So How's That Open Curriculum going

Corbett
Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:16:20 +0000

The question is not whether the open curriculum is inherently “good” or “bad”. No one is denying that Amherst can offer whatever curriculum it sees fit.

The question is whether the open curriculum has any particular effects. Hence the title of this thread: “So how’s that open curriculum going?”. In particular, the Original Poster asked if Amherst students, given complete freedom to choose courses, tended to avoid particular disciplines.

This is a perfectly fair question. It deserves an answer.

The reality seems to be that Amherst students do, in fact, tend to avoid math and science courses. They are also less likely to major in math or science, at least relative to peer institutions like Williams or Swarthmore. Both of these facts are consistent with the hypothesis that the open curriculum is disproportionately attractive to applicants who do not want to study math or science in college.

Given that math and science departments at Amherst have relatively few majors and low non-major enrollment, it is not surprising to find that math/science faculty numbers are low (again relative to Williams and Swarthmore), and that renovation of the science facilities has been postponed for decades. These seem like significant effects.

I have no objection to an open curriculum, or even to de-emphasis of science and math. But I do think Amherst should be candid about the way that the open curriculum works in practice. Amherst obviously uses the open curriculum as a key selling point – yet it seems (correct me if I’m wrong) that the data needed to address the Original Poster’s (simple) question can only be found buried in password-protected [url=https://www.amherst.edu/academiclife/dean_faculty/general_information/reaccreditation]reaccreditation[/url] reports prepared independently by NEASC.