In my previous posts, I’ve highlighted the financial effects of general education at Penn State and examined the European approach towards general education and, more broadly, higher education. This week, I want to examine two of the best universities in the United States, Brown University and Columbia University, in respects to their polar opposite philosophies towards general education. Brown University promotes an open curriculum, with hardly any requirements, and even the option to take many classes on a pass/fail grading scale. Meanwhile, Columbia University sports a core curriculum — a set of specific classes that all students must take. Which is more effective? That will be for you to decide. Regardless, they highlight the two stances in the general education debate.
Brown University
The “Brown Curriculum”, or the “Open Curriculum”, dates back to the university’s fourth president, in the 1850s. According to the school’s website, he argued that students should “have greater freedom in pursuing a higher education, so that each would be able to ‘study what he chose, all that he chose, and nothing but what he chose.'” Over 150 years later, his vision still stands. The site states that the “first Western universities conceived of the liberal arts as seven distinct modes of thought, three based on language (grammar, rhetoric, and logic), and four on number (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy).” But instead of adhering to these subjects, Brown encourages its students to find their own.
Numerous findings suggest this approach works. Brown boasts some of the most impressive undergraduates in the country, with leaders in all fields. But is Brown successful because of this type of curriculum specifically? The university will argue the pro, but I think it’s a bit more complicated.
One of the most competitive schools in the country, Brown trusts its students to make wise academic decisions. As such, though there are no true course requirements outside of one’s major, the university will likely not admit a student who will only take gym classes, or cooking classes, or anything else requiring little academic fortitude. Instead, Brown accepts students who don’t need requirement to challenge themselves, or to take a wide array of classes. And thus, I think the students succeed because they’re smart, erudite, and motivated individuals. Not specifically because of the general education guidelines set up in their school.
For that reason, I’m not sure if such an environment would work at a bigger school like Penn State, or at a school with less talented, less motivated students. Brown is a unique school, and sets up nicely to no core requirements.
Columbia University
On the opposite end of the spectrum lies Columbia’s Core Curriculum. According to its website, “the Core Curriculum is the set of common courses required of all undergraduates and considered the necessary general education for students, irrespective of their choice in major.”
The “Core” is composed of six classes — Contemporary Civilization, Literature Humanities, University Writing, Arts Humanities, Music Humanities, and Frontiers of Science — which take about a year to complete. Evidently, it’s geared towards the humanities, and comprises a much different first two semesters than the classes a Penn State freshman engineer would take.
However, in the university’s opinion, it’s not about the courses, but it’s about the experience. With the whole freshman class taking the same classes, reading the same books, studying the same material, it’s a uniting experiences, both between peers and within oneself. According to Columbia, the Core is “not only academically rigorous but also personally transformative for students, the Core seminar thrives on oral debate of the most difficult questions about human experience.”
Personally, I think that no matter one’s major, experiencing a freshman year of Columbia’s Core Curriculum would be an unparalleled academic privilege. With most courses taught by renowned professors, surrounded by intelligent peers, it wouldn’t really matter if you weren’t taking the engineering classes you need to graduate. The requirements are still set up so that you’ll be able to earn you degree in four years.
—
Regardless of your stance, these two differing views of general education, both from top universities, highlight that there may be no correct method for academic achievement. Every school is different, as well as every school’s students. And in my opinion, that something to remember as the debate over general education at institutes of higher education rages on.