The Curriculum at Forty

Office of the Dean of the CollegeBrown UniversityProvidence, Rhode Island

final report of the task force onundergraduate education

September 2008

A Plan for Strengthening theCollege Experience at Brown

contents

Foreword 1

Liberal Education 8

Advising 12

Teaching and Learning 17

Afterword 23

Recommendations 24

Plan of Action 27

List of Works Consulted 34

Appendix 37Charge 37Task Force Membership 37Liberal Learning at Brown 39Brown Faculty Advising Fellows 42

1

A well known historian of education once described thecollege curriculum in America as a place for measuringthe dimensions of our changing culture, a place wherewe have “told ourselves who we are.”1 For Brown thisdefinition proves unusually apt. The growth of theschool over two centuries from Baptist college to mod-ern university brought with it profound changes in thenature and style of instruction, reflecting broader shiftsin the American cultural landscape. Francis Wayland,Brown’s fourth president, had such changes in mindwhen he proposed a “new system of collegiate educa-tion,” designed to reach a more diverse mercantile classthrough flexible, elective degree programs.2 Other de-velopments soon followed. In 1891 the Universitybegan offering a Bachelor of Science degree and in1919 introduced a concentration requirement.3 A gen-eral curriculum was established for freshman in 1937,and reforms in 1947 took the matter further, requiringwork in sixteen subjects for all students and comprehen-sive exams for seniors. The 1950s saw a shift towardmore experimental programs, one in close reading(“Identification and Criticism of Ideas”) and another incross-disciplinary studies (the “University Courses”).These were followed in the early 1960s by the so-called“permissive curriculum,” which offered more flexible

options and a relaxed residency requirement. But at theend of that same decade, in 1969, Brown embraced themost liberated approach to liberal education since the“new system” of Francis Wayland: it was called the NewCurriculum. Redefining the college experience for a newgeneration of students, this curriculum has character-ized “who we are” as an institution to the present day.

We now call it, simply, the Brown curriculum. Its mostdistinguishing feature as a curriculum has always hadmore to do with context than content, with the basicconditions for learning than the subjects learned. Likeundergraduates at other American universities, Brownstudents are expected to gain perspective on a range ofdisciplines and to concentrate in one; to perfect their crit-ical faculties and to hone their judgment. The differencelies in the freedom they have to shape this experience forthemselves. While requirements for individual concen-trations are determined by the faculty, Brown studentscontrol their general education. They are expected, inessence, to build their own “core” curricula and, from theevidence, they have been equal to the task. As SheilaBlumstein showed in 1990, most students completedtwo or more courses in the humanities, the sciences, andthe social sciences by the time of their graduation. Thestatistics today are very much the same.4

Foreword

1 Frederick Rudolph, Curriculum: A History of the American UndergraduateCourse of Study Since 1636 (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977), 1.

2 Report to the Corporation of Brown University on Changes in the System of Colle-giate Education. Read March 28, 1850 (Providence: George H. Whitney, 1850).A sketch of instructional change at Brown from the 19th to the 20th centurycan be found in the essay “Curriculum,” in Martha Mitchell, EncyclopediaBrunoniana (Providence, R.I.: Brown University Library, 1993).

3 Brown’s expanded degree programs reflected the rapid growth of modernresearch universities in the U.S. between 1890 and 1910. Claudia Goldinand Lawrence F. Katz analyzed this growth in “The Shaping of Higher Edu-cation: The Formative Years in the United States, 1890 to 1940.” Journal ofEconomic Perspectives XIII, 1 (Winter 1999). Such expansion was encour-aged, they note, by “the scientific method, practically-oriented courses, the‘lecture method’ of teaching, and specialization.” See also Derek Bok, OurUnderachieving Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much Students Learn andWhy They Should be Learning More (Princeton: Princeton University Press,2006); and Leon Botstein, “Some Thoughts on Curriculum and Change,”in Rethinking Liberal Education (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).

4 Sheila E. Blumstein, The Brown Curriculum Twenty Years Later: A Reviewof the Past and a Working Agenda for the Future (January 1990). Appen-dices 16 and 17 show figures for students graduating in 1987 and 1989.According to Brown’s Office of Institutional Research, of the members ofthe class of 2007 who completed at least 22 courses at Brown, 82.2%took 2 or more courses in the sciences, 97.6% took 2 or more courses inthe humanities, and 91.9% took 2 or more courses in the social sciences.

2

But distribution figures do not begin to address thedeeper challenge posed by our curriculum. Brownstudents are expected not merely to sample a range ofcourses but to make connections between them, to usethe perspective gained from one discipline as a windowonto the next. They are expected, in short, to designmeaningful and integrated courses of study that make apositive difference not only for themselves but for theworld they live in. The most significant social, political,and moral issues of our time have long demanded theability to navigate multiple points of view, and fornearly forty years Brown’s open curriculum has beena place for students to develop exactly this rich andnuanced perspective.5

There are in fact many signs that our long-term experi-ment in liberal education has worked. The success ofBrown graduates in professional degrees and in a widerange of careers, and the satisfaction of undergraduatesas measured on frequent comparative surveys,6 attest tothe vitality of the curriculum’s underlying philosophy.Yet it is clear that we cannot rest on this success with-out an ongoing examination of our goals as a universityin a new century. Can we be certain that our curriculumis preparing graduates adequately for lives in an in-creasingly global context? Are we convinced that ourstudents are taking every advantage of the freedom theyhave, and that our courses are producing the properlearning outcomes? If the curriculum is a space formeasuring the changing landscape of American cul-ture, how should we adjust our offerings to reflect ourcurrent historical moment?

The Task

These are the broad questions that shaped a year-longdiscussion by Brown’s Task Force on UndergraduateEducation, a committee convened in March 2007 bythe Provost and the Dean of the College to review thecurrent state of the College and to make recommenda-tions for the future. Four students, seven senior facultymembers, and three deans met over several months tothink broadly and critically about Brown’s undergradu-ate curriculum.7 The work of the group coincided withtwo important reviews that began in 2007: the five-yearreappraisal of Brown’s Plan for Academic Enrichment,8

and the ten-year reaccreditation of Brown by the NewEngland Association of Schools and Colleges(NEASC).9 The Plan for Academic Enrichment servedas an obvious context for discussions, but the NEASCreview was equally relevant, given that the Collegewould be the focus of Brown’s reaccreditation report.The Task Force provided a necessary grounding for thatreport by undertaking one of the first comprehensivereviews of the curriculum since 1990.10

Throughout the year, the committee’s work was guidedby a central concern: How should we define Brown’seducational mission today, and what is required to en-sure its continued success? The Task Force approachedthe question from four broad vantage points: liberaleducation in general, education in the concentrations,the role of advising, and the assessment of teachingand learning. Between April and December of 2007, thecommittee met, in whole or in part, nearly thirty times.A website kept students, faculty, and staff informed ofthe committee’s progress. Meetings with the FacultyExecutive Committee and with the UndergraduateCouncil of Students helped to clarify aims and ideas.Additional feedback came in the form of student focusgroups, online surveys of the community and ofalumni, and a campus forum. A draft report of initial

5 In “The University at the Millennium,” the 1999 Glion Declaration, twentyuniversity presidents and professors from around the world confirmed thatwhile “traditional disciplines, with their deliberate concentration and ab-straction, are powerful engines of scholarship,” they also place “constraintson broader inquiry.” The delegates argued that wedding disciplinary expert-ise with “the insights and skills of . . . other disciplines and professions” willoffer the 21st century university “unusual promise in confronting broaderpublic issues.” For complete text see http://www.glion.org/.

6 According to our biennial surveys of graduating seniors, Brown stu-dents report gains in reading or speaking a foreign language, appreciat-ing the arts, understanding the process of science and experimentation,and evaluating the role of science and technology in society. They alsoreport gains in their ability to write effectively and communicate wellorally, to learn independently and to think analytically, and to formulatecreative and original ideas.

7 Biographies of Task Force members can be found in the Appendix onpage 37.

8 The Plan for Academic Enrichment, Phase II (February 2008).http://www.brown.edu/web/pae/PhaseII.html

9 See Brown University’s NEASC project website athttp://www.brown.edu/Project/NEASC/.

10 The last comprehensive review was Blumstein’s The Brown CurriculumTwenty Years Later.

3

findings was released in January 2008, stimulatingfurther conversations on campus, and providing moreuseful feedback from students, faculty, administrators,and members of the Corporation.11

Among the clearest messages that emerged from thesediscussions was the desire to nourish Brown’s uniqueculture of learning, which has defined the undergraduateexperience here for almost four decades. Many membersof the community worried nonetheless that a generalshift in the campus climate, and increased demands onfaculty time, were making aspects of this curriculum dif-ficult to sustain. Students expressed a yearning to havemore frequent, informal, and engaged interactions withfaculty. Faculty wondered whether undergraduates weredeveloping the full range of their abilities in science andmath, in languages, and in writing. Some feared that thevalues of liberal education were more generally on thedecline and that much more support was needed tosustain Brown’s culture of teaching and learning.

Liberal Studies and Contemporary Education

Such concerns about the state of liberal studies areactually not so new, nor are they unique to Brown. Onthis campus they go back at least as far as the era ofWayland, but the same concerns were echoed at otherAmerican colleges of the period. As it turns out, the“new system of collegiate instruction” that came intofashion in the 19th century affected teaching and learningat every major institution in the country. This systemfavored free electives over a set curriculum, and createdthe condition for a rapid growth of course offerings andof teaching faculties. It eventually led to polemics abouta lack of depth in university education, a problem thatwas answered by the invention of the academic major,and the binary system of concentration and distributionstill familiar at most universities today.12 It was from thisnew structure that the complementary idea of “generaleducation” first came into being.

A persistent tension between the need for generalizedknowledge and the urge to specialize has characterizednational discourse on the liberal arts ever since, andhas required universities to find new ways of reaffirm-ing the purposes and principles of liberal learning.Brown is no different, but the return of the free electivesystem after 1969 changed the focus of the debate onour campus. How should one define a general educa-tion in the context of an open curriculum? The term“general education” usually refers to that portion of thecurriculum shared by all students, but at Brown stu-dents do not “share” a prearranged set of courses;rather, they share a responsibility for arranging theirown core programs. Such responsibility highlights abasic goal of liberal learning—creative and independentthought—but students also need guidance to ensurethat they will develop their intellectual capacities to thefullest. The Task Force thus called for a clearer statementabout the goals of liberal education at Brown, one thatwas explicit about the types of intellectual inquiry andcritical thinking that students should be building intotheir programs of study.13 But the committee went fur-ther, arguing for an even broader vision of “generaleducation” that acknowledges the importance of studentlearning experiences beyond the classroom. Real-worldexperiences anchor intellectual pursuits in practicalknowledge and help students develop a greater sense ofsocial and global responsibility, thus preparing them tolead future lives of “usefulness and reputation.”

To support students in achieving these goals, the TaskForce agreed that each academic department shouldregularly offer engaging courses for generalists, andthat the University should provide more financial sup-port for internships or other work beyond the standardcourse offerings. For similar reasons, the Task Forceargued that concentrations themselves should be muchmore transparent about the broader areas of knowledgeimplied by their required courses. This is important for

11 Notes from public meetings and summaries of survey responses havebeen compiled in a report, which can be found at http://brown.edu/col-lege/tue/downloads/Feedback_Report.pdf.

12 Yale adopted the new concentration-and-distribution structure in 1901,Cornell in 1905, Harvard in 1909, and Brown in 1919. Prior to thattime, all three institutions had adopted the “free elective” system. SeeRudolph, Curriculum, 227–229; and Bok, Our Underachieving Colleges,17–18.

13 The College Curriculum Council responded to the call in the spring bydrafting a new statement of “Liberal Learning at Brown.” It is includedin the Appendix of this report on pages 39–41.

4

two reasons. The University currently supports a largenumber of concentration options, many of them strad-dling departmental or disciplinary boundaries. If onlyas a practical measure, a statement about the types ofcritical thinking, or modes of thought, that each con-centration engages could help students navigate adaunting array of choices. On a more philosophicallevel, such a statement would also serve to “liberalize”the concentration, showing how its specialized curricu-lum actually contributes to liberal learning goals by bothclarifying and completing a general course of study. TheTask Force was especially concerned about this last point,recognizing that some students at Brown complete theirdegrees without having an appropriately conclusive orculminating intellectual experience (a “capstone” experi-ence) in the concentration. The report thus argues thatevery program should be required to identify a range ofthese experiences and to make them available to seniorconcentrators. The College Curriculum Council will becharged with reviewing all programs to ensure thatthese objectives are met.

Not surprisingly, the larger discussion about liberallearning at Brown took on greater urgency in the faceof the University’s more recent commitment to becomea global university.14 The movement toward globaleducation in the 21st century replicates in some waysthe general education movement of the previous one,ensuring that graduates will have the intellectualflexibility to live and work in a complex world. Brown’sinnovative answer to general education suggests thatour approach to global teaching and learning should beequally distinctive. A properly articulated internationalcurriculum has the potential to fulfill both of the objec-tives mentioned above: broadening the scope of liberaleducation, and liberalizing the concentrations. Experi-ences beyond the United States will of necessity extendthe reach of the classroom, enlarging a student’s senseof intellectual and social responsibility. The Task Forcethus urges the University to develop a much widerrange of international work and study experiences for

undergraduates. Brown’s concentrations could serve asthe natural site for such expansion, and we encourageexisting programs to consider incorporating an interna-tional “track” that develops a global perspective on thediscipline.

Advisors and Mentors

It is a distinctive strength of Brown’s open academicenvironment—with its greater flexibility—that theUniversity can expect to develop these internationalinitiatives quickly. Yet expanding the range of curricularoptions also puts pressure on the single aspect ofBrown’s curriculum that has been subject to the mostcriticism over the years: academic advising. Any educa-tional environment that promotes a student’s right tochoose requires a robust system of academic support toensure that students make informed choices. In thissense, advising at Brown represents a social contractbetween the University, the faculty, and its students,upholding and sustaining the ideal and the practice ofthe open curriculum. And yet we learned through feed-back from students, faculty, and alumni, in campusforums, in online surveys, and in focus groups, thatthis contract has not always been honored. The TaskForce thus devoted considerable time, both beforeand after the release of its draft report in January,discussing ways to improve advising at Brown.

Our recommendations related to advising fall into threecategories: increased support for faculty advisors,new academic resources for students, and enhancedoutreach to students in academic difficulty. First andforemost, the University must develop new facultyresources to strengthen and diversify its current cohortof academic advisors. An enhanced program of FacultyAdvising Fellows, outlined by the Task Force and theCommittee of Residential Experience,15 affirms thefaculty’s responsibility for advising as well as the Uni-versity’s responsibility for helping faculty fulfill thisobligation. In the plan, Advising Fellows work in teamswith residential Faculty Fellows to organize events for

14 See The Plan for Academic Enrichment, Phase II. 15 A schematic diagram of the program is included on page 42 of this report.See also the Report of the Committee on the Residential Experience (May2008) at http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Campus_Life/docu-ments/CRE_report_final.pdf.

