<p>Okay, jonri, I apologize for bashing Brown. I think it is a great school and could work really well for some people.</p>
<p>My son who attends Brown took classes at Columbia while in HS but he didn’t apply to Columbia for undergrad. This summer, while in the city for a Yankee game, he took his 11th grade sister on a tour of Columbia. When I asked him why Columbia, he said he thinks its a good school and he thinks “she can handle the core. It’s up to her to decide if the core matters or not.” Then again, he also planned for her to tour Brown.</p>
<p>I have been reading this and tempted to post, and I finally can’t resist. My family are not that dissimilar in intellectual temperament. We all love challenges, like to learn “for its own sake” and have problems with concrete goals, especially professional ones. We have attended all three major types of college described here–distribution reqs (H and I, Umich), open curriculum (D, Wes), and Core (S, Columbia). I think we all found that each of these was a way to build a rich and deep foundation of knowledge and paths to inquiry in each of these different approaches. I think problems with any of them come from a mismatch or a resistance to the said approach’s parameters, not from any difficiencies from each approach.</p>
<p>To get specific–I think it’s fairly ridiculous to say that one’s experience with students at Columbia means they’re all “lopsided”. First of all, many, many students at Columbia College are science and math majors–thus, they are taking hardcore science and math. My S, a Psych major, took real Calc, Physics, and Astro cuz he likes Astronomy and was thinking of adding an Astro concentration (like a minor.) It’s also wrong to say that SEAS students don’t take the Core–they don’t do the whole thing, but they are required to take extensive parts of it.</p>
<p>And open curricula–my D at Wes, a Government major, took real Bio and Chem, Astronomy, and many other courses just cuz she could. The open Curriculum allowed her the room. (She fit drawing and Gamelon in, too.)</p>
<p>Going back to the Dark AGes, my H managed a Bio (Botany intensive) and Philosophy (Ethics intensive) double major at a distribution reqs school, and somehow fit in everything from Greek Mythology to Irish Lit along the way. I (though hampered by a transfer) also explored a whole lot of paths unconnected to my English major, including Astro (yeah, we all like that a lot), Art History, A bit of history and soc, etc.</p>
<p>Professionally? Well, we bumble along from job to job. H’s former physicianhood owed more to his philosophy major than his bio. My student counseling just came out of working with students–never took a Psych class in my life. D and S get paid to help save the environment–and not much, but they don’t seem to need much, either. And they are fascinating people to talk to, because they know how to think, and they know a lot about good thinkers, big ideas, and what’s going on around them.</p>
<p>We can argue all night about how many angels dance on the head of a pin, too, but I think what counts is that each angel figures out what dance they like best–jazz, ballet, or maybe a mean Zydeco two-step.</p>
<p>garland:</p>
<p>I am surprised that you characterize Wes as having an open curriculum It has distribution requirements. My S found to his dismay that he’d been shut out of a science class he wanted to take to fulfill his requirement and had to take one in which he had no interest whatsoever and was well above his head. But he would not have been allowed to graduate without it (and was told of it only in his senior year.)
The big difference between his experience and that of his brother is that Wes is, for all intents and purposes. a LAC and Harvard is a medium-size university where students may be in large classes but are less likely to be shut out of classes. Despite its name the Harvard Core (being replaced by Gen Ed) is a misnomer. It is a distribution requirement, with its share of math for the innumerate and physics for poets. It replaced a Gen Ed curriculum that had lost coherence and it is being replaced by a new Gen Ed whose coherence escapes me.
It may be that there are fewer categories to check off in the Wes distribution list, but there is one.</p>
<p>I agree with you that Columbia has its share of math/science type. S in fact considered applying there.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Actually, as a current Wes student, it is true that there are no distribution requirements to graduate. However, there are distribution suggestions that are required for honors, and some majors chose to require them as well–maybe that was the reason your son had to do them and wasn’t aware of that?</p>
<p>Yes, Marite, I know we’ve had this discussion before. Wes has “expectations” but they are not required, except for their honors designation.</p>
<p>From the Wes website (same as when our two were there):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, again, expectations, not requirements.I don’t think your son needed the class to graduate, but he would’ve missed out on certain Honors designations.</p>
<p>Anyway, to get back on course here, D attended Wes assuming she was picking non-major courses by interest, not requirement, and ended up very well-rounded. As did S at Core school, as did their 'rents at distribution school. Again, I think it’s the personal intent/interest, not the school approach, that matters in the end.</p>
<p>If anyone’s interested heres a link to Columbias data abstract for degrees conferred:</p>
<pre><code>Columbia University Statistical Abstract | Student Data
</code></pre>
<p>And heres a summarized high/low list of the most popular majors + concentrations conferred to the cc class of 2008:</p>
<p>Political Science 158
History 126
English 115
Economics 114
Psychology 68
Mathematics 45
Biology 43
Art History 35
Anthropology 35
Philosophy 32
Neuroscience and Behavior 32
Economics-Mathematics 28
Urban Studies 26
Economics-Political Science 25
East Asian Studies 22
Hispanic Studies 21
Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures 20
Film Studies 20
American Studies 20
Music 19
Biochemistry 19
Architecture 19
Sociology 15
Physics 15</p>
<p>Seems like there might be a few calculus and chemistry classes hidden in there somewhere.</p>
