We know the many virtues of an open curriculum. Indeed, for many of us the open curriculum was a crucial factor when deciding to apply to and enroll in Amherst. However, even those of us who favor it over alternative programs can see, and to some extent have experienced, the drawbacks of such a system.
One of the first criticisms against the open curriculum is the lack of guidance. Life as a blank page extending in front of you can be a dream come true for certain people, and a nightmare for those suffering from writer's block. The blank page of the open curriculum seems ideal, but once you have the pen in hand, the innumerable possibilities can be overwhelming, to say the least. Enter the academic advisors. However, in trying to keep with the spirit of "exploration" and "discovery" underclassmen are supposed to live in, many academic advisors err on the side of laissez-faire with their undeclared advisees. Perfect; please don't change.
Students, if you want more guidance on the part of your advisor, take it upon your own shoulders to get some: make an effort to visit them during office hours, allow them to get to know you and get to know them yourself so that they are more able to cater to your needs. Also, "adopting" advisors is not a bad idea either, if you have not declared your major. Talking to professors in other subjects that might be of interest to you can be of great help. Make an active effort to look for guidance, go talk to the advisor and do not expect him or her to come knocking on your dorm room door.
Another important argument against an open curriculum is that students may dismiss certain academic areas with which they have had negative experience without giving them a second chance. However, not every subject deserves a second chance. Even when it does, at some point one has to draw the line. Moreover, not giving certain areas a second chance opens up space in a packed schedule that gives others a first shot.
Before the intimidating blank page makes you re-think your choice of institution, consider the alternatives to an open curriculum.
One of these, obviously, is a core curriculum. Just the name sends shivers down my spine, as I imagine myself sitting in a class I knew I wouldn't like but nonetheless was required to take. Unpleasant high school memories rush back into my mind. This is not to say that in an open system one will love all his or her classes. However, at least in this situation one can be responsible for one's own missed hits. Also, having an open curriculum makes it much easier to shop around, which significantly increases-though as we well know does not guarantee-the chances of selecting classes one does like. And even if not, one can learn from past mistakes, start narrowing down interests and discard possibilities of majoring in a particular field or of following a certain program, after realizing what a challenge it was to keep up the pace, interest or eyelids.
In a system with a core, such autonomous decision-making is not possible. Didn't like a class? Too bad. Your only comfort lies in knowing that you passed it (if you did) and that it's over and done with; you can move on. However, you may be moving on to a class just as unsatisfying, just another obstacle to surpass before graduation.
There are, though, many virtues to a core curriculum, as the number of institutions who adhere to this system would suggest, and they are all outlined in their view books: a broad, well-rounded education, which forces students to sample several different areas of study before deciding on a concentration, etc. This is particularly true of institutions that have distribution requirements, as opposed to a fixed core, which gives students more freedom when designing their curriculum.
An open curriculum system possesses these same virtues with one crucial difference: Students are not forced to sample different subjects, they are allowed to do so. Through both systems, students determine, by process of elimination, their interests in different academic areas. An open curriculum, however, takes the student's high school academic experience into consideration, during which this process of elimination was most likely already started. Students who already know that they are not interested after taking a subject for several years in high school need not pursue that subject further.
Another alternative to the no-core would be an educational system such as that used in universities in Latin America and Europe: the hard-core. In most of these universities students must decide their career path before enrolling, and all of the classes they take are pertinent to their career choice.
There is little, if any, room for "electives." Whereas this can be an ideal arrangement for the student who is certain of what he or she wants to study, it poses several problems for the more hesitant one. If after beginning to study, students decide they do not want to follow a certain path, which is perfectly understandable considering how many times a regular Amherst student changes his or her major, they have to start from the beginning and most of the time cannot make a course intended for one major count towards a different one.
This can be a waste of time, money and most importantly, it might lead to students following career paths not because they like them (many times they would have rather done something else), but because they could not afford (not necessarily in monetary terms) to throw out the window what they had already done and start again from the beginning.
It is important to note, though, that in other parts of the world, in Latin America, for example, one does not study a subject, as one does in the United States, particularly in liberal arts institutions. Instead, one studies a career. Consequently, while here it is very easy (don't we hear it every day?) to go into any career with any major ("What can you do with an English major? Everything!" or "Corporate leaders are increasingly looking for liberal arts majors to join the business world"), it is not so in other countries. The pressure or anxiety that comes with deciding on a major, while difficult at an open-curriculum institution because of all the freedom and possibilities, is even higher at institutions with a hard-core curriculum, where your major defines who you become out there in the workforce.
A open curriculum has its disadvantages, but in my opinion, they are lesser ones, in quantity and importance, than those of the alternatives. These drawbacks can be overcome, if one makes an effort. So find yourself a scarf and snow boots; no one will just hand them to you.
Lora can be reached at vlora08@amherst.edu