Liberal Arts Undegrad at Ivies?

[modestmelody]

<p>

By that standard, I think the GB model has “worked” (by some definition) over and over again.</p>

<p>Exactly how well in each case? You’re right, that’s hard to say. But at least it is simple and repeatable. All you need is copies of a Great Book, a competent guide, and one or more willing students.

</p>

<p>By what definition has this worked? Simple and repeatable are important aspects of extensibility, but so is effectiveness. I think that “competent guide” and “willing students” when it comes to liberal arts education is actually a complex proposition. I believe the unfortunate truth behind both a GB/strong Core model and the Open Curriculum is that they both required high level of competency and buy-in from students and faculty to work at all. I don’t think that either model is likely to engender that intrinsically. Luckily for Brown and UChicago, this is not something either school has to combat, but for most universities in this country it’s quite difficult.</p>

<p>

The most important oversight, in my opinion, is the oversight that happens in the classroom. That’s how Socratic instruction works. Several of my teachers had been taught by a prior (even pre-Chomsky!) generation of gifted teachers at Chicago, so they’d been observed to “get” the process before they were invited to teach. Other, younger teachers came in from other places and did not necessarily do as good a job in leading dialog. Over time, one hopes, they improve. But yes – there probably needs to be better oversight there, to ensure it happens.

</p>

<p>1) Socratic instruction has some great benefits and severe limitations even when conducted properly. Observation of effective instruction rarely leads to effective instructors-- we see this all over the field of education. Quite frankly, this isn’t a method of any oversight at all. Perhaps oversight is not important, if only there was some mechanism which systematized the processes by which students are engaged in and assessed by when learning? For Brown, this is sort of the approach we take with the open curriculum, applied in a way that did not infringe on the autonomy of faculty and departments to formulate curriculum and “localized” assessment.</p>

<p>Btw-- the Chomsky example was essentially a completely random choice of a complex body of work which could create in the minds of students the same processes.</p>

<p>idad–</p>

<p>UChicago is hardly alone. While we do appointments by department (approved by the Dean of the Faculty), Brown has had University Courses which do not fit into the mold of any particular department since the 50s. We beat you guys to the Center for Teaching and Learning by 12 years ([The</a> Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning: A Short History](<a href=“The Sheridan Center | Sheridan Center | Brown University”>The Sheridan Center | Sheridan Center | Brown University)), and acculturation to the curricular practices of a university is hardly a distinguishing characteristic amongst schools that take curriculum quite seriously. You’re misinterpreting our discussion on liberal arts education as an attack on one model and the promotion of another. Really, I’m just discussing why both and neither model works. The truth is, the open curriculum, by my research and understanding, is easily as effective as the GB/Core when it comes to the pursuit of liberal education. However, there is a stigma attached to the open curriculum since its inception at Brown and we have revisited our justification for the open curriculum time and time again as a result. The truth is, the assumed accepting of the core for liberal arts education as easier to manage, as a sound model whose specifics are up for debate but general approach is unquestionably secure, and as effective in the first place in these discussions illuminates a clear bias. When examined deeper, there is no better evidence that a core is effective than there is that an open curriculum is-- simply different evidence.</p>