Wrighten ’25: Triple concentrations represent the best of the Open Curriculum — they should come back

I graduated from Brown last spring with a triple concentration in modern culture and media, literary arts and English. Every semester, someone would ask why I would willingly take on five classes of work to fulfill my requirements. My answer was simple: I like learning these subjects, and I’m using the Open Curriculum to its fullest extent. I have no regrets whatsoever. But just weeks before I received my diploma, Brown’s faculty voted to limit students to just two concentrations. In a Herald article this fall, faculty and administrators claimed the decision helps ensure students actually pursue their degrees for the sake of passion and enjoyment, rather than for an advantage after graduation. I fundamentally disagree with that decision, as the rationale against triple-concentrating contradicts the very curiosity the Open Curriculum claims to celebrate, especially given that many upper-level courses are restricted to concentrators only.  

When I first spoke with my exploratory advisor about course registration at the beginning of my first semester, I told him I excel when I’m busy doing things I enjoy. I said I wanted to take as many classes as possible without doing anything “boring.” I had no plans to triple-concentrate — I didn’t even know it was an option. Instead, my only desire was to soak up as much knowledge as I could. In my first semester at Brown, I took four classes that both piqued my interest and filled potential concentration requirements, plus a fifth just for fun. I was under the impression that I was doing what I was supposed to do: use the Open Curriculum to explore the disciplines I might enjoy. 

By sophomore year, I had taken classes in art history and American studies and continued into the fourth level of American Sign Language before switching to Spanish. Although many of these classes ended up counting for the two concentrations I had declared at the time — MCM and literary arts — I took them out of interest, unconcerned with requirements. Eventually, I realized I wanted to read more classic novels, which led me to the English department. 

By spring of junior year, I knew I wanted to dive deeper into English. I hoped this would be possible since the Open Curriculum is heralded as giving students “greater freedom to study what they choose and the flexibility to discover what they love.” However, most of the English classes I wanted to take were restricted to concentrators. I faced similar difficulties with computer science, but was given no assistance on how to get into the high-demand courses. When I was finally able to get help, I was advised to leave space for people who were genuinely planning on concentrating in CS. It became clear to me that triple-concentrating was the best — maybe the only — way for me to pursue all of my passions.

I didn’t triple-concentrate “for the sake of credentialing,” as Dawn King, deputy dean of the College for curriculum, put it in a Herald article last month. I knew my future was in journalism or film, and I refused to close the door on either one prematurely. Declaring an English concentration was necessary for me to honor my curiosities. 

Contrary to King’s concerns that triple-concentrating would demonstrate “signs of indecision” in graduate school applications, my decision demonstrated my commitment to deep learning and my ability to pursue my passions at a high level. Every graduate school I interviewed with seemed to agree. If anything, listing three concentrations in my resume without actually declaring them, as former Dean of the College Rashid Zia ’01 suggested students do, would have led to confusion during my interview process. I ended up in the University of Southern California’s Cinema and Media Studies masters program, after submitting a paper from a Brown English course that my third concentration allowed me to take.  

If the aim of the Open Curriculum is to allow Brown students to be the architects of their education, why limit the possibilities? Brown accepts students who “are responsible for their own intellectual and creative development,” according to its website. My intellectual and creative development hinged on a rigorous schedule full of courses I felt passionate about, but someone else’s journey might include declaring one concentration and filling the rest of their schedule with unrelated courses. Both of these approaches should be equally celebrated for fulfilling Brown’s self-expressed goals for their students.

The reasons for the change that were outlined in The Herald’s article last month directly contradict both Brown’s promise to and expectations for its students. I would hope that, regardless of changing policies and eras, the University would prioritize the features that make the Open Curriculum as robust and exemplary as it has been in the past.

Gabriella Wrighten ’25 is a former senior staff writer for The Herald's Arts & Culture section and can be reached at gabriella_wrighten@alumni.brown.edu. Please send responses to this op-ed to letters@browndailyherald.com and other opinions to opinions@browndailyherald.com.