5

faculty and students after hours in faculty homes, andto provide additional advising resources. AdvisingFellows come from many disciplines in order to offeranother “ear” for first-year or sophomore students seek-ing a different disciplinary perspective. They provideprogramming for students living off-campus, and forthose returning from international experiences, thushelping to strengthen the student’s connection to theUniversity. They also serve as a point of contact for fac-ulty, and help build community among Brown’s largercohort of regular academic advisors.16 In these ways,Advising Fellows expand the number of active and en-gaged advisors on campus and also create a more visi-ble network of faculty to whom students can turn—andreturn—over their four years of study. In a similar way,the College needs to invest in its regular cohort ofacademic advisors to enhance the continuity betweena student’s first and second year of study. Faculty needrecognition for their service, and the College must findthe means to retain faculty advisors for two-year intervals.

Along with faculty resources, new academic resourcesare needed to provide greater support for students in theconcentrations. In this regard, the Task Force stronglyendorses the recommendation of the 2007 Undergradu-ate Science Education Committee to create a new centerto enhance advising and mentoring for students in mathand science disciplines. Such a center would ideallybring under one roof all of Brown’s peer-advising and tu-toring programs in the sciences, and would enhance op-portunities for students to work with faculty on researchand community outreach projects. But enhanced advis-ing in the sciences would only go so far. There are manyconcentrations whose advising would benefit from newapproaches designed to make it more consistent and fo-cused. Concentrators in many fields could also be aidedby the work of Departmental Undergraduate Groups. Agreater degree of interaction between faculty and stu-dents in concentrations and among students themselveswill ensure that students in the junior and senior yearshave the resources they need to succeed.

But resources alone will not solve all of the problems.The College must also create new methods to identifyand reach out to students who either find themselves inacademic difficulty, or who may need additional helpacclimating to Brown’s culture or adjusting to thepressures of the academic year. And it must focusmuch more attention on advising for matters of life aftergraduation, including job and internship opportunities,and pathways to fellowships or professional schools. Allthese require more coordination between campus officesto reach a larger number of students effectively. Thepresent report does not offer remedies for all theseconcerns, but by outlining the problems, it does suggestsome places to begin building solutions.

Learning about Teaching

Students, of course, are not the only constituents oncampus who can benefit from enhanced mentoring andfeedback. Teachers need it, too, and the final section ofthis report considers the Brown curriculum from theperspective of those who teach it. In general, the reportsuggests that the University needs to do more to supportthe teaching mission of the faculty. This means, for onething, supporting the growth of the curriculum itself.In its 2007 report, the Undergraduate ScienceEducation Committee proposed that a pool of funds beestablished to support active, hands-on teaching in thesciences, and the Task Force also acknowledged, in amore general way, the need for increased funding inthe College to stimulate course development.

The growth of the curriculum also implies the develop-ment of our present and future professoriate. Someyoung faculty members arrive at Brown with limitedteaching experience and little or no experience in aliberal arts college. Graduate students, too, are oftencaught between scholarly pursuits and responsibilitiesto their students. How do we, as an institution, conveythe central importance of the undergraduate teachingmission to our new faculty and graduate student TAs?The Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning offers

16 The cohort for the academic year 2008-09 includes roughly 250 regularacademic advisors, about 200 of whom are members of the faculty. Inaddition, fifteen new Faculty Advising Fellows were recruited in spring2008, in preparation for launching the program this fall.

6

many useful seminars and other resources in this regard,but department chairs and colleagues also need to enterthe conversation. Some faculty and graduate studentsrequire additional departmental support to becomemore effective teachers. Departments themselves needto develop more useful and consistent ways to evaluatethe teaching of their faculty. The University can help inthis area by creating a more user-friendly course evalua-tion tool, and also by insisting on thorough and consis-tent departmental evaluation as part of the tenure andpromotion process.

The question of how our teachers are teaching leads,however, to another more pointed question, one thathas sparked a more widespread national debate on theexpectations of higher education: Can we say with anycertainty that we know what our students are learn-ing?17 While individual faculty members usually havean idea about the types of skills acquired by students intheir classes, it is a difficult question to answer on a de-partmental or institutional level. The Task Force ac-knowledged that more could—and should—be done atBrown to gauge our students’ success in meeting theoutcomes of our open curriculum. Currently the Uni-versity has a number of indirect measures to suggest thatour students are, in fact, achieving Brown’s liberal learn-ing goals.18 What we need are more direct measures ofstudent learning at Brown. In developing such meas-ures, we should continue to respect the spirit of open-ness and independent inquiry that is a hallmark ofBrown’s academic culture. The committee thus recom-mended that concentrations articulate more clearly the

kind of educational outcomes they expect of their grad-uates, and to collect samples of capstone projects orother meaningful work to evaluate the success of indi-vidual students in reaching these goals. The Universitycan further the process by creating a digital platformwhere students can store work in all kinds of media.Collecting a range of student work over time would notonly give departments a sense of their own success indeveloping the intellectual capacities of their under-graduates; it would also give the University as a wholethe opportunity to say more precisely “who we are” asan academic community.

*

This final report of the Task Force on UndergraduateEducation reflects the richness and diversity of a collectiveconversation that endorsed the Brown curriculum andcalled for a recommitment to the principles that supportit. Whereas the original charge to the committee (includedhere in the Appendix) outlined four broad areas of in-quiry, the exposition that follows is organized into three:liberal education, advising, and teaching and learning. Itseeks to summarize the range of issues considered bythe Task Force and by the Brown community in each ofthese areas, both before and after the release of the draftreport in January. Discussions among different subcom-mittees and focus groups often converged on the sameissues, and so this report is less a chronicle of eventsthan a compilation of ideas, capturing the nature of thebroader conversation. A summary list of recommenda-tions and a plan of action follows to conclude the report,offering some perspective on the work that has beenaccomplished so far, and the work that remains. Ourhope is that this document will not be seen as an endbut as a beginning. As we submit this report, we trustthat the larger conversation about the undergraduateexperience that it has stimulated will continue, leadingto new ideas, new programs, and new practices that willenhance our curriculum and define what Brown canbecome for future generations.

17 The most aggressive statement appeared in September 2006, with thereport of the commission chaired by U.S. Secretary of Education Mar-garet Spellings. The introduction to the report criticized what the com-mission saw as “the remarkable absence of accountability mechanismsto ensure that colleges succeed in educating students.” See A Test ofLeadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education. (U.S. Depart-ment of Education: Washington, D.C., 2006). See also Lori Breslow etal., “How Do We Know If Students Are Learning?” MIT Faculty Newsletter(January/February 2008).

18 These indirect measures include exit interviews with graduates, rates ofstudent participation in elective educational programs such as intern-ships or study abroad, and admissions rates to selective professionalschools. They also include statistics gleaned from our studies of coursedistribution among Brown graduates (including a study of enrollmentsin math and science courses), and from our biennial surveys of seniorsand of all enrolled students at Brown.

7

Respectfully submitted,

Amit Basu, Chemistry

Jason Becker, ‘09

Katherine Bergeron, Dean of the College (Chair)

Sheila Blumstein, Cognitive and Linguistic Sciences

Barrymore Bogues, Africana Studies

Sheila Bonde, Dean of the Graduate School

Rakim Brooks, ‘09

Fiona Heckscher, ‘09

Kathleen McSharry, Associate Dean of the College

James Morone, Political Science

Michael Paradiso, Neuroscience

Hannah Pepper-Cunningham, ‘08

Jill Pipher, Mathematics

Arnold Weinstein, Comparative Literature

8

Education is not easy to measure. A college experienceimplies many kinds of learning in many different places:in lectures and laboratories, at home and abroad, in thefield and on stage; in libraries, living rooms, offices,dorms, and cafés. For nearly forty years, Brown’s opencurriculum has encouraged an expansive and diverseapproach to learning, but even in this environment thecollege experience can involve more than we realize.The array of intellectual activities that flourish aboutthis campus, far from representing scattered or com-peting interests, actually bears witness to a moreinclusive concept of education—indeed, one so inclusivethat conventional distinctions between general educationand the concentrations, between the curricular and theextracurricular, even between classroom and community,need to be rethought.

Interconnected ventures are a signature intellectualcharacteristic of our institution, and students who aredrawn to Brown today show a propensity for the kind ofindependent and integrative learning valued by thefounders of the open curriculum. Brown students areconstantly measuring and testing the real-world implica-tions of what they learn. The programs produced by theThird World Center or the Swearer Center for PublicService; the work performed by Departmental Under-graduate Groups; the mentoring carried out by WritingFellows, Meiklejohn peer advisors, UndergraduateTeaching Assistants, and Residential Peer Leaders; thesheer proliferation of student-run activities on campusranging from journalism to discussion groups to confer-ences: all these reflect what we might call the “fullerlife” of the classroom. It is essential to consider theseventures not simply as part of our curriculum, but as akey element of our mission and, indeed, our success.

This inclusive concept of liberal education may well beone of Brown’s most distinctive assets, but it nonethelessremains difficult to define. How are we to characterizethe ethos of liberal education for the current generationof Brown faculty and students? The Task Force saw a

pressing need to rearticulate the core values of theBrown curriculum for the larger campus community,and to clarify a vision of the kind of learning we believecan and should happen on this campus. If we are toproduce global citizens capable of moral discernment,capable of “discharg[ing] the offices of life with useful-ness and reputation” (as the Brown Charter has it), thenwe need a more holistic view of what we, as a univer-sity, actually teach about these capacities. What roledoes our inherently democratic curriculum play inhelping to educate a democratic and engaged citizenry?What are students doing with the time they spend out-side of class? To understand the real meaning of liberallearning at Brown we need to consider a fuller spec-trum of student activity beyond the classroom, beyondthe campus, and even beyond the United States.19

“Brown students,” we were told by a current senior oncampus, “tend to see their classes not as ends in them-selves but as launching pads for greater involvement inthe community and the world.” This tendency towardactivist involvement is another distinctive feature ofBrown’s educational culture. As a faculty member com-mented, it may not be amiss to characterize Brown’sphilosophy of liberal education as a system-wide re-sponse to E.M. Forster’s literary dictum: Only connect!20

The remarkable scope and vigor of student-initiatedactivities on and off campus serve both to complementand to complete the kind of learning that takes place inthe classroom, connecting students with other students,with members of neighboring communities, and withthe larger world beyond Brown. And that connectionspeaks to a type of civic engagement that can developstudents’ ethical or moral capacities. To those pessimisticcritics of higher education who bemoan the lack ofcivics requirements in university curricula,21 the collegeexperience at Brown should come as welcome news. Itmay also represent, we think, a very real and untoldsuccess story for this campus.

Liberal Education

19 In our biennial senior survey, Brown students have reported a signifi-cantly higher level of participation than students at peer institutions inpublic service work, independent research for credit, internationalstudy, and involvement in political organizations.

20For another perspective on the same imperative, see William Cronon,“‘Only Connect…’: The Goals of a Liberal Education.” The AmericanScholar 67, no. 4 (Autumn 1998): 73–81.

21 See, for example, Bok, Our Underachieving Colleges, 172–77.

9

This vision of engaged learning and the fuller life of theclassroom led the Task Force to its first concrete proposal.We recommend that the Dean of the College and theCollege Curriculum Council produce a new statementabout liberal education at Brown, one that gives properdue to the range of student-led activities taking place onand off this campus. Brown’s earlier statement of edu-cational goals, the “Guideline to Liberal Learning,” wasproduced by Sheila Blumstein in her capacity as Deanof the College in 1990 and provides a useful startingpoint for expansion. The new statement should clarifythe principle of “breadth” by articulating the areas ofintellectual inquiry that all students are expected tobuild into their core programs. These areas includethe ability to communicate effectively in more than onelanguage; the capacity to understand histories anddifferences among cultures; the knowledge of scientificmethods together with the quantitative skills necessaryto imagine and solve complex problems; and the appre-ciation of forms of representation in many kinds of ex-pressive media. Profiles of individual students shouldbe provided to show the range of entrepreneurial andcreative activity possible in our open academic environ-ment. Above all, the statement should articulate theimportance of including real-world experiences, and ofcollaborating with a full range of mentors and advisors,in order to acquire the diverse range of perspectivesnecessary not to make a living but, in the words ofAlexander Meiklejohn, “to have a life worth living.”22

How are students to gain this intellectual breadth?Some members of the Task Force worried that ourcurrent course offerings may not provide students withsufficient opportunities for broad exploration of thedisciplines, and so a second recommendation followsclosely from this first one. We think departments andprograms should be expected to create, each year, aregular roster of courses that introduce the ideas anddiscourses of their fields. Such courses would be de-signed to capture the spirit of a discipline: its assump-tions, its methodologies, its ways of thinking. Somecourses in Brown’s First-Year Seminar Program already

fulfill this function for the entering class. What we areproposing is a variation on that theme, with additionalcourses designed not for first-years but for upperclassstudents. For interdisciplinary programs, such coursescould be team-taught by faculty in different fields.

Departments may object that the goal is unrealistic, thatstudents are unlikely to grasp the point of a disciplinewithout some prior foundation. And yet we think that iffaculty were to engage in this kind of thoughtful dialogueabout their disciplines, the results could be very exciting.A few departments already feature courses like these intheir curricula. We sense there is an audience of under-graduates hungry for more. In fact, we learned fromspeaking with individual students that it is often juniorsand seniors who are looking for this kind of wider expo-sure as they enter the last phases of their education. Weenjoin all academic departments, then, to construe theirintellectual mission as a double mission: not only to craftconcentrations that provide undergraduates with a solidgrounding in their disciplines, but also to create coursesthat reflect on the significance, and the “fit,” of thesedisciplines within the larger intellectual and socialculture of Brown and beyond.

The question of what the concentrations themselvesshould be providing constituted the next major themein Task Force discussions. Every concentration has a setof required and elective courses that together reflect therange of intellectual approaches that define their disci-plines. Yet a review of web sites of current programsrevealed that few concentrations take the time to explainthese approaches or even present a rationale for thecontent and structure of their programs. For this reason,the Task Force asks each concentration to complete aself-study that would offer a clearly stated rationale forcourse offerings, showing how they relate to disciplinarylearning objectives. The report would explain how theprogram’s required courses fulfill the expectations of agiven discipline, as well as how they serve to fulfill thebroader learning goals of a liberal education. What, forexample, does the concentration do to help studentsimprove oral and written communication? What kinds

22 See pages 39–41 in the Appendix for the new statement, produced bythe College Curriculumn Council in spring 2008.

10

of critical thinking does it promote? Does it help tohone quantitative reasoning or statistical skills? Languageskills? What about ethical or moral development? Con-centrations could use the College’s new statement onliberal learning, discussed above, as a basis for thinkingabout these questions. By stating such learning goals,departments would not only help students make betterchoices; they would also help students keep the full cur-riculum in view as they set out on their chosen paths.

Here again the focus is on connection. The conventionalview of a divided curriculum—with the concentrationon one side and “everything else” on the other—is, wethink, profoundly misleading. Not only is the under-graduate expectation of four years and at least thirtycourses larger than any concentration requirement, butthe commitment to diverse areas of inquiry and knowl-edge must also be seen as the main event, not theleftovers, of the college experience. If, as one studenteloquently argued, the real “core” of the Brown curricu-lum lay in the connections students make betweentheir courses and their activities, then we should seethe concentration as part of that network rather thanseparate from it. We must insist, in other words, on afully integral view of the concentration.

