Assembly LXI: The Undergraduate Curriculum at Yale
Thursday, October 24 - Saturday, October 26, 2002
Assembly Chair Marc B. Lockhart '84
Sample Reports

Sample Yale College Class Report
Harvey N. Shycon
Alternate Delegate Yale Class of 1943

"What will a Yale College student need to know upon graduation, and how can Yale ensure that its undergraduates are provided with the best preparation for the future?"

The Assembly examined the Yale College curriculum in collaboration with the Yale College Dean's Office. Last year President Levin appointed Dean Richard Brodhead to chair the first full review of the Yale College curriculum in three decades. Dean Brodhead's working group has since consulted broadly with faculty, students and administrators.

During the Assembly, Dean Brodhead and key committee members briefed AYA delegates on their progress to date, led an exercise in which delegates themselves chose their "ideal" course of study. Then delegates were asked to reflect in open forum on the principles and practices that should guide an undergraduate course of study at Yale.

This is my report on the proceedings, explanations and instructions we received, and recommendations made by the assembled alumni body for Committee consideration.

* * * * *

This Assembly provided a unique opportunity for alumni to participate in the large-scale effort being made to formulate the College's future academic direction. Each delegate was required to complete a homework assignment to stimulate critical thinking about the Yale College curriculum. Then in open forum, delegates were encouraged to offer their concepts of the direction of the Yale curriculum.

This was an intensive exercise, unlike any AYA assemblies I've participated in in the past. Previous Assemblies have been designed to familiarize alumni delegates from around the country and the world with current Yale methods, current procedures, but most important current Yale thinking on the educational and cultural standards. This Assembly had at its objective, alumni review of the thorough critical rethinking of the Yale education objective and the course structure designed to achieve it. In other words, in prior Assemblies we've looked at what is at present, at this one we reviewed what may be in the 21st Century, and in fact, contributed our ideas to it.

Procedure for the Assembly

The general assignment given each of us in advance was to formulate our concept of the ideal Yale College academic program in the light of: 1) the program of study we actually pursued, 2) our life experience since that time, and 3) what we'd wish to study today if we were just entering Yale. In other words, what course of study would best have served us, given our life experience?

We were each given the current Yale Blue Book, listing more than 4000 courses, from which we ultimately needed to select the 36 courses we'd require for graduation. We were required to select the Major we'd take today. Within this, 12 courses were required spread across the four years. Next, we were required to designate the courses in our "Distribution Requirements", courses in other disciplines which complement the Major we've selected. Next, we could add some electives. In addition, Yale requires at least one year of a foreign language, which we needed to designate.

Introduction, Purpose of this Exercise

Mark Lockhart started by going to the heart of the purpose of a college education. He said it was to prepare Yale undergraduates for life. To launch the student on a life and career of contribution to society, and a life of fulfillment for one's self.

This was followed by an intensive discussion of the Yale College Curriculum Review Committee's efforts to date. Chaired by Yale College Dean Richard Brodhead, '68, '72 Ph.D., who gave extensive introductory explanation of the program. He discussed his committee's charge, outlined the process, reported on the primary themes as they have emerged so far, and indicated its timetable for completing the job. Following this, a panel of faculty members and a current undergraduate responded to the Dean's remarks, expanded explanation of various points, and offered their own reflections on the curriculum review progress. Panelists were: Peter Salovey '86 Ph.D., Professor and Chair of Psychology, Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health, and Deputy Director of the Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS; Charles Bailyn '81, Professor of Astronomy and Physics; Christine Hayes, Professor of Religious Studies; and Rachel Alpert '03, who is majoring in International Studies and Political Science, who intends to go to law school after graduation next spring.

Discussion of the Yale College Curriculum Review

Dean Brodhead started by saying that the overall objective of a Yale education was "Assuming the innate brilliance of our entering students, how can we channel this intellect into the basic founts of knowledge, ranging from the humanities, science, arts, economics, etc. in order to make for a more productive, socially contributive, and fulfilled individual?" Our education takes place, not only in the classroom, he said, but also through interaction with other students, faculty, and the community at large. He hopes the review effort will have a major impact on all facets of education, e.g., bio-med, science, the arts and humanities. Several points were:

1. The Yale College curriculum should take advantage of the entire range of graduate school offerings, e.g., Globalization, the Centre for British Art, Health, etc.
   
