In last week's four-part series ("Mission Drift?"), The Herald cataloged the many and varied ways Brown has abandoned its roots. It is not hyperbole to characterize the situation it now faces as existential.
The Plan for Academic Enrichment has not necessarily improved undergraduate education. This is evidenced by the opinion of the faculty. Only half believe that the Plan for Academic Enrichment has improved undergraduate academics, while others believe it has worsened it. This despite the fact that many faculty members are new to campus, having arrived after the start of the Plan of Academic Enrichment, and many were hired because of it.
Brown's new emphasis on research and expansion is disturbing. The University's newest moneymaking scheme is the introduction of online master's programs taught by non-tenure-track faculty. This program cheapens all Brown degrees. Administrators' justification, that peer institutions offer similar programs, misses the point. Brown's aim should not be merely to mirror other institutions, but to stay true to its own educational philosophy, even if — and in fact because — it is unique.
The push to raise Brown's research profile has come at the expense of teaching. This has been seen in the controversial change to the tenure review process. Now, tenure candidates must provide more external letters of support, increasing the importance of scholarship in the future of young professors' careers. Despite President Ruth Simmons' insistence that teaching remains a key criterion on which candidates are assessed, greater emphasis on scholarship necessarily reduces the weight given to teaching quality.
The establishment of schools of engineering and public health are further examples of significant alterations to the College's identity. It does not take a great leap of imagination to envision a future push to transfer admissions decisions for applicants interested in either field to the schools themselves, thereby removing them from the general applicant pool. Students enrolled in separate schools could find themselves competing for resources, thereby detracting from former President Henry Wriston's vision of a cohesive "university-college."
Simmons' various explanations for these very substantial changes are sparse. She insists that Brown's path was unsustainable, that increased focus on research has benefited and not harmed professors' ability to devote themselves to teaching and advising and that expansion has not come at the expense of a focus on undergraduates. But we have our doubts. When a group of students led by Ira Magaziner '69 P'06 P'07 P'10 and Elliot Maxwell '68 P'06 set out to remake Brown's curriculum 40 years ago, they produced 300 pages of exhaustive research, and we would like to see similar rigor from the administration.
We would be dismayed to see a time in which students, the most basic determinant of our school's character, apply to Brown as they would any other school — for its prestige and rigor — and not for those qualities that have traditionally differentiated it: intimacy, focus on undergraduates and academic freedom. Unless the University's current course is checked, that future might not be far away. Brown will undoubtedly lose what makes it special if it continues on its current path.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