Certainly, the proliferation of concentration programsat Brown in the last four decades—from about forty in1969 to nearly a hundred today—offers a clue about theintegrative potential of Brown’s curriculum, especiallywhen one realizes that more than half of these programscross departmental lines. Brown’s culture of intellectualfreedom, combined with disciplinary strength and theintimate size of our community, has made for someexcellent programs over the years. But not every programhas achieved its full potential. Some interdisciplinaryconcentrations are unable to provide students withopportunities to work with faculty advisors, designindependent studies, or complete senior capstones.Some are not always able to offer required courses ona year-to-year basis. If we are to take seriously ourcommitment to student choice and intellectual freedom,then we must also be willing to do something about

those concentration programs—especially those thatlie beyond departmental control—which fail to offer aviable path for our undergraduates.

The problem of under-resourced concentrations wasmentioned at nearly every focus group or campusforum held by the Task Force. The Task Force itselfspent considerable time on the topic and determinedthat the College Curriculum Council needs to exerciseleadership in this area. Our recommendation is that theCCC, as part of its general review of all concentrations,undertake a close and systematic review of interdiscipli-nary programs. Such reviews should consider whetherrequired courses are available on a yearly basis,whether independent study and research is encouragedas part of the concentration, and whether faculty areavailable to serve as teachers and advisors. In caseswhere the CCC notes a lack of interest on the part ofstudents, or insufficient support from faculty, it mayrecommend closing a concentration. In situationswhere faculty and student interest is high, but re-sources are lacking, the Dean of the College shouldwork closely with the Provost and the Dean of the Fac-ulty to find additional resources to ensure the academicintegrity of the programs.

Since the early days of the New Curriculum, independ-ent concentrations have exemplified the venturesomespirit of our student body. Records show that the num-ber of students completing independent concentrationshas declined. This is not a new trend: Sheila Blumsteinnoted in 1990 that independent concentrations hadfallen from a high of 76 in 1975 to a low of 23 in 1988.23

Twenty years later, the numbers are even lower.24 TheTask Force discussed the perception that students had tocross too many administrative hurdles in order to com-plete an independent concentration, and encouraged theCollege to streamline the process. But the committeealso discussed how changes in the curriculum since1975 may have altered the role of the independent con-centration. The number of regular concentration op-tions has more than doubled in that time, and so theneed for independent concentrations may be less press-23 The Brown Curriculum Twenty Years After: A Review of the Past and a

Working Agenda for the Future, January 1990, 49.24In 2008, five students graduated with Independent Concentrations at

Brown.

11

ing than before. The Task Force nonetheless agreed thatindependent learning experiences remain critical to thespirit of the Brown curriculum; indeed, many of ourcurrent interdepartmental concentration programsstarted life as independent concentrations. We thereforeencourage the College to continue supporting suchindependent teaching and learning with appropriatecurricular and advising resources.

All concentrations, of course, should be seen as places forprobing more deeply into a discipline, for developing acloser relationship with a faculty member, and for tryingone’s hand at research. The committee felt strongly thatall three of these goals needed to be clarified for students.Learning is enhanced, after all, when students becomepart of a community of scholars. A more extended con-versation with faculty and students led to concerns aboutwhether all of our concentrations were actually providingthis kind of intellectual community. In biennial surveys,Brown students have reported a very high level ofsatisfaction with faculty availability in their academic pro-grams—much higher, in fact, than students at peer insti-tutions. And yet students told us that they wanted more.25

This perception, coupled with our sense that deepeningthe intellectual purpose of the concentration is essentialfor improving the college experience overall, led the TaskForce to a more pointed recommendation: We proposethat all concentration programs be required to identify arange of meaningful and connective intellectual experi-ences for all concentrators.

A senior honors thesis is the most obvious example ofthis type of experience. We understand, though, that formany concentrations a senior thesis is neither desirablenor realistic, and so the nature of this culminating ex-perience will have to vary from program to program. Itcould be a senior seminar in the discipline, for whichthe student is required to produce substantial inde-pendent research or creative work. It could be someform of collaborative research undertaken with a faculty

member. It could even be an internship followed by apiece of writing in which the student evaluates theexperience and its relation to his or her learning goals.Rather than being paid for such an internship, the stu-dent could receive academic credit. The point of the rec-ommendation is that every concentrator would have theopportunity—and the encouragement—to completesome kind of “capstone” project.

A few members of the committee hesitated over thearchitectural metaphor (a capstone refers to the stoneat the top of a wall or a curved arch), recognizing thatmany such projects would not necessarily “cap off” astudent’s time at Brown. We know, in fact, that atleast some Brown students manage to complete theirconcentration requirements in their junior, rather thansenior, year. The point of the capstone project wouldbe, then, not so much a chronological as an intellectualculmination. Concentration programs need to makethese opportunities more visible in order to fulfill theirprimary role, which is to deepen a student’s connectionto a discipline. 26

Deepening the intellectual engagement of our under-graduates became a prominent theme in discussionswith Brown’s new Vice-President of International Af-fairs, David Kennedy, especially after February 2008,when the Brown Corporation ratified the plan to makeBrown a “truly global university.” The implications ofthis commitment for undergraduate education areconsiderable, and are outlined in the updated Plan forAcademic Enrichment.27 Among other objectives, theUniversity proposes expanding the depth and breadthof international experiences for Brown undergraduates,including short-term study abroad options and interna-tional internships. The Task Force endorsed these pro-posals, which have the potential to broaden the scope ofa general education and to promote a greater sense ofglobal awareness and responsibility on the part of ourstudents. Further discussions with faculty members

25 According to Barrett Seaman, this phenomenon of students wantingmore contact with faculty is widespread even at small, highly selectivecolleges. See his study Binge: What Your College Student Won’t Tell You(Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley, 2005).

26If such opportunities were clearly visible in the course offerings of everydepartment and concentration (for example, by uniform course titlesand numbers), students might be able to find them more easily.

27 The Plan for Academic Enrichment, Phase II (February 2008).http://www.brown.edu/web/pae/PhaseII.html

12

from various departments raised the intriguing possi-bility that some of Brown’s concentration programsmight become a natural platform for promoting suchinternational education. This report thus urges depart-ments to consider designing an international “track” fortheir existing programs, so that undergraduates mightdevelop a global perspective on their disciplines.

We end the first part of this report with a few remarkson one of the most traditional goals of a liberal educa-tion: the ability to write effectively. All Brown studentsare expected to demonstrate an ability to write as a con-dition for graduation. While this expectation is clearlystated in our literature, it has not always been systemat-ically reviewed or enforced, leading to frustration onthe part of faculty, and skepticism on the part of stu-dents. The topic of writing competence thus emerged,not surprisingly, as a central concern in the feedbackwe received after the release of the draft report in Janu-ary 2008. The Task Force organized a meeting of inter-ested faculty in March to discuss these concerns, and aconsensus emerged that Brown needs a much morecoherent approach to its writing requirement, one thatdefines exactly what we expect students to achieve, andhow we plan to assess their progress. Some facultywanted more guidance on incorporating effective writ-ing assignments into their courses. Others acknowl-edged that Brown’s existing writing programs, whileserving some of our undergraduates well, requiredmuch more support to address the full range of studentneeds. On the last point it was recommended that theCollege undertake a complete review of Brown’s variouswriting programs and support services as a way ofresponding to these concerns.28

The question of assessing our students’ abilities, andpointing them toward the right resources, inevitablyopened onto a larger discussion about the need foreffective advising in the College. This was perhaps themost difficult topic taken up by the Task Force, andthat, too, is no surprise: In his recent study of Americanhigher education, even former Harvard PresidentDerek Bok admitted that “good advising with conscien-tious faculty . . . is a goal that has eluded most col-leges.”29 At Brown, the situation may not be quite soelusive. We have a large number of conscientious fac-ulty advisors, and students surveys report that the ad-vising we offer is about on par with that of our peerinstitutions.30 But the Brown curriculum requires thatwe do much more. An educational environment basedon student choice must provide strong, integrated sys-tems of support so that students can make informedchoices and take advantage of available academic re-sources. Engaged faculty advisors are a key element ofthat support and a sign of the University’s commitmentto our distinctive philosophy of education. The TaskForce thus saw advising as the most critical dimensionof the undergraduate experience at Brown.

Over the years, Brown has developed programs toaddress the needs of many types of undergraduates atmany points in their careers. First-year students benefitfrom faculty in our Academic Advising Program, ourCurricular Advising Program, and our University-Com-munity Academic Advising Program.31 Sophomores can

Advising

28An external review has been scheduled for September 2008.

29Derek Bok, Our Underachieving Colleges, 260.30 Sources include biennial surveys of graduating seniors, annual surveys of

first-year students, and surveys of students ten years after graduation. Inall of these sources, students at Brown and elsewhere tend to corroborateBok’s point, reporting a less-than-satisfactory experience with advising.

31 Brown’s Academic Advising Program comprises a large cohort of facultymembers who are recruited annually and matched with first-year stu-dents to help direct their courses of study. The Curricular Advising Pro-gram is a variation on this theme, placing a group of first-year studentsin a faculty member’s course so that students and faculty can interactmore easily and informally over the course of a semester. The University-Community Academic Advising Program is a more specialized programrun out of Brown’s Swearer Center for Public Service. UCAAP pairs in-coming students who have prior community service experience withlike-minded faculty members, who counsel them on issues of socialresponsibility and help them become involved in the greater Providencecommunity. All of these programs reflect the expectation that Brownfaculty assume responsibility for the advising of our undergraduates.

13

turn to Randall Counselors for help in choosing courses,declaring concentrations, and applying for internshipsand independent research.32 Juniors and seniors rely onconcentration advisors to help them craft programs thatwill enhance their knowledge of a field and its methodsof inquiry. Reinforcing these relationships is anothernetwork of colleagues and mentors, including Meikle-john Peer Advisors33 and students involved in Depart-ment Undergraduate Groups; staff in the Dean of theCollege Office, the Office of Student Life, the SwearerCenter for Public Service, and the Third World Center;and, of course, all the professors with whom a studentmay have studied or pursued an independent project. Itis this whole web of connections that has been called, atBrown, the “advising partnership.”

Advising partners share a common ideal: to motivatestudents to imagine a broader vision for their educa-tion, one shaped by creative experiences both in andout of the classroom. If the college experience at Brownis meant to prepare students for meaningful lives in anincreasingly interconnected world, then students needmeaningful forms of support, support that will helpthem ask relevant questions about, and explore possiblesolutions to, complex problems. This goal implies inte-grated advising networks that extend over a student’sentire career at Brown.

Of course, networks can break down. And the mostfrequently heard complaints about advising at Brownhave to do, naturally, with such failed connections. Ourfirst-year programs receive fairly strong reviews, forthey do provide the structured academic guidance ourstudents expect. But all too often our undergraduatesfind themselves adrift, unable to access the help theyneed. This has been particularly true for our sopho-mores who, like sophomores at many other institutions,report lower levels of satisfaction with advising thanfirst-year students. The same institutional surveys tellus that advising in our concentrations is highly uneven.

And, from still other sources, we know that our interna-tional students and transfer students need much morehelp adjusting to Brown academically and socially. Addto this the fact that a number of our web and print ma-terials require continual updating, and the situation be-comes more urgent.

No wonder one student on the Task Force described thesituation of advising at Brown as “the 800-poundgorilla in the room.” For just as we have a long list ofadvising programs designed to support the open cur-riculum, so do we also have a large (and unavoidable)body of evidence to suggest that our advising programsare not working as well as we, or our students, wouldlike. The Task Force did not spend much time speculat-ing about the reasons, although it could be said that in-creased external pressures on the University have madethe whole system more vulnerable than it used to be.Faculty members feel increased strain about balancingtheir obligations to teaching and scholarship. At thesame time, today’s students require more interactionwith faculty mentors, not less. Students expect theiradvisors to know more about available resources bothon campus and off. They also want faculty to knowmore about their lives, and to support what they aredoing outside the classroom, if only by showing up.

The Faculty Rules have long confirmed that academicadvising is central to the University’s educationalmission, and the Rules explicitly state that advising is“primarily the Faculty’s responsibility.” The Task Forceupholds this view. Indeed, given the importance of theundergraduate curriculum in defining the ethos of theUniversity, we are aware that such advising should notbe seen merely as a “service” function at Brown. It is,rather, integral to the faculty’s teaching mission. Atpresent, about 200 faculty members (or about 30%of our roster) are serving as academic advisors for thefirst-year class. Many of these same faculty are alsoworking in some capacity with sophomores. Another

32 Randall Counselors are a small group of faculty members who makethemselves available to any student in the sophomore class who seeksadvising. They supplement the work of regular sophomore advisors.

33 Brown students participate in a robust peer advising program namedafter the progressive educator and civil rights activist (and former BrownDean of the College) Alexander Mieklejohn. In 2008, over 300 studentswill serve as Meiklejohn peer advisors to our first-year students.

14

group of faculty serve as concentration advisors, or asDirectors of Graduate Study (DGS) in their departments,but, again, some of them may also be working withour first-year and sophomore students. In other words,while we know there are many faculty currently involvedin advising, we also know that this group could andshould be larger. This is especially the case if we are toimprove the advising of our first-years and sophomores.With more faculty involvement, the volume of studentsassigned to each advisor could be reduced, making therelationships potentially more satisfying for all.

Faculty, moreover, should feel supported and recog-nized in this work, and there was much discussion,both before and after the release of the draft report,about the best way to acknowledge faculty who adviseour first-year and sophomore students. Many agreedthat a small research or travel grant might signal theimportance of such advising to the undergraduate mis-sion of the University. To improve continuity of advis-ing into the sophomore year, we thus encourage theDean of the College to find ways to retain faculty advi-sors for two-year intervals, and to recognize these advi-sors appropriately for their work.

Supporting advisors also means providing better infor-mation. The College currently publishes handbooksand organizes annual orientation programs for advisorsof first-year students, but what Brown lacks is a morecomprehensive plan to help faculty develop their under-standing about the open curriculum, about academicrules and regulations, and about student issues outsidethe classroom. Faculty would also like to know moreabout departments and course offerings outside theirown areas of expertise. But just as faculty advisors needto know more, so do our students. If we believe our stu-dents are in a true “partnership” with their advisors,then they have their own responsibilities to fulfill inshaping their educational plans. And this suggests thatwe should give students access to the same kind of in-formation we give their advisors, not only in the formof written materials but also in structured forums thatencourage their active role in the advising process.

To this end, we suggest that new faculty regularly learn

about advising during their orientation to the Univer-sity. The open curriculum and the Brown student cul-ture should be discussed in faculty orientation andSheridan Center programming. Additional informationabout resources, opportunities, courses, and concentra-tion requirements should be available on newly devel-oped (and centrally located) web pages. Mostimportantly, a more clearly structured advising calendarshould be developed to make expectations transparentfor both faculty and students in all four classes. All thisinformation needs to be disseminated to students andfaculty in a systematic and effective way—on the web,in podcasts, or in traditional pamphlets and letters—ona regular, yearly cycle.

