Mischaracterization of proposed QS reform

As members of the Quantitative Studies Requirement Review Committee, we appreciate the interest of The Chronicle’s Editorial Board and their recognition that there are significant problems with the current requirement that need to be addressed. We write to clarify our proposal, which we do not believe was adequately characterized in the Monday, Oct. 17 editorial.

We agree with the board that some current QS courses may not have sufficient quantitative content to merit being classified as a QS course. This is why the proposal includes a detailed set of learning objectives that must be satisfied for a course to count for the new QS requirement. These objectives precisely address what the editors call the “real” problem. The criteria very clearly, in the words of the editorial, are “intended to get students to think quantitatively” and provide “baseline education in quantitative thinking and methodology.” Put simply, under the proposed new requirement, no course of the department in which it is taught would be classified as a QS course unless it meets the aforementioned learning objectives.

The proposal requires that one of the two QS courses must be from the mathematics, statistical science or computer science departments. The proposal does not state that only these departments can teach QS classes. In fact, the body of the proposal includes a clear statement that the committee encourages faculty in the sciences, social sciences and humanities to use this modified QS requirement as an opportunity to create new QS classes that enrich the curriculum and the learning of students at Duke.

The curricular requirements at Duke state that: “The Areas of Knowledge requirements lend breadth to students’ education by introducing them to the full range of disciplines taught at Duke.” The proposal that students be required to take one of their two QS courses in one of the mathematical sciences departments is designed to be faithful to this aspect of the curriculum. We believe that students will benefit from learning how faculty who study and teach quantitative methodologies for their own sake approach problems; this often differs from how faculty in other departments who use quantitative methods approach problems. The proposal promotes structure and choice and is designed to better execute the intent and purpose of the curriculum.

The editorial references the length of time the committee took to bring this proposal to the Arts and Sciences Council. The committee membership was selected to represent the diverse views of members of the University community, including student government. We deliberated carefully, gathered and examined relevant data, considered a wide variety of options and sought input from faculty outside our committee. This question, as the editorial notes, has been a problematic aspect of Curriculum 2000 and deserved a careful review. It would have been very unfortunate had the committee rushed to present a less thoughtful proposal.

We welcome the conversation on campus of what should constitute a quantitative studies requirement at Duke and hope that this letter serves to clarify our proposal.

Jack Bookman, Mathematics
Ben Cooke, Academic Resource Center
Kaveh Danesh, Duke Student Government
Sandy Darity Jr., Public Policy Studies
Scott de Marchi, Political Science
Jerry Reiter, Statistics
Susan Rodger, Computer Science
Clare Tufts, Romance Studies
Matt Serra, Office of Assessment, ex officio
Ingeborg Walther, Trinity Dean’s Office and Office of Curriculum and Course Development , ex officio