When I was accepted to Brown, I promised myself I would never again take a math or science class. After years of trudging through high school STEM courses, the Open Curriculum felt like a breath of fresh air. As I browsed Brown’s course offerings earlier this summer, I added dozens of classes to my primary cart in departments ranging from English to history to architecture. Conspicuously absent was any STEM class. I realized I could graduate from Brown without ever opening a science textbook, and I could meet every requirement.
That is the promise, and the peril, of the Open Curriculum. Adopted after a 1969 report by two undergraduate students, it has been the centerpiece of Brown’s identity for over 50 years. With no core classes, the option to take any course Satisfactory/No Credit and the ability to “concentrate” rather than “major,” the Open Curriculum is often described as a model for progressive education.
But is Brown’s academic philosophy really as progressive as it claims to be? Though it promises freedom, it also fails to push students outside of their comfort zone, thereby sealing minds shut rather than opening them.
The idea of unlimited academic freedom is certainly appealing. Who doesn’t want to just study their interests and forget about whatever they dislike? While many students take advantage of the Open Curriculum and challenge themselves in novel ways, others use it as an excuse to stick with what they know and double down on their interests.
This brings up the question of what a progressive education actually means. It’s questionable whether a person can be considered truly “educated” if they have only ever studied a single discipline. Even if a person loves humanities, like myself, there are still many reasons to explore STEM classes. For example, math sharpens analytical skills and science examines how the world works from an empirical perspective. Conversely, even if someone knows they want to be a doctor, the humanities offer valuable insights: Reading builds empathy and understanding for those who are different from us, history helps us understand our place in the world and philosophy builds our moral compass. Without this broad exposure to areas outside our natural interests, we risk reducing education to vocational training. A truly progressive education, therefore, demands exposure to multiple disciplines.
Brown’s Open Curriculum also mirrors a troubling cultural trend of avoiding discomfort. If we come across something that makes us uncomfortable on social media, we swipe and it’s gone. We block or unfollow anyone online who disagrees with us. We like the TikToks or choose the podcasts that most align with our political views. Brown risks reinforcing this same phenomenon. Many students, having grown up in a culture of personalization, will choose classes that align with their worldviews. If everyone stays in their own siloed educational bubble, there will be no shared intellectual ground for us to stand on, and we will lack the tools to debate across differences.
It’s human nature to take the path of least resistance – we seek out the comfortable because of biologically ingrained tendencies of energy conservation, which extends to avoiding mental strain. Some might argue that we are always challenging ourselves and pushing ourselves out of our comfort zone, but that’s doubtful. It’s simply too hard to consistently choose the path of resistance. In the same vein, many choose classes that are familiar and intellectually safe. Without an external push, we get stuck in a rut. But real growth happens when we venture into uncharted territory that is both uncomfortable and unfamiliar.
In 1969, the introduction of the Open Curriculum served as a part of the counterculture movement of the ’60s, a type of rebellion against a homogenous mainstream culture. In a society in which adherence to the norm was valued, the Open Curriculum distinguished Brown. Today, it no longer exists in opposition to a rigid cultural mainstream. Instead, it operates in an era when personalization and choice already dominate nearly every aspect of our lives.
The Open Curriculum promises freedom. But freedom without challenge is not progressive. Brown provides a safe place for students to fail. At this year’s opening convocation, President Christina Paxson P’19 P’MD’20 even said to the class of 2029, “I want to challenge you to risk failure while you are here at Brown.” Here, mistakes don’t cost us our jobs or our homes. For many of us, college is the last place where this is the case — where failure should not only be an option, but should be encouraged. Adding just a few additional course requirements will create the courageous, risk-taking student body that Paxson speaks of, which would make Brown’s education not just freer, but fuller.
Max Mooney ‘29 can be reached at max_mooney@brown.edu. Please send responses to this column to letters@browndailyherald.com and other opinions to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