<p>When we visited, it seemed to me that the presentation of the open curriculum was schizophrenic. On one hand, they stressed the student’s freedom to craft their own plan of studies, never take a single course in a dreaded subject area if they didn’t want to, and to experiment without penalty using the P/F system. On the other, they tried to assure us that the advisors would nonetheless strongly encourage the kids take a well-balanced curriculum, and indeed students have to take sufficient courses for credit in order to gain admission to grad school so the P/F option won’t be overused. I concluded at the time, that the first message was designed to appeal to the students’ desire for autonomy, and the second was aimed at reassuring parents that their children will still have to toe the line. So is openness just an illusion? After all, majors at Brown still have requirements, so the promised strong encouragement from advisors to branch out must refer to courses outside of those requirements, right?</p>
<p>Brown also seemed conflicted about the intellectual climate. They bragged about the maturity of the students they attract, saying they are quite capable of managing their own education and go at it with gusto and passion. At the same time, you hear undercurrents of the laid back style, the “Don’t tell anyone, but we’re the Ivy where you don’t have to kill yourself.” Actually, the coach we visited made a point of saying that when the team travels, her girls don’t do homework at meets, unlike students of those other schools. Hmmm.</p>
<p>I don’t understand, what’s wrong with being lopsided? Not everyone has to be the jack of all trades. In fact, that’s detrimental to the economy. Specialization is needed. I think the core curriculum/distribution requirements are severely overrated (as is a “well-rounded” education). Someone who’s well rounded is going to be well-rounded, core curriculum or not, and someone who’s lopsided is going to be lopsided, core curriculum or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How in the world is that conflicted? Only colleges where students are “killing themselves” deserve the title of “intellectual climate?”</p>
<p>I think that is nonsense.</p>
<p>It’s conflicted because out of one side of their mouth they tell you their students are mature enough to choose a well-balanced selection of courses, and out of the other they tell you you don’t have to be well-balanced at Brown if you don’t want to be. Similarly, they assert that their students are very diligent and hardworking, yet they promote the benefits of the Pass/Fail system which allows one to do only the minimum amount of work necessary for a passing grade. They promote the idea that Brown students are true intellectuals (hence they will make appropriate use of the open curriculum and Pass/Fail option), and at the same time they tell you how happy their students are because at Brown one can achieve a better balance between academics and other activities than at peer schools (translation: do less schoolwork).</p>
<p>“The laid back style” I’m having this semester is to take 5 pure engineering/science classes with labs and homework @ Brown while participating campus activities & trying to write up my 2nd paper for publication. (hey, I’m still alive~)</p>
<p>Don’t stereotype us.</p>
<p>sophy, Believe me, it’s only in CC world that people have discussions about whether or not Brown is intellectual enough. These speculations are pure silliness. Best of luck with your classes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, here is where we differ. I do not believe that the intellectualism of a place can be measured by how much school work the athletes do during meets. </p>
<p>In fact, life (& neurobiology) has taught me that for true intellectualism to flourish, there must be a balance between academics and other pursuits. </p>
<p>I knew there was a reason I liked Brown.</p>
<p>GFG, I just realized you are a student at Yale. I wish you the best of luck as well and I suspect that in the coming decades you may see Brown in a different light. Or perhaps not. But I better understand where you are coming from now.</p>
<p>^Huh? GFG is a student? Fooled me . . . </p>
<p>Anyway, his or her account of the Brown presentation is exactly what I remember, too. I didn’t see it as nefarious or confused, just an indication that there was less of a difference between Brown and Harvard or Penn than simply reading their curriculum requirements would imply. Different ways of expressing more or less the same values.</p>
<p>Me too; I’m pretty sure GFG is a parent of a kid at Dartmouth.</p>
<p>My S was told he need a course in one area to graduate, not for Honors. That requirement had been passed while he was on Study Abroad and he was not aware of it.</p>
<p>I believe that the Brown curriculum works very well for students who are clear enough about their future major and at the same time wanting to take courses outside of their major and heed their advisors. In fact such a curriculum works best with very strong advising. Brown seems to work well for the great majority of its students.
My S was a student who could have thrived at Brown and he was very tempted; too bad that its strengths were not in the direction he wished to take.</p>
<p>The P/F system is not designed for students to pass with the minimum work. It is designed for students to take risks, especially by taking courses outside of their major, and presumably, outside their areas of strength. I know my S worked very hard in his one P/F course which happened to be the Freshman seminar.</p>
<p>I have heard from one or two heads of M.A. and Ph.D. programs that students who followed an open curriculum can be a bit more “scattered” in their preparation but these are impressionistic judgments.</p>
<p>Yes, I’m a parent of a son at Dartmouth and a high school senior. For the record, D liked Brown. DH and I were less convinced.</p>
<p>True intellectualism requires the discipline for long hours of hard work and deep study. Once that foundation is in place, then there’s room for a life of introspection pondering one’s true purpose in the world. My sense, and I could be wrong, was that at Brown the introspection begins a bit too early. This didn’t seem to be a problem for science majors like sophy, as I understand biology is a strong dept. and pre-med is pre-med.</p>
<p>marite–at the time, I read the regulations and didn’t see that. Maybe his advisor made an error. It’s always read like I posted above. D understood it as expectations. I think, because she spent her first year at a distribution requirement school, plus changed from a science to soc science major, she had the expectations without thinking about it. But she was pretty clear that they were not required.</p>