Open curriculum is the core of an Amherst education
By by Julie Babayan and Mike Flood
When we are asked, "Why Amherst? What separates Amherst from the other small liberal arts schools?," our answer is simple: the open curriculum. Like students at Williams, Wesleyan and Swarthmore, we enjoy being part of a diverse student body, taking small classes and intellectual engagement with dignified faculty both inside and outside the classroom. What sets us apart from all those other schools-and the reason so many of us chose Amherst over them-is our open curriculum. This central feature of Amherst was nearly destroyed a few weeks ago by the College's faculty. Only a mere seven votes kept our open curriculum from morphing into a system of distribution requirements.

It may seem absurd that students were not informed that such drastic changes to the curriculum were being considered or that we had no input into this decision. It turns out that these changes to the open curriculum came out of a discussion of the English honors system, not out of a discussion of the curriculum itself.

The faculty is currently trying to justify the existence of English honors-honors which are given to graduating seniors exhibiting high GPAs. Some have suggested that these English honors should be harder to attain. The Committee on Educational Policy proposed that in order for a student to qualify for English honors, he or she must do course work according to a particular set of distribution requirements. This begs the question, what freshman entering Amherst would not follow distribution requirements in the hope or anticipation of getting English honors at graduation? Before long, both students and faculty will start acting as though Amherst does have distribution requirements. Even though Amherst would still claim to have an open curriculum, in practice we would not.

On March 5, seven votes kept the status quo-but it might not last for long. This topic is likely to resurface at the April 2 faculty meeting.

There are many reasons that it is inappropriate and dangerous to tie distribution to any form of honors. But first, we should note that English honors as they exist under the new system are redundant. There is already a system in place to reward those with excellent GPAs: the Phi Beta Kappa society. This honor is reserved for the top 10 percent of the class, as determined solely by GPA. In this respect, English honors is a meaningless recognition for already-recognized achievement. Perhaps the best solution is to eliminate English honors completely.

If we do keep English honors though, we must be very careful about the requirements we attach to them. The consequences of tying distribution to honors are clear: the College will have a de facto distribution requirement. In having this, we risk filling introductory classes with overqualified students and encouraging students to take courses about which they are not passionate, instead of encouraging students' individual intellectual exploration.

So what will happen if we attach a distribution requirement to Honors? There will be an influx of overqualified people enrolling in lower-level classes in order to fill requirements. So-called "guts" will be full to the brim. Students who have taken four or more years of French will enroll in French 1. Students who received 5s on the BC Calculus exam will enroll in Math 11. Of course, this already happens, to the great frustration of professors and those students who have no French background and did not take BC Calculus. But if it's bad now, it's only going to get worse.

By taking a lower level class for which they are overqualified, students will have two advantages towards earning English honors. First, they will earn an inflated grade due to their previous knowledge. Second, they will knock off a distribution requirement. These outcomes are not desirable, but they will certainly be a reality if we instate distribution requirements for English honors. What student or professor wants class size to skyrocket to accommodate dispassionate students who are fulfilling a requirement? What student or professor wants to be surrounded by peers who are there not for learning's sake, but for English honors' sake?

Presumably, those faculty members who support a distribution requirement believe that students should challenge themselves by taking courses in a variety of disciplines. This is certainly valuable. But the distribution requirement will not achieve this goal; students who want honors have clear incentives to take classes in which they are guaranteed As. Students will not distribute themselves into challenging seminars or upper-level courses outside their major if they know they must get As to get honors.

Furthermore, many students currently take risks every semester by taking courses outside their self-selected primary disciplines. It is likely that the overwhelming majority of students do indeed fulfill the kind of requirement the faculty would be instituting. Under the current system, we are challenged to exercise our intellectual maturity in selecting our classes-and we have been rising to that challenge. The institution of a distribution requirement not only sends the message that we're incapable of working with our advisors to choose an appropriate course of study, but it also ultimately hinders our intellectual growth.

We are left with this dilemma: on the one hand, if we attach distribution to English honors, we dramatically change the curriculum and undermine the principles of respect for students' individual intellectual choices. On the other, if we preserve English honors as is, we are creating a silly duplicate reward for a group of people who will already be honored through Phi Beta Kappa. The more reasonable solution would be to eliminate English honors entirely. It is simply a consolation prize for those students who do not attain Latin honors.

The course catalog states that while advisors should help guide students in choosing our schedules, "the ultimate responsibility for a thoughtful program of study rests with the individual student." This will no longer be the case if there is a distribution requirement tied to honors, because the College will have a de facto distribution requirement. Not only will the College be lying to applicants and to its students when it claims to have an open curriculum, but the faculty will be undermining our guiding educational principles of intellectual freedom and responsibility.

A distribution requirement is dangerous in many ways and should be discussed widely before being reintroduced to this College. Under no circumstances should it become policy through the honors system. If the faculty would like to see distribution requirements, discussion outside of the faculty meetings must take place. The current system must be much more carefully evaluated and reported on-to the entire College community. A decision to instate distribution requirements will dramatically change this College and should not be made without warning, in a closed meeting, during a discussion about honors.

Distribution requirements for English honors would negatively affect every Amherst student and professor. It would increase class size and intellectual apathy. It would hurt admissions. It would thwart our intellectual growth. Are these the results we want to see? Surely not.

Issue 21, Submitted 2002-03-27 16:42:15