The most sacred dogma at Brown may be that the New, or open, Curriculum benefits all students, yet it can hardly be expected to fulfill that charge if most students, faculty and administrators have not really considered what it is actually about. Few have read the original "Draft of a Working Paper for Education at Brown University," the student-authored foundation for our educational philosophy. Many do not deeply question why they study what they do or think about the context into which their pursuits fit, both of which are key parts of the educational process.
As Oliver Rosenbloom '13 wrote ("Questioning the New Curriculum," Nov. 28), "Many students, especially first-years, are simply not in the position to handle full academic freedom." While I agree with his diagnosis, I disagree with his prescription. Students may be unprepared to handle all of the opportunities the open curriculum provides, but that highlights the failures of primary and secondary educational models and the current implementation of Brown's philosophy.
It is sad that students would be unprepared to take advantage of the freedom to explore, evolve and think about their own interests. I doubt very much that strict requirements in college would inspire more students to take initiative, after years of high school trained them to accept what others compel them to learn. We need a break in this pattern to create learners who will take responsibility for their own education.
The four central goals of undergraduate education articulated in the "Proposal for a Philosophy for Brown" section of the "Draft of a Working Paper" were focusing the educational experience on the individual student, encouraging self-reflection, developing the intellect and eliminating excessively narrow professionalism.
If existing University structures and procedures were better structured to address these goals, I would argue that the open curriculum would truly benefit all students. To take just one example, professors and advisers could help first-years take fuller advantage of their freedom by encouraging them to explore broadly, rather than steering students toward their own departments. They could push students to honestly interrogate why they want to do what they want to do. They could better explain shopping period and tell students to shop at least 10 courses and audit a fifth class every semester that they might not otherwise consider.
Like Rosenbloom, I have also felt frustrated that it took me until junior year to even begin to figure out the University's message and my own interests. But I would rather have had these realizations after just four semesters at Brown than after 40 years, as I may have if I had gone to a university with stricter requirements. Brown's style of education is meant to be a process, to teach students how to learn for the rest of their lives and graduate learners who actually care to do so.
As others have said, I believe that the most unfortunate aspect of the current implementation of the open curriculum is the sparsity of critical, ongoing personal and institutional self-study.
Now is a perfect moment to restart the conversation and integrate student-led institutional introspection into a Brown education. We have a new provost, a new dean of the faculty and will soon have a new president. Students like Rosenbloom, along with those in the Janus Town Hall and the Presidential Search Forum, have been expressing murmurings of dissatisfaction with the state of the curriculum and the trajectory of the University. The time is ripe for renewed discussion of the place of higher education in society and, as written in the "Draft of a Working Paper," the "aims of the University and the consequences of actions taking place within it."
Here is some food for thought: What if we found a way to better publicize and distribute the open curriculum's philosophy so students could start to think more deliberately about their education? What if advising and mentoring were identified as true University priorities and given prominence in decisions about raises and tenure? What if there were an ongoing workshop/Group Independent Study Project/discussion group focused on the University's goals and programs and its role in society?
There are many important holes in the original proposal for the open curriculum, such as the acknowledged inattention to research and service to the community and society, but it is a good place to start our conversation. Take some time to familiarize yourself with the philosophy of education you have supposedly bought into. At the very least, it should give you some new ideas about how to conduct your own time here.
You can find the full "Draft of a Working Paper" in print or free digitally at openjar.org/mmreport. For a concise statement of their arguments, look at the 20-page "Proposal for a Philosophy for Brown" and the "Author's Introduction to the New Edition." Let's take advantage of our time here, think about what we want to get out of Brown and what we want to leave for our successors — and make it happen. With an open curriculum, we have about as many opportunities as we can dream up.
Evan Schwartz '13 is an independent concentrator and a student coordinator for independent studies and independent concentrations.
He can be contacted at evan_schwartz@brown.edu.
