The Herald has printed several articles in the last few weeks about the Integrative Science and Engineering Program. According to the most recent proposal presented to the faculty, this program would select a group of 60 entering students in addition to our normal class; each student would take five special interdisciplinary courses, undertake two summer research experiences and take a senior capstone project. I have several concerns about this program: its expense, its creation behind closed doors and its antagonism to Brown's philosophy of education.
Brown has serious budget constraints. The addition of one item or program usually comes at the expense of another. The proposal in front of the faculty does not include a budget, and, until one exists, the community cannot fully understand the consequences of this program. With the addition of ISE students and their guaranteed curricular experiences, the University will likely burden itself with huge costs that will affect everyone. Already, offices like Psychological Services and Health Services have trouble shouldering the size of our student body. By adding 240 students to Brown's population, the Integrative Science and Engineering program will worsen these services and create additional costs.
Will the burden of 240 new students force administrative departments to hire more personnel, or will it simply overburden current resources? It's more likely that ISE students will just worsen various existing problems, such as the housing crunch, the long wait to get a psych services appointment or the difficulty in seeing an academic dean, to name only a few. Additionally, we have the cost of the program itself: the laboratory experiences, the materials and even the extra administrative costs.
Humanities and social science faculty and students alike might simply be asking, "What does this have to do with me?" Collective resources for faculty members across all disciplines will be drained to pay for new science programs. Already, fewer Undergraduate Teaching and Research Assistantships will be given out this year than last, calling into question the University's commitment to undergraduate research. The creation of a new resource-intensive program will only further deny the UTRA program and others the funds they need.
The science and engineering program is said to be "porous;" students will be able to join and leave the program after they enter Brown. But, the interdisciplinary courses will be capped, and with 60 students required to take them, few other Brown students are likely to be involved. Further, as a new group is guaranteed lab space and attention by professors through a capstone project, research opportunities for other science students will decrease. We have a limited number of professors and labs that will now be filled with an additional set of students. To say certain students are entitled to a better undergraduate experience purely based on their high school records is problematic at a minimum.
With many of the program's students participating in Bachelor of Science programs requiring approximately 18 courses, an additional five classes for the integrative program is likely to prevent such students from being academically well-rounded. The goal of Brown's curriculum, according the dean of the college Web site, "is for students to work toward a liberal education, in which students learn the knowledge and ways of thinking of a range of academic disciplines." This will be very difficult with extra requirements placed on these students.
It is also not clear how this program will achieve diversity or improve the retention of science students. Many students who come to Brown thinking they were science concentrators then switch to become social science or humanities concentrators, and the program does not appear to have a way to address that issue. Additionally, in order to identify interest in science, the admissions office will inevitably look towards students with prior research experience; these experiences are likely heavily correlated to economic class. For this reason, the program will likely find it difficult to achieve true diversity.
Science education needs changing, but it should be done for everyone, not just a select few. Creating two parallel programs splits science education between an elite program and our current unrevised system. Issues of retention, diversity, resources and educational philosophy, which affect the entire school population, are at the center of this program's creation. However, the provost's office and a hand-picked group of faculty created this program.
Historically, the faculty, students and the administration have been involved in constructive dialogues to face challenges. In contrast, this program, more than a year and a half in the making, has been designed by the provost's office on high and packaged and sold in a completely top-down manner. Most faculty and students heard about it long after most of the decisions had been made. I fear this program represents the manner that our current administration is approaching change. I hope that in the future this program will be reconsidered and that all curricular initiatives will involve more students and faculty in their planning.
Zachary Townsend '08 can survive anything, except for death.
