Breaking news!! This just in: Different people like different things!
Film at 11.
11 Likes
Some students like Telegraph because there’s so much going on there. It’s not my favorite neighborhood for sure, but ultimately we’re talking about a few blocks on one street on one side of campus. There’s also Northside, North Berkeley, Elmwood, the hills, etc… and even downtown is a bit nicer than the area of Telegraph that you’re probably thinking about.
Also, there’s been a TREMENDOUS amount of development in Berkeley in the last few years, so people who haven’t visited in a while might be surprised at the changed landscape. The new People’s Park plan is even going forward now (my son says he’s surprised by how fast that development is going up).
3 Likes
True, but in our case we live around (2 hours away) from UCB, so the impression is based on frequent trips to both East Bay and the Peninsula. Cal Day was one more try, but it just reinforced previous impressions. Mine decided to head to its southern rival.
I agree with you that the “I hate math” sentiment is the wrong way to think about an open curriculum. I went to an open curriculum school decades ago, and while I disagree with your kids sentiment that AP courses are equivalent to college breadth ones, I am wholeheartedly in the open curriculum camp for the right students. For me, I had taken AP calculus in high school and knew I had already far exceeded the level of math I’d ever use or care about. I wasn’t scared of more math, but saw it and some other base level required courses, as not the best use of my four years of college for me. There were so many topics I found interesting that I never got to explore in high school. Combine that with the requirements of my major and there was no way to explore all of the things I was interested in learning. So, why should I be forced to use some of those slots on more math? I took African American studies, art history, a fine arts class, and psychology, and philosophy, an acting class and astronomy among other things. I delved into things that I still find fascinating to this day that had nothing to do with my major and there would not have been room for if I had to take required courses I already had some familiarity with (math and biology and chemistry). I think I benefited more as a well rounded human and thinker from having the opportunity to explore all these things that were not available to me before as opposed to going deeper in some of the “core” subjects that I already had a fairly strong base in. So, while it was not the same as doing college calculus, three decades later, I still think the benefits of choosing my own course were worth more to me than more math.
Ironically, my D26 has no interest in an open curriculum (she’d go to one of all else right, but in spite of not because of) and wants a core curriculum with breadth requirements and shared student experiences. So, different strokes for different folks. But I am firmly in the value of open curriculum schools camp.
6 Likes
I am too.
However, an open postsecondary curriculum only works if the students coming into it can be reliably assumed to have been well prepared academically in high school, and to already have a high level of cultural capital.
This isn’t a reasonable pair of assumptions for many, and quite possibly even most, students.
6 Likes
@dfbdfb I don’t disagree with this, which I assume is part of the reason why most schools are not open curriculum. The selective schools that are open curriculum (e.g., Brown, Amherst, Wesleyan, Grinnell) can and should assess for this in admissions. That’s not to say that the only students who it is good for are those who can be admitted to highly selectives, but I do think there is a reason that open curriculums are disproportionately at such schools. Students on average at those schools tend to have the baseline preparation to be successful with open curriculum.
To be clear, while I firmly believe an open curriculum is better for some students with the attributes and preparation you describe (that was the case for me), it is certainly worse for some other students. I strongly believe it should exist at some schools as it does, but not at all schools. Core requirements at most schools make sense for the reasons you describe.
3 Likes
Just tossing in that I have become a fan of the looser exploration in depth sort of requirements.
These are a variation on the broader category of distributional requirements, which are distinct from a core curriculum in that as opposed to having certain classes everyone takes, you just have to pick some classes from each of several different areas. The wrinkle I like is requiring a sort of thematic cohesion to the classes you pick such that they become a sort of mini-minor. And then in practice, some kids upgrade these to actual minors, or possibly even second majors, or possibly switch majors.
A visit to Rochester is when I personally first really understood this approach, and they call those mini-majors “clusters”. They only have three major areas–Humanities, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences and Engineering–but you have to do either a major, minor, or cluster in each (except Engineering students, who only have to do one outside of Natural Sciences and Engineering):
The Cluster Search Engine is fun to play with (if you are into these things). So many different possibilities, with some major areas having many clusters. Like there are 12 clusters under English, 15 under Poli Sci, 9 under Brain and Cognitive Sciences, and so on.
Aside from just thinking this is cool to consider, I did want to also acknowledge the point that while I think all this choice about how to explore your interests in depth is sometimes really valuable, it also does increase the mental/planning/reflection load on the students.
And in fact I know this from vicarious experience because my S24 ended up at WashU in Arts & Sciences, which has a form of this system in what they call their IQ Curriculum, where the rough equivalent of clusters are called instead Integrated Inquiries:
Really understanding this curriculum structure for planning purposes was complicated for him. Fortunately the advising my S24 got at WashU has been good, and he also “solved” the IQ requirements by planning to do a combination of majors and minors in three different areas–which ends up a common practice at WashU, and I now better understand why it seemed like every tour guide and such we met had three different majors/minors!
Again, point being it does take more work and sometimes savvy to sort through these sorts of curriculum systems, but I do think for the right kids it ends up quite worth it.