   
2. We must encourage small classes, including individual mentoring.
   
   
3. Include the big name professors in the undergraduate program, so students get the best Yale has to offer.
   
   
4. We must link major subjects with related topics, e.g., science with economics, mathematics with business decision, etc., in order to achieve a more well-rounded student
   
   
5. Emphasize the sciences as this is where so much progress is coming and effects so much of life, even in the arts and humanities. And in the sciences we must allow for broader inquiry, in order to encourage creativity.
   
   
6. And it's important to relate science to the humanities as so much of life today involves these crossovers.
   
   
7. We must recognize the internationalization of society and the impact of other cultures on ours and vice versa. For this he recommends a semester abroad.
   
   
8. We need centers of intellectual thought, e.g., language, science, the humanities. The objective is to build a range of mental powers.

Dean Brodhead emphasized that with the universe of subjects and offerings we must be careful to provide proper direction to ensure a coherent course of study. He said the final question the Committee is concerned with is "How to balance the freedom for experimentation with the need to develop a specific field of specialization".

Professors Salovey and Bailyn recommended a number of initiatives for undergraduates going into the sciences:

1. More directive research
2. A more specific premedical education
3. Emphasis on health/science education
4. Science is so pervasive now, we need a good science program for those who are not going into the sciences.
5. A science center on the main campus, so we can develop a critical mass of science students at a convenient location.
6. Quantitative reasoning is so pervasive in today's society, and especially important in science education, we should be sure to create a superb course.
7. We must make the sciences exciting.

Rachel Alpert '03, majoring in International Studies and political science, says we need:

1. Get students abroad more, experience other cultures and languages. Even if only in the summer
2. Foreign language study is important.
3. Expand International Studies since this is the wave of the future, e.g., the Center for the Study of Globalization. Include more of this in other courses of study. Expand its resources.
4. Enlarge the network base for International Studies to include alumni.

Christine Hayes, Professor of Religious Studies, suggests:

1. Greater exploration by students of different disciplines. She feels more would be interested in religious courses if they could experience them without making an initial commitment.
2. In the Distribution requirements, students need more encouragement to try other educational fields.
3. Even within religious studies itself, more interdisciplinary courses should be encouraged.

Keynote Presentation: "The Elements of a Liberal Education"

Professor Donald Brown, the Philip R. Allen Professor of Economics and Director of Graduate Studies in Economics, then gave the signal presentation, setting the breadth and the tone of the curriculum review. His view is for a dramatic overhaul of undergraduate education, making it more directed, more concentrated, and with fewer courses not directly in the field of the Major. Two of his recommendations, which are bound to cause much discussion, are (1) that the undergraduate program, devoid of electives and courses unrelated to the Major, be accomplished in three years instead of four, and (2) that students be encouraged to take two Majors in a total immersion educational experience. Dr. Brown is recently returned after a seven year "sabbatical" at Stanford where he participated in their curriculum review.

Dr. Brown, who is not a member of the review committee but an advisor, says the primary goal of a college education should be to, "Prepare the student for a lifetime of learning." He says we're living in a very rapidly changing world, career changes are much more frequent, so each of us must "learn to learn" in new areas, and as our interests evolve, to become fluent in these new areas. He says the university should be a place for the collection of all knowledge, and it should encourage the free exchange of ideas. Teaching, he says, should encourage discovery.

His suggestions include:

1. The need for a multidisciplinary education, break out of a single area, e.g., economics and music, medical science and English, literature and language, social science and physical science.
2. He says science, including math, is the characteristic of the end of the 20th Century and will be more so in the 21st. Therefore, we need to incorporate at least an appreciation of science in the course of study.
3. We must add courses in critical reasoning to meet this challenge.
4. In all fields, the knowledge of numbers and how they enable evaluation is exceedingly important. This must be incorporated in the educational program.
5. Important literature in these fields, science, math, critical reasoning, numeric evaluation, etc. should be introduced. And he would teach the "Theory of Literature", i.e., how it contributes to the mental process.
6. The principal modes of inquiry, he says, are: the Arts, Humanities, Mathematical Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences. Majors can be constructed in each of these areas, but with crossover courses in related areas. As example he gives is the study of Einstein and Picasso.
7. In the Natural Sciences, he places Darwin's research and resulting findings as an important milestone in human knowledge development. The process of thought and experimentation by which Darwin achieved this is an important direction for mankind and our educational process.
8. Electives should be eliminated, "they're just the search for gut courses, so one can take it easy" he said. These should be replaced by directed courses with a purpose, such as those suggested above. He proposes 36 courses required for graduation, the same as at present at Yale, but the most in the Ivy League. Most should be directed toward the Major.
9. Finally, he added, we need to emphasize a moral foundation for both politics and business.

