Last week, the Open Jar Foundation, a nonprofit focused on curricular freedom in higher education, published an opinion piece criticizing the additional writing requirements Brown added to its curriculum this year. But this piece did not take into account that these changes have been in the works for several years and have only clarified the writing policy. Starting with the class of 2015, students must take one class in an approved department during their first four semesters and demonstrate writing proficiency in their latter four semesters. While we do not believe a writing requirement is at odds with the precepts of the open curriculum, we believe its implementation should be altered in order to ensure a smooth transition.
To ensure that the new writing requirements have enough time to be implemented, they should be enacted starting with the class of 2016, or even the class of 2017. Though the classes that satisfy the requirement - any course in the English, comparative literature or literary arts departments, along with WRIT-designated classes - are sufficiently broad, it is not fair to make students in the class of 2015 take one in the two semesters they have left, while future classes have four semesters to do so. Though humanities concentrators in the class of 2015 likely satisfied this requirement inadvertently during their freshman year, students who took many science classes are at a distinct disadvantage. Additionally, students are often still taking a variety of classes to settle on their concentration throughout sophomore year and should not be required to deviate from this exploration to fulfill a last-minute requirement. Rather than having these changes forced upon them, perhaps the class of 2015 could be given an additional one or two semesters to satisfy this requirement as a compromise.
Last month, we noted the arbitrary nature of WRIT-designated courses ("Righting the Writing Requirement," Sept. 12). Students should not be required to take a course in fields such as literature and literary arts if they would prefer another academic focus. Classes that teach writing about the sciences, for example, would be not only more interesting to many of these students but also more pertinent to their careers after Brown. If the writing requirement is intended to empower students to express themselves more clearly, there should be more WRIT options that would enable them to do so. We recommend an expansion in courses that are designated WRIT, particularly in the sciences, to couple the ideas of the open curriculum with the motivations behind the writing requirement changes.
Finally, the clarified writing requirements are not as radical a departure from the precepts of the open curriculum as the Open Jar Foundation would like us to believe. As long as students retain the option to satisfy the requirement in many departments, this will not be a significant change. It is important to remember that though the open curriculum has its roots in our open educational philosophy, all students are required to graduate with a concentration, and many concentrations have strict requirements.
Perhaps the writing requirement could be built into every concentration department. This would be an entirely symbolic change, but would satisfy those who object to the idea of a requirement for the entire student body. We should not be resistant or fearful of change. Indeed, it is part of the character of the University to test boundaries and new concepts. Writing requirements do not threaten the open curriculum as long as they are implemented in a thoughtful and open manner.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
