As a student representative on the Task Force on Undergraduate Education, I, too, count myself amongst the exclusive club of those who read the report - about 8 times. I am quite pleased that students are reading "The Curriculum at Forty" and that our conversation has been extended to and is being continued by Brown students. That being said, I'm disappointed that the language of the report led to what I feel is a misinterpretation by Alvin Kerber ("Empty Introductions", Sept. 15)
While the problem of watered-down introductory courses is abundant at universities across the nation, it is largely at those with general education requirements and at those which determine funding of departments based on student enrollment. The issue at these schools is that students must take a course in a broadly defined subject area and departments attempt to cajole students their way to ensure greater funding from the university. This problem does not exist at Brown, which has neither distribution/general education requirements nor a funding structure that directly rewards high enrollments.
What the task force suggests when asking that introductory-level courses be developed that introduce students to the "spirit" of a discipline is that departments develop offerings, not unlike first-year seminars or the now defunct "Modes of Thought" courses, which provide depth over breadth while still demonstrating how to think like a disciplinarian.
There are two ways of approaching introductory courses - provide breadth and foundation for further study or pursue depth, hoping to provide students with the start-to-finish approach to problem solving as a member of that discipline. Both of these pursuits occur at some level in all introductory courses, however many disciplines at Brown are burdened by the need to supply foundation at the expense of exploration deeper into areas of interest.
The result of these burdens is the current system where most introductory courses serve as surveys across a wide spectrum of knowledge. In many ways, this is a necessary evil - there are certain expectations of content knowledge required for higher level courses. But how does Organic Chemistry attract a student who wants to take one semester of chemistry and learn to approach problems like a chemist? It's rather difficult to engage and excite that student by providing a one-year background on basic organic synthesis and structure analysis unless that interest is innate.
A depth-based, topical approach can be more accessible to some students than the breadth-foundation approach taken by many departments here at Brown. Courses like the first-year seminar CHEM0080B: Molecular Structures in Chemistry and Biology provide an in-depth look at something that may be considered more engaging by some students. Professor Gregory Williard also teaches a course at the 100-level which specifically looks at Nuclear Magnetic Resonance.
Now, a first-year with no chemistry experience can have access to some of that information even as a novice. Having offerings in both "entrance points" into the discipline will serve more of the student population's interests. We already have many courses like this in the FYS program, and expanding these entrance points to upperclassmen who may not want to survey the entire field but would love to examine a complex problem through the lens of a chemist will hopefully increase students' natural distribution of courses.
There are many recommendations related to introductory courses that Kerber chooses to ignore, some of which address his concern.
The task force recommends that we "provide more opportunities for students to engage in active, hands-on, multidisciplinary learning" and that curricular development resources "should be available to develop introductory courses in all departments," and that we "create additional resources to enhance instruction" across introductory courses. None of these recommendations would lead to the dismal vision of courses watered down simply for the sake of larger enrollment that Kerber appears to have.
As a group, the task force felt it was critical to address the dissatisfaction some students felt with introductory courses here at Brown. We echoed the sentiments of the Task Force on Undergraduate Science Committee which sought to expand the appeal of introductory courses not necessarily through accessibility, but through improvement and effective instruction.
Along these lines, the Task Force recommended that departments begin to "develop (a) plan to offer more seminars for sophomores, juniors, and seniors" not designed for concentrators as part of an overall goal to "encourage departments to create undergraduate offerings in their field to promote exploration of the curriculum."
It's misleading to suggest that courses which are made to be "engaging and attractive" must "dumb down" a course and replace "difficult concepts" with the "superficially interesting." The "spirit" of a discipline is learning precisely the "reasoning and thought processes central to the subject," and we are seeking to develop introductory courses which go after those processes as opposed to breadth acquired through "simple problems and rote memorization."
Is it so hard to imagine at Brown that we can demand courses that are both engaging and attractive and teach the "spirit" of the discipline? The task force didn't think so, and neither do I.
Jason Becker '09 was a member of the Task Force on Undergraduate Education.