While such information is important for all students, itis of special importance to students from historicallyunderrepresented minority groups, students fromunder-resourced or under-performing secondaryschools, students with high financial need, and first-generation students. In order for Brown to serve an in-creasingly diverse student body, we must develop andimplement more nuanced advising strategies respon-sive to these evolving student demographics. We pro-pose better matching of advisors and advisees in thefirst years, according to mutual talents and interests.We also suggest beginning the advising dialogue beforestudents arrive on campus, providing them with aschedule of advising meetings for each semester, andcreating opportunities for additional, ongoing advisingduring and subsequent to their first year.

International and transfer students can also face signifi-cant challenges in acculturating to Brown’s learning en-vironment. Advising and orientation programs for bothpopulations should be expanded. Transfer studentsshould be matched with faculty advisors on their entryto Brown. And we recommend that our orientationprograms for international students include focusedsessions and written materials on the open curriculum,the role of the academic advisor, and educationalresources at Brown.

Improving our orientation programs in this way shouldnot be difficult. In fact, the Offices of the Dean of the

15

College and Student Life have already been makingstrides in this area. But an orientation can only go sofar. The best way for students to feel supported is byhaving more people available throughout the year tosupport them. The Task Force considered several waysto strengthen our cohort of faculty advisors. Recogniz-ing the work of academic advisors, and retaining themfor two years is one such plan, and has been discussedearlier in this report. But we believe the University cando even more. We thus recommend creating a secondcohort of faculty advisors to augment and enhance ourcurrent academic advising programs. This cohortwould be known as the Faculty Advising Fellows.

The Faculty Advising Fellows (FAFs) would work inteams with our Faculty Fellows in Residence (FIRs),who currently live in five houses on campus and whoopen their homes weekly to students in the residencehalls. We imagine a program that might eventually in-clude as many as twenty-five Fellows, so that eachhouse would have up to five Fellows on the team. Theywould know the culture of the College and its full rangeof advising support systems. They would also be at-tuned to student life outside the classroom; highlyskilled at listening to and responding to students; andwilling to collaborate with a wide range of deans, direc-tors, and other staff to provide coherent systems of sup-port for students.

With their enhanced expertise and experience, theseFaculty Advising Fellows might assist with the orienta-tion of our hundreds of regular academic advisors, offer-ing perspective from their own experience, andproviding advice and support throughout the year. Theywould be in a position to offer our students a range ofservices above and beyond the normal advising relation-ship. Such extended services might take the form of in-tensive one-on-one counseling with sophomores andmore robust advising for incoming transfer students, in-ternational students, and those who have resumed theirundergraduate education (so-called RUE students).

Importantly, Faculty Advising Fellows could be re-sources for those students who find themselves pairedwith an academic advisor whose disciplinary expertisedoes not match their own interests. We can also imag-ine the Fellows playing a role in the College’s assess-ment of student learning, a topic discussed in the finalsection of this report. We would expect the facultymembers to receive additional compensation for theirwork, in the form of a yearly research stipend or salarysupplement. We would also expect their terms of serv-ice to be limited, so that the program could be continu-ally renewed and energized.34

To help this program run more smoothly, and to con-nect the work of the faculty fellows with broader net-works on campus, we recommend creating anadditional small cohort of trained staff to support theprogram. These staff members would coordinate workbetween the Office of the Dean of the College and theOffice of Student Life, and would help faculty and stu-dents in different ways, extending the academic rela-tionship into students’ lives outside the classroom.Their offices could be housed in spaces closer to wherestudents spend their time, such as the Third WorldCenter, the Swearer Center, or the new student servicescenter in J. Walter Wilson. They might also live nearwhere students themselves live—in housing owned bythe University adjacent to campus residential units andoff-campus rentals. In any case, these staff would be re-sponsible for supporting the Faculty Advising Fellows,and developing programs (such as seminars, lectures,special dinners, and social activities) that bring facultyand students together. They might also assist in bring-ing existing programs around fellowships, post-bac-calaureate opportunities, international experiences, andother kinds of career advising into Faculty Fellowhomes. We believe that, if properly staffed and run, thisnew program could bring a whole new dimension tothe Advising Partnership at Brown, and we recommendthat the College and the Office of Student Life workswiftly and strategically to realize its full potential.

34 A diagram of the program with the names of the new fellows isincluded in the Appendix on page 42. A group of 15 Advising Fellowshas been recruited to launch the program as of August 2008.

16

Just as we would like to augment our faculty resources, sotoo would we like to enhance our academic support forstudents. In 2006 the Provost and the Dean of the Col-lege appointed a committee to look into the broad ques-tion of undergraduate education in the sciences. Thecommittee’s top priority was the creation of a resourcecenter that would bring together faculty and students inmath and science. The Task Force endorses this proposaland views the center, among other things, as a valuableadvising resource. Ideally, it would bring together all ofour peer-advising, tutoring, and other academic supportprograms for math and science, programs that are cur-rently housed in separate departments, or across aca-demic divisions. It would also serve to augmentconcentration advising in math and science, by offeringbroader based and cross-disciplinary support for studentsin these fields. And it would provide a forum for showcas-ing many of our successful student-led programs, such asWomen in Science and Engineering (WiSE), the NationalSociety of Black Engineers, or the New Scientist Program.

The Task Force discussed more generally how Brownmight improve our peer advising programs across theUniversity. We are rightly proud of our Meiklejohn PeerAdvisors, who share their knowledge and experiencewith incoming students in order to acculturate them tothe life of the College. The Task Force recommends thatthe Meiklejohn program be more fully supported. Wewould like to see additional training for students in theprogram about academic options across the campus, sothat peer advisors have access to good informationabout departments and course options. Focused trainingon the curriculum would enable Meiklejohns to provideguidance on a range of curricular issues (for example,English courses that are appropriate for students at vari-ous skill levels, placement in basic chemistry and math-ematics courses, ways of preparing for medical schoolwhile concentrating in a discipline not related to the lifesciences, and resources for inexperienced writers). Fac-ulty from relevant departments could participate inMeiklejohn training to impart this information.

To enhance peer advising through all four years, and toextend that support into the concentrations, the TaskForce also recommends that every department be re-quired to support an active Departmental Undergradu-ate Group. DUGs are designed to serve as resources forstudents in departments and in concentrations; theyalso function to increase the kinds of interaction withfaculty that students consistently report that they want.The Task Force thus encourages the Dean of theCollege to work with departments to improve DUGprogramming and strengthen faculty-studentrelationships.

Advising in the concentrations is of course primarilythe responsibility of the faculty. Some departments pro-vide excellent advising to their concentrators; we knowthis from our student surveys.35 The same surveys showthat many students do not find the advising supportthey need in their final years at Brown. Of particularconcern is the support offered to students in interdisci-plinary concentrations. Too often, advisors in such con-centrations are simply not available in sufficientnumbers. Inadequate advising limits our students’ abil-ity to have the integrated, in-depth experience the con-centration is designed to provide. Improving theavailability and consistency of advising in the concen-trations should therefore be an immediate Universitypriority. Our recommendation, made earlier in this re-port, that the College Curriculum Council review allconcentrations would help toward realizing this goal.Gathering information about how concentration advis-ing is conducted across departments and generating aset of “best practices” could be a useful step. We alsosuggest that some larger concentrations consider de-ploying clusters of concentrations advisors, rather thanjust one or two, so that students can exercise morechoice, or at least have the chance to consult with fac-ulty who have similar disciplinary interests.

Finally, we would like to see a strengthened connectionbetween advising in the concentrations and advising forlife after Brown. Students should be thinking about35 The biennial survey of graduating seniors contains, for example, an

analysis of satisfaction with concentrations. Similar questions are askedin our periodic survey of all enrolled students and in our surveys ofalumni ten years after graduation.

17

post-baccalaureate opportunities such as fellowshipsand professional schools, and other international op-portunities such as study-abroad and internships, evenbefore they declare the concentration. Much more coor-dination is needed between campus offices to encour-age this kind of advance planning.

Good advising is, in the end, central to good education.At Brown, we want this crucial element to be a mean-ingful piece of all students’ experience—from their veryfirst academic decision to their senior capstone. In orderto strengthen the college experience at Brown, we needfirst to reinforce the network of advising support. Andthat means not only re-imagining the advising relation-ship in terms of the changing experience of studentsover all four years, but also creating multiple, overlap-ping relationships that provide students with the infor-mation, mentoring, and support they need to succeed.

What we envision for the future, then, is a more coher-ent set of advising paths: we want first-year students tomaintain a relationship with faculty advisors into thesophomore year; and we want concentration advisors toknow more about their advisees’ academic experiencesand aspirations as they have developed over time. Amore meaningful concentration declaration process forsophomores might serve to strengthen our students’ un-derstanding of their academic goals in the context of thelarger curriculum.36 But more important than processesare the people who enact them. By increasing the num-ber of faculty involved in advising, and by broadeningthe range of relationships these advisors represent, wehope to improve the kind of contact students can expectto have with faculty members over the course of theirBrown career. It is only when we extend and deepen thenetwork of advising partners—and when advising be-comes true mentorship—that we will fulfill the idealand the promise of the Brown curriculum.

The last section of this report shifts the focus from stu-dent needs in order to consider the Brown curriculumfrom the perspective of its teachers. As an institution,Brown has long upheld the value of a professoriate com-mitted to both undergraduate teaching and to graduate-level research. Brown professors are expected not onlyto excel in their disciplines but also to participate regu-larly in the life of the College. One of the most directways faculty members become involved with undergrad-uates, and thereby contribute to the college experience,is through their work in undergraduate courses. There,a special kind of relationship can develop as studentsand faculty exchange ideas and learn new ways of think-ing about each other and the world. The classroom canand should be seen as a microcosm of the curriculumitself, where an “open” approach to teaching fosters theopening of minds, and better learning for both teacherand student. The Task Force embraced this view, whilerecognizing that there is much work to do to ensure theexcellence of undergraduate teaching across all courses,concentrations, and departments.

Brown undergraduates, as it turns out, report high de-grees of satisfaction with the quality of instruction theyreceive.37 Anecdotal information suggests, however, thatsome Brown courses are poorly taught, and do not facil-itate student learning. It would be useful to know more,but at the moment the University lacks a systematicfeedback mechanism that would allow comprehensivestudy of teaching effectiveness. It is probably fair to saythat certain areas of the curriculum require a closerlook, and that Brown faculty and graduate studentteachers could use more support in fulfilling their re-sponsibilities. Our recommendations related to teach-ing and learning thus have two objectives: they seek toenhance the overall effectiveness of teaching at Brown,and to improve our ability to demonstrate that our stu-dents have achieved all that we say they have achieved.

Effective teaching should be the norm across allcourses, from introductory to advanced. Particular care

Teaching and Learning

36 The process of declaring a concentration at Brown is already quitemeaningful, because it involves writing a reflective essay on one’s aca-demic goals. The Task Force would like to see more support for thisprocess so that students and faculty advisors across the curriculum ap-proach it with equal seriousness.

37 This information comes from the biennial senior survey.

18

is needed, though, when introducing students to newfields of study.38 Thoughtfully constructed and effectivelytaught introductory courses are essential for future con-centrators, whose success in a field rests upon their un-derstanding of the concepts and questions raised early onin their study. But let us not forget that such courses alsoserve all Brown students, regardless of their concentra-tions, since we expect our students to explore many dif-ferent disciplines in their core programs.

Student feedback about their experiences in introduc-tory courses is, however, mixed. Some are known to bewell taught (and attract students in large numbers), butlarge lectures can often fail to sustain a student’s inter-est. Not surprisingly, students have expressed a desirefor more innovative teaching in such courses. The TaskForce endorses the Undergraduate Science EducationCommittee’s recommendation that introductorycourses in science and math, for example, providemore opportunities for students to engage in active,hands-on, multidisciplinary learning. We also supportthe Committee’s recommendation that a pool of re-sources be created to support curricular development inthe sciences. Indeed, such resources should be avail-able to develop introductory courses in all departments.The Dean of the College’s initiative to expand the First-Year Seminar Program in 2007 is one example of howcurricular development grants can make a difference.39

We thus urge the University to create additional re-sources to enhance instruction in entry-level coursesacross the University.

Pedagogical concerns about introductory courses alsoled the Task Force to discuss the work of graduate stu-dent instructors at Brown. We affirm that strong gradu-ate programs can enhance the undergraduate learningexperience if the University accepts its responsibilityfor developing the teaching abilities of the future pro-fessoriate. Supporting the professional development of

graduate student teaching assistants begins duringtheir orientation to Brown, when they should be pro-vided with structured opportunities to learn aboutBrown’s educational philosophy and distinctive studentculture. Orientation programs on the purposes of lib-eral education are especially important for our interna-tional graduate student instructors, who often arrive atBrown with little knowledge of American institutions ofhigher education.

The Graduate School has already begun to address thisneed: Plans are underway to implement an extendedsummer program that will help orient internationalgraduate student TAs to Brown’s educational culture.40

This program will also include language preparationfor those TAs whose first language is not English. Whatelse should Brown offer our graduate TAs? We knowthat the Sheridan Center provides a range of excellentprograms on constructing syllabi, communicating stan-dards of achievement, and improving student writing.We also know that some departments offer additionaltraining for incoming graduate students, but the Uni-versity can do much more for students across all pro-grams. The Dean of the Graduate School has alreadyshown critical leadership in this area, and the TaskForce encourages the Graduate School to continue as-sessing the state of graduate student teacher-training,to identify best practices in departments, and to help alldepartments implement appropriate methods ofpreparing their graduate students to teach effectively.

Graduate TAs are not alone in needing structured pro-grams that help them adjust to Brown’s educationalculture. New and junior faculty members, whose reap-pointment, promotion, and tenure rest in part on suc-cessful teaching, also need special support to functioneffectively in Brown’s open learning environment. Newfaculty orientation should include sessions on Brown’scurricular philosophy and on Brown’s distinctive stu-

38 This point was addressed by the Undergraduate Science EducationCommittee in their report, “Improving Undergraduate Education inSTEM Fields at Brown: Recommendations from the Undergraduate Sci-ence Education Committee,” June 8, 2007, 5.

39 A call to faculty in fall 2007 generated a large number of new proposals,and the number of seminar offerings rose from 56 courses in 2007 to76 in 2008, an increase of over 35 per cent.

40See Final Report of the Working Group on Graduate Education (May2008): http://gradschool.brown.edu/resources/working-group_1210176706.pdf.

19

dent culture. New and junior faculty members shouldalso be provided with a faculty mentor of their ownchoosing, not necessarily in their own department.This mentoring relationship should be framed as a col-laborative and mutually beneficial one, in which bothjunior and senior faculty members have the opportu-nity to enhance their teaching, by observing another’spedagogy.

