What exactly is an Open Curriculum?

[Ray192]

<p>

Brown and Smith state that it gives their students the freedom to take academic risks and to explore in greater depth non-major areas.

</p>

<p>I’m not sure I understand the logic here. Do requirements discourage exploration of non-major areas? I thought it was the opposite. From what I’ve seen, people use the curriculum to spend more time on subjects they like (probably their majors) than waste time with stuff they hate (likely non-major areas). </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>Really? Open curriculum schemes always sound like a form of academic bribery to me. “We guarantee a 100% enjoyable product, because you will never, EVER, be taken out of your comfort zone!” </p>

<p>And personally, I think maturity comes with the recognition that you can’t always have life the way you want, when playtime is over. </p>

<p>Just my personal peeve.</p>