He says the job of the educational program must be to create a passion for learning.

In his evaluation he compares Stanford and Yale as the bellwether institutions of superior education. Stanford is heavier in science, Yale in the humanities. But the prescription is roughly the same.

Concluding Alumni Suggestions, Committee Review, and Principles Recommended

Using the information provided by the Dean and Committee members on the Curriculum review process, reflecting on Professor Brown's keynote proposals, and incorporating the delegates' course principles and recommendations, all participated with Dean Brodhead and members of the review committee in open forum on the principles to be considered in formulating a new undergraduate curriculum.

General principles emphasized by most included:

1. The purpose of a liberal education in today's world is to develop the whole intellectual person vs. single-mindedly developing for a career.
2. This includes developing critical thinking and reasoning ability. This, it was felt, would enable broad content intelligence among students, while at the same time enabling focus on specific fields.
3. It was emphasized that rigor in the core requirement is necessary for a successful education program.
   
4. Analytical ability is essential in today's interdisciplinary world.
5. Centers for learning would enhance the ability to appreciate given fields in breadth and relate these to other areas. Examples given included:
   
   • Writing and Speaking, essential skills
   • Quantitative reasoning for all fields
   • Integration across disciplines
6. Needed also, was the initial freedom to look around, try courses and exercise major field experimentation. In this regard, some defended electives as a means to experiment and find the field for specialization.
7. There was much comment on the need to expand the Blue Book course descriptions. The solution to this was to expand the on-line version of the book to include not only more complete course descriptions, but also feedback from prior students, and similar comments by staff.
8. Added also, it was suggested, is the ability to search on line by topic, instructor, specific subject matter included, etc.
9. The book, it was added, should be "smart" enough to avoid scheduling conflicts, in fact to enable one to input a whole series of courses, and to plan alternate schedules. (It was pointed out that the Blue Book is currently on line, as of July 10 this year, so students can pore over it during the summer at leisure.)
10. There was the feeling expressed that a major and minor program is not a good vehicle for either subject. It was felt that the major suffers from the diversion, and the need to do justice to the minor deprives the student of the freedom to experiment in the major field and other unrelated topics.
11. Throughout the discussion there was emphasized repeatedly the need for more faculty time devoted to student learning needs.

Finally, the session ended as it began, with the recognition that we must teach how to learn, endlessly, learning old skills better, being accepting of new ideas, and new ways to think, reason, and learn. Learning is a life long project.

My Final Thoughts

I believe the University administration is on the right track, reviewing the entire educational program with the University's mission in mind. Its job is to educate these superior minds for a productive, well-rounded life. I gather the Review Committee feels there are no restraints on methods for accomplishing this within reason and the tradition of excellence.

I personally take issue with some of Professor Brown's proposals. He claims to support this concept of a well-rounded education, but then undercuts this with a requirement for a completely concentrated program to be accomplished in only three years. He would require that one concentrate on the Major almost to the exclusion of other subjects, and accomplish this in the reduced period. We none of us wish to be lifelong captives of a single discipline, without the ability to enjoy other aspects of life. Most of us have many interests, not only the areas we studied at Yale. I would even emphasize the student's need to experiment during the first two years in many areas through electives, even when they've decided on a Major. We all have supplemental interests, and these become more important as we've proceeded through life and our careers.

Again, I conclude the University is on the right track. I'm proud that Yale is a leader in the willingness to make an intensive review of its curriculum, and the willingness to make changes, perhaps some major, to achieve its mission in the fast moving world of the 21st Century.

Respectfully submitted,

Harvey N. Shycon
Alternate Delegate