While enhanced orientation, mentoring, and profes-sional development programs would clearly help newfaculty and graduate students, the Task Force believesthat all faculty—including senior faculty—would bene-fit from a more systematic approach to improving peda-gogy. Given Brown’s institutional commitment toundergraduate education, every academic departmentbears responsibility for foregrounding teaching as a pri-mary duty of the faculty. Yet it is too often the case thatissues related to pedagogy take a back seat to otherpressing departmental concerns. Carving out a spacefor extended, collegial conversations about teachingand learning will be a challenge, but it is, we feel, nec-essary if Brown is to maintain its reputation for teach-ing excellence.

The Task Force thus recommends that each departmentdevelop a plan to support, assess, and improve theteaching of its faculty. Articulating learning objectivesfor the concentration, as discussed above, could serve asone benchmark for measuring teaching effectiveness.Faculty should also have regular access to professionaldevelopment opportunities related to teaching. Depart-ments may even wish to involve their own faculty in reg-ular peer review of classroom effectiveness. Bestpractices could be shared among departments throughworkshops and conversations sponsored by the Sheri-dan Center and other units on campus. Most impor-tantly, though, faculty should be made aware of howteaching is assessed in their own departments, and howit is weighted in decisions about promotion and tenure.

A discussion of pedagogy at Brown would not be com-plete without some consideration of the many types of

innovative teaching made possible by our open learn-ing environment. What kinds of teaching can andshould a Brown student expect? And how should stu-dents themselves become involved in the teachingprocess? These two questions led the Task Force into arich set of conversations about team teaching, inde-pendent learning experiences, and peer-directed learn-ing. Team teaching across disciplines is, of course, anintegrative educational experience, valuable for bothstudents and faculty. It can sometimes be unsettling forundergraduates, for it displays the actual pluralism andeven discordance of the real intellectual world, as op-posed to the artificial “harmony” sometimes displayedin the traditional one-teacher classroom. Team teachingcan also be arduous for faculty, but it fosters conversa-tions across departments that may lead to furthercollaboration among faculty from different disciplines,thus creating a greater sense of community. If weexpect our students to cross borders and to find eithercommon ground or useful contrasts by doing so, thenwe should provide appropriate encouragement andsupport for faculty engaged in similar activities. Andso we recommend that additional resources be madeavailable specifically to support team teaching.

Just as team teaching extends faculty beyond the con-fines of their departments, so do independent learningexperiences break through traditional classroom struc-tures. Many Brown surveys testify to the transformativeimpact of independent learning experiences outside ofconventional classroom settings. Graduating seniors atBrown report a higher degree of satisfaction with op-portunities for independent learning than do studentsat peer institutions. Brown alumni point to GroupIndependent Study Projects (GISPs), independent con-centrations, undergraduate research in the lab and inthe field, and other creative projects as the most signifi-cant—and innovative—learning they experienced atBrown.41 The Task Force thus calls on the University torenew its commitment to support independent learn-ing experiences. We recommend, specifically, thatadditional funds be raised to support undergraduate

41 The Task Force sent out a survey to Brown alumni in October 2007, andreceived feedback from almost 2000 alumni that offered clear evidenceon this point.

20

research opportunities, as well as undergraduate in-ternships. We are keenly aware of the need for funds tosupport international research and internships, and weadvise the Office of International Programs (OIP) towork together with the Vice President of InternationalAffairs in order to expand its range of programs withmore flexible and short-term study options. We alsorecommend that OIP partner with Brown’s CurricularResource Center to come up with ways to supportstudents who seek non-credit-bearing internationalopportunities abroad.

Independent learning exemplifies Brown’s commit-ment to a flexible, open curriculum that invites—evenexpects—students to shape their own educational expe-riences. The same philosophy is expressed in Brown’slong-standing support for peer-directed learning.Brown undergraduates participate in an array of teach-ing activities that extend their education to the largercommunity at Brown and outside the University.Department Undergraduate Groups, Writing Fellows,Meiklejohn Peer Advisors, undergraduate Teaching As-sistantships, and peer tutors in the Curricular ResourceCenter are directly connected to the curriculum andrepresent the kind of student-to-student learning thatwe consider a hallmark of a Brown education.

The Task Force thus recommends that each departmentidentify current opportunities for peer-directed learningand consider ways to expand such opportunities in itsdiscipline. Special attention should be paid to increas-ing peer-to-peer learning opportunities in science andmath disciplines. The Science Resource Center recom-mended above could be staffed in part with undergrad-uate math and science fellows. Another possibility is toreplicate the Writing Fellows Program in science andmath courses. The Task Force also recommends ex-tending the reach of our undergraduate TA programs,especially in courses where a role for undergraduate as-sistants makes good sense. If such TA assignmentswere conceived as true apprenticeships, as structuredopportunities for mentoring and reflection on teaching,they could easily be offered for course credit. If theyincluded some kind of pedagogic research component,they might also constitute a capstone experience. Train-

ing, however, is an urgent necessity for our undergrad-uate TAs, and so departments should work with theCollege in teaching these students about teaching. TheCollege should, in turn, assess the current situationof undergraduate teaching assistantships at Brown, inorder to determine what additional support or compen-sation may be necessary as we seek to expand theseprograms.

Brown’s approach to learning demands not only thatstudents and faculty share responsibility for the opencurriculum; it also requires that we measure how wellour teachers promote student learning. Student feed-back through course evaluations provides one suchmeasure. But there is no need to wait until semester’send to solicit student feedback about a course. Severalstudents and faculty on the Task Force described howmid-term feedback, or feedback even earlier in the se-mester, significantly improved student satisfaction withthe quality of teaching in a course. The Task Force thusrecommends that all faculty consider implementingsuch a process in their courses. Early feedback fromstudents allows instructors to assess their initial effec-tiveness in working toward course goals and to modifytheir approach if necessary. It also sends the messagethat student perspectives are valued. In a similar way,faculty should ensure they have adequate knowledge ofstudent progress before the midpoint of the semester,which means assigning one or more papers or examsby that time, and providing students with timely assess-ment of their work.

The most comprehensive source of student feedback is,of course, the end-of-semester course evaluation.Course instructors can use evaluations at the end of thesemester to improve their teaching, departments cancompare evaluations to assess faculty or programs, andthe University can rely on evaluations as one measureof Brown’s ability to fulfill its mission. Current courseevaluation methods at Brown, however, do not alwaysallow for such assessment. Anecdotal evidence sug-gests that many students do not believe that the evalua-tions are actually used by departments; it is thereforenot surprising that at least some students do not takethe evaluation process seriously. A second problem is

21

the wide range of course evaluation methods used. Inits 2006 review of such methods, the College Curricu-lum Council concluded that a lack of consistency in for-mat—and, to some extent, content—limited Brown’sability to gather and disseminate student feedback. TheCCC made significant progress in creating a courseevaluation tool that would provide individual depart-ments with the type of feedback most useful to them.Implementing a centralized, online course evaluationsystem could improve our ability to assess teaching ef-fectiveness across all departments.

Universities that have moved to an online system re-port dramatic increases in the number of students whocomplete evaluations, along with an increase in thequality (and length) of responses. Of course, we recog-nize that such an evaluation system at Brown wouldhave to be flexible, in order to reflect the wide range ofteaching practices in our departments. The system, inother words, would have to allow for some questions tobe generated by departments, while also containing acommon set of questions about such issues as coursecontent and quality of instruction. This on-line formcould be linked to Banner so that students would beprompted to fill out a course evaluation or to “sign”electronically before viewing their grades. The TaskForce recommends that the University gather feedbackfrom those departments at Brown that currently useonline forms, and then pilot such an evaluation inthose that do not, in order to assess its potential valuefor students and faculty.

These conversations about course evaluations quickly ledto the thornier question of evaluating student learning.How do we know that students in our concentrations andin our degree programs are meeting the goals that wehave set for them and that they have set for themselves?All institutions of higher learning in the U.S. have beenunder increased federal pressure to give a clear answer tothis question through their regional accreditingagencies.42 Brown, too, must think seriously about theissue and begin to identify ways of assessing the kind of

learning that takes place in our open academic environ-ment. We conclude this section of the report, then, with afew remarks about what we can do to begin.

Historically, the University has had numerous indirectways to measure student success, but relatively fewdirect measures. Indirect measures include enrolledstudent surveys, alumni surveys, and exit interviews orsurveys with seniors; statistics on scholarships andfellowships; and admission rates to selective graduate,medical, law, and business schools. It is appropriate andpreferable that Brown develop its own direct assessmentmethods rather than follow some generalized prescrip-tion. The wide range of courses and concentrations atBrown suggests that both flexibility and considerablecare are needed when attempting to measure studentlearning. The Task Force thus recommends that eachdepartment develop periodic, systematic plans for evalu-ating their students’ success in meeting departmentallearning outcomes and Brown’s liberal learning goals.Assessment plans should enable departments to seeproblem areas and identify strategies for improvement.And they will no doubt differ across disciplines andacross the four major divisions of the College. But what-ever approaches a department adopts, they should bedesigned to be repeatable on a regular cycle.

The first step in constructing an assessment plan in-volves identifying learning objectives for students in in-dividual courses and concentrations. Some instructorsand departments do articulate their expectations forstudent learning, but student feedback suggests thatthis practice is far from universal. Given the wide rangeof instructional and assessment practices at Brown, it isessential that syllabi for all courses include clear state-ments of course objectives and expectations about stu-dent performance. Standards of achievement forrequired assignments and information on the relativeimportance of assignments should also be provided.Departments should publish statements of concentra-tion learning goals and explain how the requiredcourses relate to those goals. And, for those depart-

42The most recent call came in 2006 with the report of the commission ofthe U.S. Secretary of Education, A Test of Leadership: Charting the Futureof U.S. Higher Education (see note 17 above). Brown’s accrediting agencyis the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC).

22

ments or programs that require a senior thesis, a state-ment about the intended purpose of the thesis, and thestandards by which it is judged worthy, should be pub-lished on departmental or program websites.

When individual instructors and departments are ex-plicit about their learning goals, their standards ofachievement, and their methods for assessing studentlearning, students are in a much better position to en-gage in meaningful reflection about their own learning.Such reflection should precede students’ matriculation toBrown and should be structured into each year of study.After much discussion, the Task Force concluded thaton-line portfolios are perhaps the best vehicle for encour-aging students to take a longer view of their educationalexperiences. These e-portfolios would house the kind ofdocuments that our students are already producing dur-ing their undergraduate years: concentration declarationessays, capstone documents, papers from courses, andmedia from creative works. They would also store stu-dents’ written reflections about their goals before comingto Brown, before declaring the concentration, and beforecommencement. Because learning experiences at Browntake many forms, often extending beyond the classroominto the community, students should be encouraged todevelop a reflective practice around those experiences aswell, and to include information about any significantwork undertaken during a leave from Brown.

Online portfolios could also facilitate faculty’s ability toadvise students. Students could use them to reflect onwhat they expect of their advising relationship, or towrite about their academic and professional goals andhow these goals might have changed during their timeat Brown. Such reflection is especially important as stu-dents prepare to declare a concentration. The portfoliocould also facilitate communication between studentsand many different kinds of advisors. First-year andsophomore advisors would be able to read their ad-visees’ files online at any time; multiple concentrationadvisors could read and comment on a student’s con-

centration plans; and capstone projects could be readby a number of concentration faculty. Seniors couldeven be encouraged to produce a concluding statementabout their learning as part of their concentration re-quirements.

If all students were asked to include a small set of suchdocuments, the portfolios might ultimately prove use-ful in academic program assessment. Departmentscould periodically review a sample of student portfoliosto see how students were measuring up against the fac-ulty’s expectations and the broader learning goals of theBrown curriculum. Reviews of departmental concentra-tions by the College Curriculum Council could also in-corporate student e-portfolios. Each department couldbe asked to submit a sample of student portfolios alongwith other departmental materials to be reviewed by afaculty committee. To facilitate comparative assess-ments with peer institutions, the committee could in-clude a faculty member from another institution.

Our discussions about portfolios ended in a consensusthat this approach could be extremely useful for bothstudents and advisors at Brown, and may be the onlyway the University can demonstrate that our studentslearn as much (or more) than they might at otherhighly selective institutions.43 The alternative to a port-folio approach is a standardized test such as the Colle-giate Learning Assessment or the Measure of AcademicProficiency and Progress. Such tests not only runcounter to Brown’s educational philosophy; they alsofail to capture the full range of our students’ educa-tional experiences. We look forward, then, to thedevelopment of an appropriate and useful portfolioenvironment for Brown, which will assist theUniversity in demonstrating the actual effects of theundergraduate experience, and the “fuller life of theclassroom” that has made Brown such a rich communityof student and faculty learning.

43 A study conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., on behalfof The Association of Colleges and Universities has shown that someemployers prefer electronic portfolios to conventional transcripts inevaluating applicants. See How Should Colleges Assess and ImproveStudent Learning? Employers’ Views on the Accountability Challenge.Washington, DC: Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 2008.

23

One hundred years ago, in June 1908, the Brown AlumniMagazine featured a review of a recently published surveyof American colleges.44 The book bore the snappy title,Which College For the Boy?, and attempted to account forthe differences among prominent schools by resorting toa clever typology. Princeton was thus dubbed a “collegiateuniversity,” Harvard a “Germanized university,” Cornell a“technical university,” Wisconsin a “utilitarian university,”and so on. The author of the review, Henry ThatcherFowler, wondered why the book offered no suitable cate-gory for Brown, and so he took the opportunity to presenthis own reflections on where the school stood in the land-scape of American higher education.45

Brown, he wrote, “is not a typical New England collegeand it does not seem that she has ever been.” Unlike Har-vard and Yale, in 1908 Brown had no separate law school,or medical school, or divinity school, or school of appliedscience. It did, however, boast a large graduate studentbody—in fact, the second largest in its cohort—a condi-tion that also distinguished Brown from schools likeAmherst and Williams.46 College students at Brown com-muned with graduate students in seminars, learning tobecome, as Fowler put it, “truly independent thinkers.”“In few other institutions,” he went on, “does the scien-tific spirit so pervade undergraduate work.” This uniquecondition gave Brown its unique character, combiningthe progressive thinking of a university with the size andtraditions of the liberal arts college. For these reasons,Fowler chose to call Brown a “university college.”

The term has stuck over the years, but the name itself isperhaps less important than the qualities it was origi-nally meant to suggest. Today “university college” isoften thought to refer to the work of our faculty, who arecommitted both to undergraduate teaching and to ad-vanced research. But what Fowler was describing hadmore to do with the character of the College itself and of

its students, and much of what he said in 1908 remainstrue today: Brown is still considered distinctive in its ap-proach to undergraduate learning; Brown’s undergradu-ates are still taking graduate courses in significantnumbers47; and Brown students are still characterizedby a capacity for creative and independent thought.48

It is this intellectual independence of the undergraduatestudent body that we must work to nurture andsustain as Brown enters a new century. The distinctiveexperiment in undergraduate education begun fortyyears ago was, after all, a reflection of an independentspirit that reaches back (beyond Fowler’s time) to the eraof Francis Wayland, a spirit that prompted students atBrown to debate the true principles of a university educa-tion. What these students envisioned essentially rede-fined the relationship of the university to the college,infusing the same openness and progressive thinkinginto the totality of the institution and its educationalstructures. Brown’s open curriculum thus marks a sig-nificant achievement in the history of the University, andit continues to attract the most talented and engagedyouth from around the world. To serve them well, Brownmust invest in needed improvements to increase boththe scope and depth of the undergraduate experience,and this report attempts to summarize some of the mostpressing needs. In our current historical moment, as wewitness the American university moving onto a worldstage, such improvements are more critical than ever.The landscape of higher education is now of global pro-portions, and if Brown hopes to make a difference in thisexpanded sphere we must continue to examine the pur-poses—and the potential—of our open educational envi-ronment. With a renewed commitment to progressiveeducation from the University, and renewed engagementfrom our students, we can expect to preserve for the fu-ture an ideal of learning that has unarguably been one ofthe most defining elements of excellence at Brown.

