<p>Will someone please explain?</p>
<p>Basically, it means that there are no required courses. So it allows you to take whatever classes you want. Once you declare a major, you must take the classes required by that major to get a degree (obviously). </p>
<p>Amherst has an Open Curriculum but has a required Freshman Writing class, but that’s the only one. Brown gives you complete freedom. I have no idea about Grinnell. Wesleyan suggests taking courses in a few areas, and you need to heed their suggestions if you wanna graduate with honours, but if that’s no biggie to you then you’ve made yourself an Open Curriculum there as well :D</p>
<p>Usually, OC schools have a strong faculty adviser system. So, although there are no (or very few) core and distribution requirements, you are working out with your adviser a plan of study that not only meets your needs, but also has some integrity, breadth, etc.</p>
<p>The alternatives (fixed and core curriculum plans, or plans based on distribution requirements) presume there are some courses/areas that every well educated person ought to cover. So it’s the campus community (especially the faculty) that determines “breadth” requirements, not the individual.</p>
<p>But you can take whatever classes you want in a different kind of curriculum too, right? You just have to take some required classes also?</p>
<p>yes, you can still take whatever courses you want with other types (non-open)… but keep in mind that you will have less opportunities to do so because of those required classes</p>
<p>“Usually, OC schools have a strong faculty adviser system. So, although there are no (or very few) core and distribution requirement…”</p>
<p>As pioneered by Brown and Smith, there are NO core or distribution requirements. Smith has no writing course either, but does require that at least one writing intensive class (in any department) be taken. There are, of course, course requirements for a major. And Latin Honors are tied to taking a distribution of classes.</p>
<p>A few weeks back I investigated programs at a list of schools labeled “open curriculum” (including Amherst, Wesleyan, Hampshire, Brown, Smith, Sarah Lawrence, New College FL, Wake Forest). I observed what I considered some variation from the strict “NO core or distribution requirements” model. So if “NO requirements” is what you expect from a school you think has an “open curriculum”, you may want to scrutinize carefully to make sure you understand exactly what the label means for that school.</p>
<p>I did get the impression that some of these schools are tiptoeing around a realization that absolute openness may be problematic. Each school speaks its own language of “expectations” (“contracts”, “portfolio” plans, “competencies”, etc.) in an apparent attempt to manage standards without abandoning the “open curriculum” label.</p>
<p>I’ll admit, I don’t fully understand the “open curriculum” concept or the language different schools use to discuss it. But I gather it often means something a bit more than just “no requirements”. (Analogy: “YOU decide what time you need to come home from parties on the weekend. But … [version 1] if it consistently is past 4 AM, I’m going to have a problem with your choices. / [version 2] I need a detailed action plan in advance that tells me exactly where you are going and when you’ll be back each time / [version n] …”)</p>
<p>^^ Very wisely (and humorously) written, tk. And accurate.</p>
<p>OCs were all the rage in the freaky 60s and 70s. And then colleges realized “gee, this kid is a senior and cannot write.” And the pendulum swung the other way. Your last paragraph is a perfect analogy, and should not come as a surprise to those who do their homework on their target schools.</p>
<p>Thank you, everyone, for your input. I’m sorry, I know I sound really dumb, but I just don’t understand the point of an OC then. Or its benefits, or even the real difference between it and an alternative.</p>
<p>For me, if a school has a <em>real</em> Open Curriculum, it speaks volumes about the school’s mindset.</p>
<p>‘You’re old enough to take care of yourself. We trust that a car won’t run you down, but don’t freak out if you get a scrape or two. Go out there and play.’</p>
<p>While, on the other hand, the schools with distribution requirements say:</p>
<p>‘Yeah, we guess you can go out there and play, but make sure you wear your knee pads and helmet.’</p>
<p>That’s just me though.</p>
<p>having an open curriculum also ensures (mostly) that you are taking classes that YOU want to take. if a school’s core requirements include a class on ancient civilizations, for example, and you have no interest in that, why would you want to subject yourself to that class? if you are at an open curriculum school, you only take it if you want to take it. no one forces you to take any classes- you are the architect of your education.</p>
