When I came to Duke University, it had breadth requirements that were fairly standard. Let's call those breadth requirements Curriculum 1986. There were six subject areas listed, and these included aspects of the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences and mathematics. Students had to take three classes in four subject areas, two in another and could skip one subject area of their choosing. Students also had to take a freshman writing class.
Students didn't seem to mind these requirements much except for the freshman writing class, which they complained about vehemently and for good reason. The class was awful.
Breadth requirements of any type are a curious thing. They really aren't all that important. If a school had no requirements, it would find that most students would take a wide array of courses anyway. So mostly, breadth requirements serve a public relations purpose. They tell the world that a school expects its students to be well rounded. They don't and can't say anything about the real content of the courses beyond their subject area.
But supposing you were in a position of leadership at a private college or university that had a reputation for being a less than serious place. There were serious students to be sure, but many weren't. There were professors to be found dedicated to undergraduate instruction, but many avoided it as best they could.
Substantial changes to improve the intellectual tenor of the institution would be difficult. You'd have to talk honestly to students and faculty about their and your shortcomings. Such an effort would require real leadership and great political risk. If you failed, your reputation would be damaged. So instead of doing something substantive and meaningful, you decide to embark on a different road, a lower road. If your institution isn't particularly serious when it comes to undergraduate education, you'll give it a prop to make it look more serious.
At Duke that prop is Curriculum 2000. Unlike C1986, C2000 tries to do more than advertise that Duke students are well rounded. One would think, after reading the documentation for C2000, that upon graduation Duke students are ready to tackle all the ills of society with compassion, clarity and aplomb. Were that this was true. A curriculum can't possibly do that anywhere.
In fact, other than requiring three semesters of foreign language, C2000 is not substantively different than C1986. The classes that are available to meet the requirements of C2000 are almost entirely the same classes as those before. The dreadful freshman writing class C1986 was replaced by an equally dreadful, but new freshman writing class.
Students dislike C2000 a lot more than they disliked C1986. Science students hate it especially because they already have many requirements for their major and the nuances of C2000 make it more difficult for them to fulfill their breadth requirements. Some are being told by their advisers that it's expected that they enroll in Duke summer school. And they have. C2000 may not be making them better prepared to meet the world, but it is making them several thousand dollars poorer and Duke several hundred thousand dollars richer every year.
It's worth noting that this logistical problem could and should have been nipped in the bud. I was on a committee of science faculty that pointed out this very problem when C2000 was in the late planning stages. Our comments were completely ignored.
Many other students dislike C2000 as well. I think the reason this is so is that the creators of C2000 tried to obfuscate its hollowness by making it look complicated. It's kind of like the booming voice of the Wizard of Oz. It may be scary at first blush, but all you have to do is pull back the curtain and find out that C2000 is just a repackaging of C1986. It's much ado about nothing.
In a bizarre effort, Duke leadership has of late been trying to "demonstrate" through the use of course evaluation forms that C2000 is meeting its farcically lofty objectives. Of course, there are so many bubbles on these forms and the questions on them are so vague that you can make whatever conclusions are convenient from such an analysis. Numbers may not lie, but people do lie with numbers. And the changes that have been imposed by Duke leadership on the course evaluation forms make them largely worthless for their major original purpose: to provide feedback to the faculty.
Next year, C2000 will be undergoing a review. Like other pet initiatives and hires of Duke leadership that have undergone reviews, C2000 will of course "pass" with flying colors. But the fact remains that C2000 is strictly a public relations tool. The substantive problems with undergraduate education at Duke endure.
Stuart Rojstaczer is a professor of hydrology. His column appears every third Wednesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.