Afterword

44John Corbin, Which College For the Boy? Leading Types in American Edu-cation (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1908). The review was titled, “WhichCollege for the Boy?”—Brown: A University College.” Brown AlumniMagazine XI/1 (June 1908).

45 Fowler had been educated at Yale, came to Brown in 1901, and served asthe chair of the Department of Biblical Literature until 1932. See“Fowler, Henry T.,” in Martha Mitchell, Encyclopedia Brunoniana(Providence, R.I.: Brown University Library, 1993).

46Graduate students made up 20% of Harvard’s student body in 1908,and 17% of Brown’s. Princeton’s graduate population, by contrast,amounted to only 7%.

47 According to the Office of Institutional Research, 534 students (or about10 per cent of the undergraduate student body) enrolled in 189 differentgraduate courses in 2006.

48In our biennial survey of seniors, students at Brown continue to reporthigher gains than students at peer institutions in their ability to formu-late original ideas and to acquire knowledge independently.

24

LIBERAL EDUCATION

Promote a culture of responsible and integrative learning1. The Task Force recommends that the College Curricu-

lum Council develop a revised set of principles andgoals for liberal learning at Brown. These principlesshould clarify the meaning of breadth in the contextof an open curriculum and acknowledge the criticalimportance of real-world experience and civic engage-ment in shaping lives of “usefulness and reputation.”The principles should also articulate the areas of intel-lectual inquiry—and the modes of thought—that stu-dents are expected to engage when developing andbuilding their own core curricula. Such areas includethe ability to communicate effectively in more thanone language; the capacity to understand historiesand differences among cultures; the knowledge ofscientific methods together with the quantitative skillsnecessary to imagine and solve complex problems;and the appreciation of forms of representation inmany kinds of expressive media. Profiles of individualstudents should be provided to suggest the kinds ofeducational programs undergraduates have designedfor themselves. We recommend, moreover, that de-partments create a number of regular undergraduateofferings that introduce the spirit of their disciplines,thus encouraging students to explore the curriculumin the broadest possible way—not just in the first twoyears, but during all four years of study.

2. The Task Force calls for a full examination ofBrown’s concentration programs to ensure integrityand consistency across the curriculum. To that end,we recommend that each concentration complete aself-study that will offer a clearly stated rationale forthe concentration’s required courses and learningoutcomes. The statement would explain not onlyhow the program’s required courses fulfill the expec-tations of a given discipline, but also how they serveto fulfill the broader learning goals of a liberaleducation. Concentration programs must identifya number of meaningful and connective intellectualexperiences (“capstone” experiences) that would beavailable to all concentrators. Departments are

urged, in addition, to develop periodic, systematicplans for assessing students’ success in fulfillingconcentration outcomes.

In connection with this general review, the Task Forcerecommends that the College Curriculum Counciltake special care to review student enrollments andfaculty resources in each concentration. In caseswhere the CCC sees that a program lacks sufficientinterest or resources, it may decide to close down theconcentration. In cases where interest is high, butresources are slim, the Dean of the College shouldwork closely with the Provost and the Dean of theFaculty to provide what is necessary to ensure theprogram’s academic integrity.

3. The Task Force urges the College to work closelywith the Office of International Affairs to makeBrown a leader in innovative global education. Werecommend that the University create new opportu-nities for in-depth international study connectedto the concentrations, including flexible short-termstudy experiences, new international fellowships,and internships. In conjunction with the overall re-view of concentrations, departments are encouragedto consider designing an international track withintheir own concentration programs, with the appro-priate language expectation.

4. We propose that the College develop an e-portfoliosystem to aid both students and faculty advisors inevaluating the shape and direction of a student’sliberal education. Students would be asked to writeabout their educational goals and development atkey points in their Brown careers: before theymatriculate, during their first year of study, prior tochoosing a concentration, and during their senioryear. These self-assessments would demonstratestudents’ success in meeting concentration outcomesand Brown’s liberal learning objectives. E-portfolioscould also serve as a component of the departmentalassessment plans recommended above.

5. The Task Force recommends that Brown’s existingexpectation for writing competency be strengthened.

Summary of Recommendations

25

We advise the College to undertake an external reviewof Brown’s various writing programs and support serv-ices with the aim of enhancing opportunities for stu-dents to fulfill this expectation. The College shoulddevelop a clear statement about writing proficiencyalong with methods for assessing students’ writingabilities prior to matriculation, during their first twoyears of study, and upon completion of the concentra-tion. The e-portfolio recommended above would allowstudents to demonstrate growth in their writingabilities over time and thus could enable the College toprovide direct evidence that students have met thewriting requirement.

ADVISING

Improve advising and mentoring beyond the classroomand across the years6. The Task Force recommends that the College work

with the Office of Student Life to create an enhancedFaculty Advising Fellows Program that would providemore intensive and broader advising support than canbe expected from Brown’s regular contingent of aca-demic advisors. Faculty Advising Fellows would workin teams with existing Fellows in Residence to help stu-dents connect their academic experiences to their livesoutside the classroom. The Advising Fellows would or-ganize and attend events at Fellow houses, provide en-hanced advising for sophomores, reach out to studentsin academic difficulty, and offer training and supportfor other advisors. Additional resources are needed forstaff who would work with Fellows and students tohelp plan events and facilitate communication.

7. The Task Force endorses the recommendation of theUndergraduate Science Education Committee thatthe University establish a resource center on campusto enhance the advising and mentoring of studentsin science, technology, engineering, and mathemat-ics disciplines. Ideally, this center would bringtogether, under one roof, Brown’s many departmen-tally based peer-advising and tutoring networks inmath and science, while also enhancing opportuni-ties for students to work with faculty on researchprojects and community outreach activities.

8. The Task Force urges the Dean of the College Officeto develop more nuanced measures to track studentprogress and to assure student success in Brown’sopen academic environment. In keeping with Brown’smission of diversity, we especially encourage theCollege to implement new advising strategies re-sponsive to evolving student demographics. Carefulattention should be paid to the needs of studentsfrom historically underrepresented minority groups,students from under-resourced or under-performingsecondary schools, students with high financialneed, first-generation students, and internationalstudents. We encourage new programs that wouldinitiate the advising dialogue before students arriveon campus and strengthen advising supportthroughout the academic year.

9. The Dean of the College Office should developadditional measures to enhance the continuity of theadvising experience over a student’s four years. Werecommend developing a more reliable means forretaining pre-concentration advisors for two-yearintervals, and also recognizing them for their work.We suggest piloting the use of Personal IdentificationNumbers (PINs) for sophomore registration toensure timely conversations between students andtheir advisors. And we recommend that the Dean ofthe College develop a simple online mechanism foradvisors and advisees to communicate with eachother about how the partnership is working.

We believe the student e-portfolio mentioned aboveshould help facilitate conversation between sophomoreadvisors and concentration advisors, as studentscomplete the concentration declaration. But we feelstrongly that advising norms for concentrations mustbe clarified across the curriculum. In that spirit, theTask Force recommends that every concentration berequired to foster an active Departmental Undergrad-uate Group (DUG). Concentration advisors and DUGleaders should work together to ensure continuityfrom year to year, and to sponsor a reasonable numberof events per semester, one of which should be aspring meeting involving new concentrators.

26

10.From a broader perspective, the Task Force urges theCollege to assess the full range of student advisingneeds, especially toward the end of students’ time atBrown. To prepare for life after college, all under-graduates should be advised about meaningful workexperiences in the course of their undergraduateprograms. We encourage the College to developmore internships and placement opportunities forstudents seeking employment in both the privateand the public sector, along with strengthenedadvising programs to help students plan for post-baccalaureate fellowships and professional degrees.

TEACHING AND LEARNING

Support curricular development, independent andpeer-directed learning, and effective teaching11. To encourage the continued growth of the open

curriculum, the Task Force recommends that theCollege increase annual funding for new and inno-vative courses. We especially support the Undergrad-uate Science Committee’s proposal that a pool ofresources be created to support curricular innovationin the sciences. We also recommend that opportuni-ties for team-teaching be expanded. By fosteringconversations across departments, team-teachingcan promote a greater sense of community amongfaculty while also developing a student’s awarenessof the pluralism and even dissonance of knowledgeproduction.

12.The Task Force recommends that the Collegeincrease funding for independent learning experi-ences, including undergraduate research opportuni-ties and internships. Special efforts should be madeto support more international Undergraduate Teach-ing and Research Awards (UTRAs) and internships.The Task Force also encourages the College to assessits peer-directed learning programs (e.g. the Meikle-john Peer Advising program, undergraduate teach-ing assistant programs, and peer tutoring programsin the sciences) with the double aim of expandingthe programs where appropriate and ensuring thatall undergraduate teaching assistants and tutors re-ceive the support and training they need.

13. In order to assess teaching and learning moreeffectively, the University is encouraged to develop aflexible, on-line course evaluation tool that would bemade available to all departments. The online instru-ment could be modified by departments and wouldencourage students to provide more extensivefeedback on their learning experiences. The TaskForce also encourages faculty to solicit some formof midterm feedback from students in their courses.Such feedback allows faculty to assess their initialeffectiveness in working toward course goals and tomodify their approach if necessary.

14.To help graduate student teaching assistants acclimateto Brown, the Task Force recommends that they beprovided with opportunities to learn about Brown’seducational philosophy before entering the class-room. The Graduate School should continue monitor-ing the state of graduate teacher-training in individualdepartments, identifying best practices and helpingdepartments implement appropriate methods forpreparing students to become effective teachers.

15. New and junior faculty should also be provided withstructured opportunities to learn about Brown’s edu-cational philosophy and distinctive student culture.We recommend that new faculty members workwith departmental mentors of their own choosingwho can help them learn more about Brown andabout teaching in the discipline.

Finally, in keeping with Brown’s longstanding com-mitment to excellence in teaching, academic depart-ments should develop clear plans to support, assess,and improve the teaching of all faculty. The develop-ment of improved course evaluation tools describedabove should be an integral part of such plans. Butdepartments should also explore other forms of peerevaluation to improve departmental dialogues aboutteaching and ensure that faculty have what they needto achieve excellence.

27

Plan of Action

The following pages list the concrete actions necessary to implement recommendations made by the Task Force on UndergraduateEducation. The table identifies progress already made and a timetable for completing the steps. Recommendations in the table areabbreviated. For the complete text of each recommendation, see pp. 24–26.

2. Conduct comprehen-sive review of Brown’sconcentrations

Notify departments that willbe reviewed in 2008-2009

Work with CCC to createcalendar for review of allconcentrations by 2011

Engage faculty in question ofmeasuring student learningin all concentrations

Develop methods toencourage and track seniorcapstone experiences

Contact Africana Studies,Cognitive Neuroscience,Comparative Lit, Education,Hispanic Studies, History,International Relations, Psy-chology, and Theater, Speech,and Dance

Discuss plan with CCC

Draft general plan

Organize Wayland Collegiumworkshops to expand conver-sation with faculty

Send letters to juniors andseniors; hold junior classreception

Design and create Portfolioenvironment (see #4 below)

September 2008

May 2008

Fall 2007 andSpring 2008

Fall 2008

Fall 2008

ongoing

Spring 2009

Recommendation Related Action Progress Date Completed Date CompletedActual Projected

1. Work with CCC todevelop principles ofliberal learning atBrown, and developother means to expandand integrate learningexperiences beyond theclassroom

Encourage departmentsto create undergraduateofferings in their field topromote exploration ofthe curriculum.

Meet with CCC to work onprinciples. Publish anddistribute.

Collect student and facultynarratives to supplementdocument

Develop new courses thatinclude community service

Expand First-Year SeminarProgram through curriculardevelopment grants

Develop plan to offer moreseminars for sophomores,juniors, and seniors

Send “Liberal Learning atBrown” to class of 2102, toadvisors, and sophomores

Solicit student profiles andpublish in matriculationmaterials sent to incomingstudents

Swearer Center announcescall

Number of FYS increasesfrom 56 in 2007-08 to 76 in2008-2009

Cogut Humanities Centerannounces new junior/se-nior seminars taught byvisiting faculty, postdocs, andfellows

Call for development of newsophomore/junior seminars

April-August2008

May-June 2008

Spring 2008

Spring 2008

ongoing

Spring 2009

ongoing

ongoing

September 2009

28

4. Develop e-portfoliosystem to aid in theevaluation of studentprogress

Research software

Meet with Computing andInformation Services,Library, IT Project ReviewCommittee, and studentfocus groups to discussoptions and resources

Make portfolio environmentavailable to incoming class

Select software

Form committee toimplement system

Complete testing

Launch portfolio

September 2008

October 2008

Summer 2009

August 2009

Recommendation Related Action Progress Date Completed Date CompletedActual Projected

3. Increase opportunitiesfor international studythrough both short-termand long-term programs

Develop internationaloptions within concen-trations and in otherdegree programs

Work with Office of Interna-tional Affairs to developscholarships for interna-tional study

Work with Office of Interna-tional Programs, Summerand Continuing Studies, andCurricular Resource Centerto reconceptualize existinginternational opportunities.Expand capacity and supportfor short-term internationalprograms, internships, andnon-credit options

Create initiatives for develop-ing international curriculum

Work with faculty groups tooutline the components of aflexible international track inthe concentrations

Work with CCC and GraduateSchool to explore advanceddegree programs centered oninternational experience

Announce Brown Interna-tional Scholars Program

Conduct initial planningmeetings with OIP and SCS

Announce new programs

Announce, with V.P. forInternational Affairs,2008–2009 “Year ofInternational Curriculum”

Meet with select departments

Develop Wayland Collegiumworkshops to expand conver-sation with faculty (see #2above)

July 2008

May 2008

September 2008

Spring 2009

September 2008

Fall 2008-Spring2009

May 2009

29

7. Establish a newresource center tocoordinate and expandadvising and mentoringof students in science,technology, engineering,and mathematics

Create Science AdvisoryBoard

Develop web presence forcenter

Create new staff positions forCenter

Coordinate academic sup-port services with CurricularResource Center

Design space in Sci Li andfundraise

Hold grand opening

Hold Board meetings

Launch provisional website

Update website

Advertise and fill Coordinatorposition

Create new fundraisingmaterials and engage donors

January 2008

April 2008

June 2008

Ongoing

Fall 2008

Fall 2008

2009–2010

September 2010

Recommendation Related Action Progress Date Completed Date CompletedActual Projected

5. Strengthen Brown’sexpectation for studentproficiency in writingand conduct review ofBrown’s existing writingprograms

Establish faculty-studentboard

Engage outside reviewers

Develop assessment process

Collect information aboutwriting-based courses acrossthe curriculum and establishnew course designation (W)

