modestmelody and others for your insights into the core curriculum at brown.</p>
<p>I will be applying to Brown as a RUE applicant. That being said, I already have an AA degree and I am not sure if I will want to transfer over my credits or start with a clean slate and pursue a full 4 years of study at Brown. This is dependent on whether or not I get accepted of course.</p>
<p>I would like to ask the posters in this thread who have attended Brown if you think my intended Independent Concentration would be accepted and well received by Brown Faculty.</p>
<p>The subjects I would like to study are the History of Modern American Boxing and/or the History of Organized Crime in America. I would also like to pair these studies with courses in the Modern Media and Culture department. My reasoning for wanting to pursue these specific subjects is that I have had a deep interest and fascination with these subjects from a very young age and I love documentaries, books, and hollywood productions that cover these subjects. I also feel that learning about media, will help me to create these kinds of productions myself and will lead me to a career that I will have a deep interest in. Please note that I am also interested in taking other courses not exactly related to the aforementioned subjects but, that I have an interest in nonetheless (this includes a class or two at RISD).</p>
<p>Having said all that, if I go to Brown is it realistic to think that the faculty would let me study these topics in depth as my concentration? I have looked up course offerings at Brown and I haven’t come across courses that teach the history of boxing and/or organized crime. If Brown doesn’t offer courses specifically covering these topics would it be reasonable to assume that they would create a special class just for my study? And if so, how does this work? Would I be studying alone? I know that there is a history professor at Brown who has researched the history of crime and boxing and baseball for that matter, but he seems to be the only one. Would it be reasonable to assume that Brown would have me study extensively with this one faculty member?</p>
<p>Any info you guys could share with me about this would be greatly appreciated.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>