8 Likes
Thanks for the thorough explanation of these structures, I was not familiar. I love the variety of systems. Individual humans are so different, it only makes sense to me to have a variety of curriculum structures. Different options will work better for different people. I had a friend growing up who blossomed in the military’s rigid structure. That rigidity would have killed my soul and he would likely would have been lost in my school’s open curriculum. We each found our place.
4 Likes
I personally love the idea of an open curriculum but it wouldn’t work for C26. Part of the attraction of an architecture degree is that it is very focused. They scratched one potential college off the list partly because it had too many gen ed requirements.
2 Likes
That is an interesting system, and for the right people, likely a great fit. I guess I’m somewhat old school in terms of preferring general distribution requirements. If I find that I really enjoy American lit or Asian history or ecology, sure I can do all my classes for those distribution areas around a theme. But I like being able to sample around different departments more rather than feeling committed to a theme. I guess that’s why it’s good there are so many different options out there!
3 Likes
Something that students may not realize is that at open curriculum schools they’ll still have departmental requirements for their chosen major- and those can be fairly structured and intense, depending on what they’re studying. It’s easy to hear “open curriculum” and imagine yourself taking all kids of fun, exciting courses- in reality, it might look very different once they’re figuring out their course progression. My kid is at Brown, majoring in computer engineering. So far, every semester he’s taken math, Eng, CS and one “elective”- and 2 of the semesters were French classes so that he could meet the study abroad requirements, so in effect, a required class. He’ll be a junior and the only outside-his-major course he’s taken so far is 1 music class.
7 Likes
That would work well with an open curriculum (at least as it’s implemented most places that have it), though, no?
Also, there’s a difference between a BArch in architecture and a BS in Architecture—the former is a professional undergraduate degree, and thus generally outside of this whole discussion.
2 Likes
Yep, kid is planning on a BS Arch, which are still very structured in terms of requirements with some gen eds thrown in. Maybe should add that they are neurodivergent and having a curriculum largely planned for them is just easier for them to deal with. My older kid is very different and loved their degree which was basically “design your own major”.
1 Like
Yeah, there are some sorts of degrees that will dictate a lot of your curriculum plan no matter where you go. Indeed, in a way your story about engineering at Brown fits with Rochester only requiring one, not the usual two, outside cluster from Engineering students. Just no space in their curriculum plan to ask for more, if they are going to graduate on time.
2 Likes
@cacmom yes, major matters a lot at open curriculum schools. Engineering often has minimal flexibility no matter the structure of the school because so many major requirements. An English or even biology major often have many times the flexibility.
3 Likes
Enjoying this discussion! When my D22 was applying to schools, Brown’s open curriculum was hugely appealing to her – because she was a classic overachiever in high school and spent so much time doing everything she was supposed to do, that she really wanted to breathe in college and explore and take whatever sounded interesting. (She also wanted to study linguistics, and Brown of course has a top notch program.)
She landed at Rice instead, which isn’t really open, but it has distribution requirements where you only need to take a few classes in each of three categories. No specific class is required (until you get to your major classes).
This worked for her – my kid that took multivariable calc in high school decided she never wanted to take math again, LOL. (Until this year when she voluntarily took a probability/stats class for a potential grad program.) She was able to take a history of maps class, stage combat, east coast swing (for a PE credit), so much Italian including studying in Rome for a summer that she is earning a language certificate, and so much Latin and Greek that she is accidentally double majoring in Classics. And she finished her linguistics major by end of junior year, so senior year will be mostly an honors thesis, plus a musical theatre class that she wasn’t able to take when all her friends took it because it conflicted with Greek. (She hears the teacher is big on using the IPA – international phonetic alphabet – so she expects they’ll become besties, lol.) Oh, and chorale every semester…and in the fall she’s also taking a student-taught class (by a friend) on conlangs, plus something about the physics of sound.
I live vicariously through her and fervently wish I could go back and have a do-over of my college experience.
Anyhow. I’m rambling, but I daresay the flexibility in choosing courses has been pretty terrific for my kid!
10 Likes
Different topic. Just read a post on the main thread where the parent was really ticked off by the number of campuses they encountered where the buildings were locked to the general public. Is there a widespread expectation that they be otherwise? Most of the posts I’ve read seem to suggest that touring the inside of a campus building is the exception not the rule.
3 Likes
On most of the tours we’ve been on we’ve been to at least the library, student center, rec center, one or two academic buildings and usually but not always a dorm room. I seem to recall from the thread they didn’t get many of those. I certainly wouldn’t expect to be able to walk into any building on campus even with a guide.
3 Likes
It’s an interesting thought - one said people had a key card.
If you’re a parent worried about safety, that might be appealing to you.
But tours should include some type of academic building - so people can get a feel. And a model dorm room if not a real one.
Perhaps if they’re worried about noise, they can break in small groups.
In the end, it’s a sales presentation. Some are better than others. In this case, the parent/student took the school off the list because of it.
But perhaps others aren’t as unbothered.
4 Likes
I wonder if more buildings are closed during the summer? I can’t remember if the parent who mentioned the lack of access was visiting an LAC, but many LACs are pretty quiet during the summers. [Edit: just checked, it was Wake Forest and Davidson]. I was at Wake last year in April with some counselors…the tour went in very few buildings then too.
With that said, I would still expect access to library, rec center, and dining hall in the summer…not great if students aren’t around, but some people can only travel during the summers.
2 Likes