Convene Writing AdvisoryBoard

Conduct outside review

Assess incoming first-yearstudents’ writing

Send preliminary survey todepartments

Send follow-up survey

September 2007

August 2007,2008

September 2007

September 2008

ongoing

January 2009

6. Create enhancedprogram of FacultyAdvising Fellows toincrease opportunitiesfor students and facultyto interact informally

Develop new supportstaff to work withFellows

Develop program withcurrent Faculty Fellows andCommittee on ResidentialExperience

Announce program andrecruit new fellows; pair newFAFs with houses; meet withnew fellows to plan fall activ-ities; design websites for thefive houses

Hire Director of Co-Curricu-lar Advising in DOC andreconfigure support staff inResLife

Meet with Faculty Fellowsand CRE

Announce program to faculty

Recruit 10 new Fellows;schedule summer meetings

Design house websites

Recruit 5 additional Fellows

Advertise and fill position

Complete staff reorganiza-tion in ResLife

March–April2008

May 2008

July 2008

August 2008

July 2008

August 2008

March–May2009

30

9. Enhance thecontinuity of theadvising experiencethrough small measuresand larger ones

Improve advising fortransfer students

Pilot PINs for sophomores

Provide research stipends tofaculty who advise studentcohorts for two years

Improve concentrationadvising

Create online advisor/ad-visee feedback report

Publish new “Transfer Guideto Brown”

Write to faculty andsophomores about pilot

Present advising resourcesneeds to URC

Announce plan to faculty

Develop concentrationadvising guidelines

Distribute guidelines todepartments

June 2008

October 2008

February 2009

Spring 2009

Fall 2008

Spring 2009

January 2009

Recommendation Related Action Progress Date Completed Date CompletedActual Projected

8. Develop morenuanced measures totrack student progressduring the semester

Implement new advisingstrategies that areresponsive to evolvingstudent demographics

Partner with InstitutionalResearch to gather data onstudent populations

Work with Director ofCo-Curricular Advising toidentify and support studentsin academic difficulty

Pilot Banner midterm gradereports

Identify and reach out tostudents whose courseenrollment jeopardizesacademic standing

Identify and address unmetstudent advising needs

Increase academic deans’outreach to students

Improve mentoring forstudents

Develop summer bridgeprogram

Create report template

Devise tracking method

Announce midterm gradeoption to faculty

Survey minority students

Work with InternationalMentor Program to improveadvising for internationalstudents

Hold dean’s open hours inTWC

Conduct meetings withFaculty Fellows

Pilot “Excellence at Brown”initiative

April 2008

May 2008

Spring 2008

August 2008

Fall 2008

Fall 2008 andongoing

February 2009

October 2008

Ongoing

October 2008

Ongoing

31

11. Increase annualfunding for the develop-ment of new courses

Create pool of resourcesfor curricular innovationin the sciences

Expand opportunitiesfor team-teaching

Create annual funding initia-tives to seed the curriculumwith new courses in newareas

Work with Wayland Col-legium Board and Directorto develop new teachingopportunities and discussiongroups

Partner with Brown’s AD-VANCE grant to create newteaching support programsfor women faculty in thesciences

Work with Wayland Col-legium, Cogut Center, andWatson Institute to developnew team-teaching initiatives

First-year seminar initiativefunds 20 new seminars for2008–2009

Announce 2008–09 “Year ofthe International Curriculum”(see #3 above)

October 2007

September 2008

Fall 2008

Fall 2008

Fall 2008

Recommendation Related Action Progress Date Completed Date CompletedActual Projected

9. cont’dCreate active undergrad-uate groups in everydepartment to increasefaculty-student interac-tions and sense ofcommunity amongconcentrators

Work with UCS to collectinformation on DUG studentleaders and activities

Create guidelines for DUGactivities and send to depart-ments and concentrationadvisors

Work with PAUR to create“dugspaces” on all depart-mental home pages toadvertise activities

Send survey and collect data

Send letter to concentrationadvisors

Resend letter

Create template

Communicate with depart-ments about template

March 2008

November 2008

September 2008

February 2009

March 2009

10. Improve advisingfor lifelong learning andpreparation for life aftercollege

Improve advising aboutsocially responsible careers

Increase use of alumni to ed-ucate students about concen-trations and careers

Launch “Engaged Life Part-nership” in Swearer Center

Launch “Brown DegreeDays”

January 2009

March–April2009

32

13. Develop flexibleonline course evaluationtool

Encourage faculty to giveand to solicit midtermfeedback about theircourses

Create online courseevaluation form

Increase faculty use ofmidterm feedback processes

Collect forms from depart-ments and draft new form

Design new form with CCC

Built and pilot online versionin seven courses

Modify form to includeflexible questions and pilotin 4 departments

Collect sample feedback toolscurrently in use

Send sample tools to faculty

December2006–April2007

April 2008

December 2008

September 2008

October 2008

Recommendation Related Action Progress Date Completed Date CompletedActual Projected

12. Increase funding forindependent learningexperiences, includingUTRAs and internships

Assess peer-directedlearning programs inorder to expand andimprove training forstudents

Increase UTRA awards by20% a year for the next 4years

Collect data on campusinternships and create planfor increasing internships inpublic sector

Improve consistency andquality of undergraduate TAprograms

Expand training for Meikle-john Peer Advising Program

20% increase in 2007–08

Survey departments on un-dergraduate TA employmentand “best practices”

Create TA “best practices”document and distribute todepartments

Work with Sheridan Centerto develop TA/Tutoringtraining

Implement TA/Tutoringtraining requirement

Develop training modules oncurriculum

Plan and implement faculty-student led trainings

Study feasibility of leadershipdevelopment course forMeiklejohns

August 2008

August 2008

450 UTRAs by2012

Fall 2008

January 2009

September 2009

January 2010

February 2009

April and August2009

Fall 2009

33

Recommendation Related Action Progress Date Completed Date CompletedActual Projected

14. Create additionalopportunities for gradu-ate TAs to learn aboutBrown’s culture and toimprove their teachingeffectiveness

Work with Graduate schooland Sheridan Center todevelop new programs

Work with Graduate schoolto develop standards forgraduate TA practices

Implement Early Startprogram proposed byGraduate School

October 2008

Spring 2009

15. Educate new facultyabout Brown’s educa-tional philosophy

Establish mentoringsystem for new faculty

Develop plans forimproving the quality ofinstruction in alldepartments

Revise new faculty orientationto include segment onteaching from Dean ofCollege and Dean ofGraduate School

Work with Dean of Facultyand Faculty AffairsCommittee to creatementorship program

Create guidelines with CCCSubcommittee on Under-graduate and GraduateInstruction

Plan new faculty orientation

Hold new orientationsessions

August 2008

Fall 2009

Fall 2010

34

List of Works Consulted

BROWN UNIVERSITY DOCUMENTS

Best Practices in Advising: Final Report on the One-Year Extension of the Teagle Working Group. Office ofthe Dean of the College. December 20, 2007.

Blumstein, Sheila E. Academic Advising at Brown:A Progress Report. Office of the Dean of the College.April 4, 1989.

Blumstein, Sheila E. The Brown Curriculum Twenty YearsLater: A Review of the Past and a Working Agenda for theFuture. Office of the Dean of the College. January 1990.

Fifth-Year Interim Report. Submitted to the Commissionon Institutions of Higher Education of the New EnglandAssociation of Schools and College. April 14, 2003.

Final Report. Task Force on Liberal Education and the21st Century Brown Graduate. Office of the Provost.April 1997.

Final Report on the Working Group on Graduate Edu-cation. May 2008. http://gradschool.brown.edu/re-sources/working-group_1210176706.pdf.

Improving Undergraduate Education in the STEMFields at Brown. Recommendations from the Under-graduate Science Education Committee. June 8, 2007.

Mitchell, Martha. Encyclopedia Brunoniana. Providence,RI: Brown University Library, 1993.

Interim Report and Recommendations. SpecialCommittee on Educational Principles. April 10, 1969.

Internationalization at Brown. Report of the BrownUniversity Committee on Internationalization. 2007.

NEASC Reaccreditation Institutional Self-Study Report.1998.

Observations on Academic Advising at Brown. Office ofInstitutional Research. 1999.

Report of the Committee on the ResidentialExperience. Office of Student Life. May 2008.http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Campus~Life/-documents/CRE_report_final.pdf

The Plan for Academic Enrichment, Phase II (February2008). http://www.brown.edu/web/pae/PhaseII.html

Report of the Task Force on the College and StudentLife. Offices of the Dean of the College and StudentLife. April 30, 1998.

The Values of the Open Curriculum: An AlternativeTradition in Liberal Education. Teagle Working GroupWhite Paper. Office of the Dean of the College. June2006.

Wayland, Francis. Report to the Corporation of BrownUniversity on Changes in the System of CollegiateEducation. Read March 28, 1850. Providence: George H.Whitney, 1850.

Wriston, Henry M. “The University College.”Providence, RI: The Brown Corporation, 1946. 7–23.

BOOKS AND ARTICLES ONLIBERAL EDUCATION

Abbott, Andrew. “The Aims of Education Address.”The University of Chicago Record 37, no. 2 (November 21,2002): 4–8.

Bok, Derek. Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Lookat How Much Students Learn and Why They Should BeLearning More. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP, 2006.

Botstein, Leon. “Some Thoughts on Curriculum andChange.” Rethinking Liberal Education (New York:Oxford University Press, 1996).

Boyer, John W. “A Twentieth-Century Cosmos: The NewPlan and the Origins of General Education at Chicago.”The University of Chicago Record 41, no. 3 (January 18,2007): 4–24.

Cronon, William. “‘Only Connect…’: The Goals of aLiberal Education.” The American Scholar 67, no. 4(Autumn 1998): 73–81. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/.

Delbanco, Andrew. “Scandals of Higher Education.”The New York Review of Books. LIV, no. 5 (March 29,2007): 42–47.

35

Fowler, Henry Thatcher. “Which College for the Boy?Brown: A University College.” The Brown AlumniMonthly IX, no. 1 (June 1908): 1–5.

Goldin, Claudia, and Lawrence F. Katz. “The Shapingof Higher Education: The Formative Years in theUnited States, 1890 to 1940.” Journal of Economic Per-spectives XIII, 1 (Winter 1999).

“The Future of Interdisciplinary Studies.” LiberalEducation 94, no. 1 (Winter 2008).

Katz, Stanley N. “Liberal Education on the Ropes.” TheChronicle of Higher Education. 51, no. 30 (April 1, 2005):B6. http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i30/30b00601.htm.

Kronman, Alan. Education’s End: Why Our Colleges andUniversities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life. NewHaven: Yale UP, 2007.

Landow, George P. “Educational Innovation andHypertext: One University’s Successes and Failures inSupporting New Technology. Silicon Literacies: Commu-nication, Innovation, and Education in the Electronic Age.Ed. Ilana Snyder. London, NY: Routledge, 2002.101–115.

Levere, Andrea, Kim Schoenholtz, Cathy ten Kate, andRichard Zall. A Report on Institutional and Curricular Re-form at Brown University. January 1976.

“Liberal Education and the ‘Big Questions.’” LiberalEducation 93, no 2 (Spring 2007).

Light, Richard J. Making the Most of College: StudentsSpeak Their Minds. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2001.

Personal Voices: Brown University Alumni on LiberalEducation. Providence, RI: Office of the Dean of theCollege, 1977.

Rimer, Sara. “First Woman Takes Reins at Harvard.”The New York Times. October 14, 2007.

Rudolph, Frederick. Curriculum: A History of theAmerican Undergraduate Course of Study Since 1636(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977).

Seaman, Barrett. Binge: What Your College Student Won’tTell You. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2005.

“Ten Essential Capabilities.” Middletown, CT: WesleyanUniversity, 2005. http://www.wesleyan.edu/wesleyan-planning/final/essential.html.

“The University at the Millennium.” The GlionDeclaration (1999). http://www.glion.org

ASSESSMENT

A Culture of Evidence: An Evidence-Centered Approach toAccountability for Student Learning Outcomes. Princeton,NJ: Educational Testing Service, 2008.

Assessing Student Learning. Peer Review: Emerging Trendsand Key Debates in Undergraduate Education. AmericanAssociation of Colleges and Universities 9, no. 2(Spring 2007).

Assessment in Cycles of Improvement: Faculty Designs forEssential Learning Outcomes. Washington, DC: Associationof American Colleges and Universities, 2007.

A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. HigherEducation. U.S. Department of Education: Washington,D.C., 2006.

Breslow, Lori, et al. “How Do We Know If Students AreLearning?” MIT Faculty Newsletter (January/February2008).

How Should Colleges Assess and Improve Student Learning?Employers’ Views on the Accountability Challenge.Washington, DC: Peter D. Hart Associates, 2008.

Katz, Stanley N. “Taking the True Measure of a LiberalEducation.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. May 23,2008.

Liberal Education Outcomes: A Preliminary Report onStudent Achievement in College. Washington, DC:American Association of Colleges and Universities, 2005.

New Leadership for Student Learning and Accountability.Washington, DC: Association of American Collegesand Universities and the Council for Higher EducationAccreditation, 2008.

36

“Principles for Assessing Student Learning.” Washing-ton, DC: American Association of Higher EducationAssessment. 1997.

Spoehr, Kathryn T. “Reflective Teaching Practice, StudentOutcomes, and Institutional Effectiveness.” TeachingForum. Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning.September 10, 2007.

NEASC DOCUMENTS

“Becoming More Explicit in Looking at Student Success.”Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of theNew England Association of Schools and College.http://cihe.neasc.org/downloads/Becoming_More_Ex-plicit.pdf. September 2007.

Report to the Faculty, Administration, Trustees, and Stu-dents of Brown University. Commission on Institutionsof Higher Education of the New England Association ofSchools and College. 1998.

Response to Brown University Interim Report. Com-mission on Institutions of Higher Education of the NewEngland Association of Schools and College. 2003.

Self-Study Guide. Commission on Institutions of HigherEducation. New England Association of Schools andColleges. http://cihe.neasc.org/downloads/Self-Study_Guide.PDF. 2005.

Standards for Accreditation. Commission on Institutionsof Higher Education. New England Association ofSchools and Colleges. http://cihe.neasc.org/down-loads/Standards/Standards_for_Accreditation__2006.pdf. 2006.

37

CHARGE TO THE TASK FORCE ONUNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

The Provost and the Dean of the College appointed aTask Force on Undergraduate Education in March2007 to review the current state of the College andmake recommendations for the future. The work of theTask Force will form the core of the reaccreditation re-port being prepared for the New England Associationof Schools and Colleges, and will engage the followingbroad questions.

General Education—Are we offering Brown studentsthe best education we can? What do we expect our stu-dents to know as educated women and men of the 21stcentury? What goals should we embrace in encourag-ing students to graduate with a more fully developedability to write? to speak? to evaluate and critique infor-mation? to think quantitatively? to create? to under-stand other cultures and to communicate across them?to develop the capacity to reach nuanced moral and eth-ical judgments?