<p>Are there limits on the number of classes you can take?</p>
<p>smartalic, one thing to keep in mind is the role of admissions.<br>
We may differ about the models we prefer. But each of the schools I listed (Amherst, etc.) is selective. If admissions is doing its job, admitted students will be kids who can thrive on that school’s model. Same for core curriculum schools.</p>
<p>Ideally, each student’s program of study under any of these models should meet quality standards for breadth, rigor, coherence, etc. The OC model lets individuals (student and adviser) work all that out; under the core or distribution model, the community decides. By choosing to attend, you buy into those decisions.</p>
<p>Wow tk, thank you. That’s some really valuable information since I’m deciding whether to apply ED to Amherst.</p>
<p>don’t worry, tk21769, I agree with you 100%. I was simply trying to add a corollary to what tetrisfan said, to help the OP see some upsides to an open curriculum.</p>
<p>full disclosure: I am a Wesleyan student, and subsequently, firmly believe in the open curriculum model…</p>
<p>TK makes a good point. An open curriculum is usually available only at academically selective schools, primarily because the institutions trust their students to challenge themselves. As at least one person has noted, you still have required courses since you will be declaring a major and dealing with all those requirements.</p>
<p>Basically, the different between an open curriculum and a closed (or distributive requirement) one is philosophy. Brown and Smith state that it gives their students the freedom to take academic risks and to explore in greater depth non-major areas. Those that have a strict curriculum (such as University of Chicago’s) believe that their students should be educated in a broad spectrum of subjects in addition to the major. Which is better? Neither. It depends on the student.</p>
<p>I do want to echo Mini’s comment that Smith requires what others would call “distributive requirements” if a student wishes to graduate with Latin honors. Students have to take courses in art, history, foreign language, math, natural science, etc. to qualify. I don’t remember that being the case at Brown.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because consuming knowledge is like consuming food. Enrichment of a human being requires a broad array of food, even food you don’t like. Eat your vegetables. </p>
<p>When you are older, you will look back on yourself when you were just entering college (~18 years old) and realize just how huge the gap was between what you thought you knew and what you really knew (or to put it another way: you’ll think “man I was clueless”)</p>
<p>I’m 24 now. I’m sure when I’m 29 I will think back to myself at 24 and think the same thing. I am wiser at 24 than I was at 18, and I will be wiser at 29 than I am now.</p>
<p>I am willing to accept that people who have been around much longer than I have, and who are some of the most educated people on the planet, have a better idea of what it takes to truly be educated than I could guess in my own presumptuousness.</p>
<p>My university had distribution requirements. I had to take courses I otherwise wouldn’t have taken, among them courses in math, arts & letters, and hard sciences. And I’m glad I did, because they enriched me, and I even ended up enjoying some of them. Were it not for these courses my education would be less broad, less memorable, and less useful.</p>
<p>Some help please… What are some good first year courses at Grinnell for a Political Science Major. Who are some of the best Professors at Grinnell?</p>
<p>is there a list that has schools with an open curriculum?</p>
<p>this list is a bit misleading because every school has its own approach and flexibility is subjective, but it would be a good starting point: [College</a> Lists / Open Curriculum - schools with more flexible curricula](<a href=“College Lists Wiki / College Lists Wiki News and Information”>College Lists Wiki / Open Curriculum - schools with more flexible curricula)</p>
<p>I’m not sure why Reed is listed, as it has a core class (HUM 110), or why a “great books” school like St. John’s would be listed–that’s the opposite of open. also, I don’t see Wesleyan isn’t listed as a “completely open” school if Smith is. Smith and Wesleyan have virtually the same system (optional gen ed requirements for honors designation). see also: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/728261-colleges-lax-distribution-requirements.html?highlight=open+curriculum[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/728261-colleges-lax-distribution-requirements.html?highlight=open+curriculum</a></p>