As students shop for classes this semester, it becomes evident that the College places an emphasis on the humanities over the sciences. This conclusion can be drawn from the number of classes offered by humanities departments when compared to those of pure science departments. The English, Political Science and History Departments have 30, 17 and 17 courses, respectively, (not including multiple sections), while the Math, Computer Science, Chemistry and Biology Departments only have 11, 8, 6 and 12 classes, respectively. What’s the reason for this disparity? You can’t argue that it’s because more people major in History than in Biology. It’s also doubtful that the pure sciences are inherently less interesting than the humanities.

In any case, there seems to be a neglect of science departments. There is clear proof in the dearth of science courses offered, specifically electives, and most important, fewer science faculty. Our professors and their various skills are what draw students to Amherst, and in the science departments, there simply aren’t enough of them. Because of this, other than core courses, little is offered. Majors suffer from the lack of choices in electives and non-majors suffer from the lack of exposure to new fields. The liberal arts curriculum is supposed to introduce us to new ideas and subjects, and Amherst’s (intentional or otherwise) drift away from sciences undermines the value of the open curriculum.

A liberal arts college doesn’t mean a college that focuses on the arts, and the College, by offering so few science electives, is alienating its science majors and discouraging potentially interested non-majors from taking say, a chemistry class. For example, this semester, unless you want to take Intro Chemistry for kicks, there’s no Chemistry classes to interest a non-major. Moreover, science majors often have to take every elective offered because there are so few. This makes scheduling nearly impossible because science majors are limited in their flexibility.

Furthermore, putting more of a focus on the sciences would help the College keep up with our fair rival, Williams College. While we have decrepit Merrill Science Center for our labs, Williams has state-of-the-art science facilities; while we have few science electives that would interest non-majors, Williams has courses like “Chemistry and Crimes: From Sherlock Holmes to Modern Forensic Science” that are likely to attract both hardcore science students and humanities-focused non-majors.

It’s possible to keep the open curriculum without continuing to subtly slight the sciences. Steps could be taken to hire more science professors (Computer Science has four professors), and facilities could be improved to facilitate new and interesting electives for majors and non-majors alike. These facilities and faculty would attract more science-oriented students to the College. Consequently, the College would embrace a diverse education, not just in theory, but in practice. All in all, we hope that Amherst can continue to maintain excellence throughout all its areas of studies. The College is taking a meaningful step with its plans to renovate Merrill. However, adding to the backbone of our science education — the faculty — is equally important.