And how, in the end, do we convey and measure theseor other competencies that we may identify? Are therebetter ways to integrate students’ residential and ex-tracurricular experiences with their academic programsto enable these learning outcomes?

The Concentrations—Are we clear about the place ofthe concentration within a student's overall educationalexperience? Do our concentrations provide appropriatedepth, breadth, perspective, and rigor within their re-spective disciplinary and interdisciplinary areas? Canand should they do more to help students make choicesbeyond the disciplines? What role does the so-calledcapstone experience play in defining and developingthe purpose of the concentration?

Advising—What is our philosophy of academic advisingat Brown and how does this connect with the philosophyof education reflected in the curriculum itself? Are ouradvising methods as good as they can be in enabling stu-dents to reap the maximum benefit from the curricularfreedom they enjoy? How might they be improved?

Pedagogy and Assessment—Brown is a university thatplaces considerable emphasis on the excellence of itsteaching. Is our pedagogy equal to what our educationalmission requires? Does our teaching—the way weconvey knowledge and skills and assess our students’success in mastering them—stand up to critical scrutiny?Does our evaluation of teaching help us to answer suchquestions?

The Task Force will confer broadly with students, faculty,staff, alumni, and members of the Corporation to addressthese questions, in both public forums and private in-terviews. Their work will culminate in a report, to be re-leased to the Brown community in spring 2008.

TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP

Amit Basu — Amit Basu is an Associate Professor ofChemistry. His research interests lie at the interface ofchemistry, biology, and materials science, with em-phases on glycobiology and nanomaterials. He teachesa variety of undergraduate and graduate courses in or-ganic chemistry and bioorganic chemistry. Basu is theConcentration Advisor for Chemistry and serves as aFaculty Advising Fellow.

Jason Becker ’09 — Jason is a chemistry concentratorwhose broad course of study at Brown exemplifies thepromise of the open curriculum. Jason’s curricularchoices reflect his own interests and his willingness toexplore unfamiliar academic terrain.

Katherine Bergeron (chair) — Katherine Bergeron isDean of the College and Professor of Music. Before herappointment as Dean of the College, Bergeron chairedBrown’s music department. Her research interests in-clude French cultural history, musical modernism, thediscipline of musicology, experimental music, song,opera, poetry, and film. Her newest book, Voice Lessons:French Mélodie in the Belle Epoque, will appear withOxford University Press in 2009.

Sheila Blumstein — Sheila Blumstein is the Albert D.Mead Professor of Cognitive and Linguistic Sciences. Aformer Dean of the College at Brown, Blumstein hasalso served Brown as interim provost and interim presi-

Appendix

38

dent. While Dean of the College, Blumstein authoredthe first—and to date, the only—comprehensive reviewof the open curriculum. This report to Brown’s President,titled “The Brown Curriculum Twenty Years Later: AReview of the Past and a Working Agenda for the Future,”was essential background reading for the Task Force.

Barrymore Bogues — Barrymore (Tony) Bogues wasRoyce Family Professor of Teaching Excellence(2004–2007). He is current chair of the Africana StudiesDepartment and Harmon Family Professor of AfricanaStudies. He has received many awards and honors forhis writing, teaching, and mentoring of students.

Sheila Bonde — Sheila Bonde is Dean of the GraduateSchool and Professor of History of Art and Architecture.She was named Royce Professor of Teaching Excellencefrom 2004 to 2007. Her research interests include thearchaeology of medieval monasteries and the reuse andreoccupation of Roman architecture in southern Franceduring the Middle Ages. Bonde is PI for a National En-dowment for the Humanities grant called “The VirtualMonastery,” which presents digital resources for thestudy of monastery architecture and texts.

Rakim Brooks ’09 — Rakim is an Africana Studiesconcentrator from New York City. A member ofBrown’s 2007 Mellon Mays cohort and the Institute forResponsible Citizenship, Rakim has interned at theBrookings Institution and Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauerand Feld LLP. He chairs the Africana Studies Depart-mental Undergraduate Group and has served as Chairof the Academic Affairs Committee of the Undergradu-ate Council of Students.

Fiona Heckscher ’09 — Fiona is a Public Policy andHistory concentrator. Her senior thesis will focus on In-stitutional Review Boards' review processes and theireffects on social science research at Brown and its peerinstitutions. Fiona is also a Writing Fellow and hasworked with the Swearer Center.

Kathleen McSharry — Kathleen McSharry is AssociateDean of the College for Writing and Communicationand Dean for Issues of Chemical Dependency. Mc-Sharry oversees the DOC’s renewed focus on Brown’s

writing competency requirement. Before coming toBrown, McSharry served as an associate dean of gen-eral education, and an English professor, at two otherliberal arts institutions.

James Morone — James Morone is Professor of Politi-cal Science and Urban Studies at Brown. Morone haspublished books on politics, history, and social policy,and has written over 100 articles and essays. Amongthe awards he has received, Morone is most proud ofthe three Hazeltine citations for teachings, the APSA’sKammerer Award for the Democratic Wish, and hisPulitzer nomination for Hellfire Nation.

Michael Paradiso — Michael Paradiso is Professor ofNeuroscience. His research focuses on the relationshipbetween neural activity in the brain and the perceptualworld we experience. Current research topics includethe neural basis of lightness and color perception,cortical mechanisms of selective visual attention, andtemporal coding.

Hannah Pepper-Cunningham ’08 — Hannah was anAfricana Studies concentrator who graduated fromBrown in May 2008. During her four years at Brown,she explored many areas of the curriculum, and workedwith a number of organizations both on campus and inthe greater Providence community.

Jill Pipher — Jill Pipher is Professor of Math and Chairof the Math Department. Her research interests includeharmonic analysis, elliptic PDE, and cryptography.

Arnold Weinstein — Arnold Weinstein is the Edna andRichard Salomon Distinguished Professor in Compara-tive Literature. He researches European and Americannarrative, Scandinavian literature, American fiction,literature and medicine, and the city theme in litera-ture. He has published numerous books and has beenawarded a multitude of teaching and research fellowshipsin the U.S. and Europe.

39

A liberal education implies breadth and depth: basicknowledge in a range of disciplines, focused by moreconcentrated work in one.49 These goals are common toall liberal arts institutions, but at Brown they have aspecial context. Our open curriculum ensures you greatfreedom in directing the course of your education, butit also expects you to remain open—to people, ideas,and experiences that may be entirely new. By cultivat-ing such openness, you will learn to make the most ofthe freedom you have, and to chart the broadest possi-ble intellectual journey, not just during your first se-mesters but through your entire time at Brown.

What does it mean to be broadly educated? The firstWestern universities conceived of the liberal arts asseven distinct modes of thought, three based on lan-guage (grammar, rhetoric, and logic), and four onnumber (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy).While this structure has changed over the centuries,the basic concept has endured. A modern liberal artseducation is still defined in terms of a core curriculumcomprised of several areas of knowledge. At Brown,rather than specifying these areas, we challenge you todevelop your own core. Over four years you will samplecourses in the humanities, the social sciences, the lifesciences, and the physical sciences. But the real chal-lenge is to make connections between those courses,using the perspective gained from one discipline as awindow onto the next. The most significant social, po-litical, and moral issues of our time require the abilityto think from multiple vantage points, and Brown’s cur-riculum affords you the opportunity to develop just thissort of nuanced perspective.

At the end of your sophomore year, you will choose anacademic concentration, where you will develop thatperspective in the context of one discipline or depart-ment. This is, in effect, what “concentration” means.Deepening your knowledge of a field implies under-standing the range of ideas, and the methodologicaldifferences, that define it. All concentrations haverequirements to ensure that students have covered the

basics. But you will of course bring your own perspec-tive to that field through your independent projects,and all the other work you will do both inside and out-side the classroom. A human biology concentrator whohas taken several courses in anthropology will seethings differently from one who is entirely focused onmedicine; a mathematics concentrator will have a dif-ferent perspective depending on whether he or she hasspent time studying an instrument or teaching in thelocal public schools. The challenge, once again, is foryou to make the connections. And that means strivingabove all to develop the full range of your intellectualcapacities during your four years at Brown.

How should you go about expanding those capacities?Below are a few goals to keep in mind as you plan yourcourse of study.

Work on your speaking and writingWriting, speaking, and thinking are interdependent.Developing a command of one of them means sharpen-ing another. Seek out courses, both in and out of yourconcentration, that will help you to improve your abilityto communicate in English as well as in another lan-guage. Whether you concentrate in the sciences, the so-cial sciences, or the humanities, your ability to speakand write clearly will help you succeed in your collegecoursework and in your life after Brown.

Understand differences among culturesYour future success will also depend on your ability tolive and work in a global context. And that meansknowing as much about other cultures as you do aboutyour own. Brown offers a wealth of courses and inter-national experiences that will help you develop a moreself-conscious and expansive sense of how differentcultural groups define themselves through social,aesthetic, and political practices. Working with interna-tional students and teachers on the Brown campus canmake you equally aware of the challenges of communi-cating across linguistic and cultural barriers. Fluency ina second language, coupled with time spent studyingabroad, will sharpen your sensitivities, enlarge your

Liberal Learning at Brown

49This statement was drafted by the College Curriculum Council in April2008 in response to the Task Force’s first recommendation. It is conceivedas a planning guide for students and, as such, was included in two newguides created in the summer of 2008: one for the entering class, and an-other for sophomores.

40

sense of geography, and prepare you for leadership inan increasingly interconnected world.

Evaluate human behaviorKnowing how individuals are socialized and expresstheir identities can lead to deeper insights about thenature of human organization, the sources of politicalpower and authority, and the distribution of resources.The study of race, gender, ethnicity, and religion canhelp you think more deeply not only about yourself, butalso about the social institutions that serve to defineour very notions of self, together with the policies andinstitutions that maintain them.

Learn what it means to study the pastUnderstanding how people and institutions havechanged over time is fundamental to a liberal education.Just as you should expand your cultural breadth, soshould you also develop your historical depth. Comingto terms with history involves far more than learningnames and dates and events. It means understandingthe problematic nature of evidence, and of the distancethat separates the present from the past. It also meansthinking critically about how histories themselves arewritten and who has the power to write them.

Experience scientific inquiryEvidence is also a central aspect of scientific inquiry.The interpretation of natural or material phenomenarequires a unique combination of observation, creativity,and critical judgment that hones your inductive reason-ing, sharpens your ability to ask questions, and encour-ages experimental thinking. Understanding the natureof scientific findings, along with their ethical, political,and social implications, is also critical to an informedcitizenry. As you plan your course of study, look foropportunities to experience direct, hands-on research.

Develop a facility with symbolic languagesSymbolic languages make it possible to think abstractlyacross many disciplines. Linguistics, philosophy, com-puter science, mathematics, even music, are among thedisciplines that have developed symbolic systems tomake theoretical assertions about their objects of study,or to imagine alternative realities. Courses in these

areas will teach you what it means to conceptualizesystems and structures that have the potential toreframe our notions of time and space.

Expand your reading skillsStudying written texts, interpreting graphs, and evaluat-ing systems and codes are all forms of analysis thatbelong to the more general category of “reading.”Learning how to read closely makes you aware of thecomplex nature of expression itself, where the mode ofexpression is as important as what is expressed. Gainingexperience with close reading—across many genres—may be one of the most important things you will learnto do in your four years at Brown.

Enhance your aesthetic sensibilityA liberal education implies developing not just newways of reading but also of seeing, hearing, and feeling,based on exposure to a range of aesthetic experiences.Courses in the visual and performing arts, music, andliterature will deepen your understanding of manykinds of expressive media, past and present, and thekinds of realities they aim to represent. Developingyour own creative abilities in one or more art forms willdeepen your self-understanding and enhance your abil-ity to appreciate the work of others.

Embrace DiversityAchieving excellence in liberal education requires acommitment to diversity in the broadest sense. Thismeans embracing not only a range of intellectual per-spectives, but also a diversity of people. Brown’s diverseeducational environment offers you the opportunity tothink broadly about the nature of complexity itself, andto learn how to participate productively in a pluralisticsociety. The Brown curriculum features hundreds ofcourses that offer you a chance to enlarge yourperspectives in just this way. Seek experiences insideand outside the classroom that will challenge yourassumptions, and allow you to develop a more openand inclusive view of the world and your place in it.

41

Collaborate fullyLearning never happens in isolation, and the quality ofyour experience at Brown will depend on your ability tocollaborate fully with others: with teachers, with fellowstudents, with advisors and mentors of all kinds. TheAdvising Partnership is thus a necessary complementto the Brown curriculum. Be as bold in seeking guidanceas you are in pursuing your educational aspirations.Begin developing your network of collaborators early,and work to stay connected with those teachers, advi-sors, and peers who have meant the most to you. Visitoffice hours not just to expand your understanding ofcourse material, but to get to know your teachers aspeople. Reach out to faculty at other events, or overlunch or coffee. Work on research projects or independ-ent studies with professors whose interests match yourown. And make use of the many offices and centersthat can support you in reaching your academic goals.By taking charge of your education in this way, you willenrich your teachers’ and mentors’ understanding asmuch as you will expand your own capacity to learn,not just here at Brown, but in many other environ-ments, and for many years to come.

Apply what you have learnedYour general education at Brown will be enriched bythe many kinds of work you do beyond the classroom.Real-world experiences anchor intellectual pursuits inpractical knowledge and help you develop a sense ofsocial and global responsibility. Internships, publicservice, and other community activities both oncampus and beyond Brown not only have the potentialto strengthen your core programs; they also canstrengthen your moral core, by showing you how andwhy your liberal studies matter. Looking beyond thehorizon of your immediate interests and sharing yourknowledge and talents with others can expand intellec-tual and ethical capacities that will make it possible foryou to lead a full and engaged life, or, in the words ofthe Brown charter, “a life of usefulness and reputation.”

42

The Brown Faculty Advising Fellows Program, 2008–09In response to recommendations by the Task Force andthe Committee on the Residential Experience, Brown’sOffice of the Dean of the College and the Division ofCampus Life and Student Services have launched anew Faculty Advising Fellows Program. The program isbased around five Brown-owned houses and the FacultyFellows who live in them. These Fellows in Residence(FIRs) open their homes about six times per monthwith programs and events designed to increase theinformal interaction between students and faculty oncampus, to connect the residential experience to theacademic experience, and to build community. Theyare joined by non-residential Faculty Advising Fellows(FAFs), who serve for three-year terms, and work in a

team with the residential Fellows to design innovativeprograms and to increase the number of faculty availablefor mentoring and advising. Also associated with eachhouse are Deans from the College, from the Division ofCampus Life, and from the Division of Biology and Medi-cine, who attend events and advise Fellows on academicissues and policies. To foster an even greater sense ofcommunity, each house serves as a locus for about 50 ofour regular cohort of academic advisors. New advisor ori-entation takes place in the houses, and academic advisorsare invited to events at their affiliated house throughoutthe year. A diagram of the houses and the Fellows for2008–09 is included below.

Office of the Dean of the CollegeBrown UniversityProvidence, Rhode Island401 863-9800

This piece is printed on Mohawk Color Copy 100% PC White,which is manufactured entirely with Green-e certified wind-generated electricity.