A doubleplusgood review

Curriculum 2000 shares at least one quality with George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984.” Published in 1949, Orwell’s once prophetic title now only points to a prediction gone unrealized. Likewise, where Curriculum 2000 once drew attention to its currency, it now only reminds us that it is past its prime.

Thankfully, the Arts and Sciences Council has announced a review of the Areas of Knowledge requirement. This is not a wholesale review; for now, the council only seeks to identify what issues, if any, ought to be resolved. This gives credibility to a long told administrative tale of a piecemeal curriculum review, slated to be conducted over several years and will likely include a review of the Modes of Inquiry requirement as well. This bodes well for a curriculum with problems that have become clearer with age.

This announcement comes on the tails of a still ongoing review of the Quantitative Studies curriculum code. The proposal—which would require students to take one QS requirement in a quantitative department—has been haggled over by the council since October, and has been in the works since 2010. Unfortunately, the council seems set on reciting the same arguments for it and against it. We hope the next review moves more purposefully.

The Arts and Sciences Council has not made clear how it intends to review the curriculum codes. Duke’s curriculum is neither overly strict nor too loose: It avoids the rigidity of a core curriculum and the latitude of an open one. But trying to balance these values will always take more work than letting either hold sway. Maintaining equilibrium means that the review must address the credibility of the curriculum requirements and come to grips with the courses that purport to meet those requirements.

A genuine review must do three things. First, it should determine whether or not the classifications designated by the Areas of Knowledge and Modes of Inquiry are meaningful and reflect the goals of the Trinity College of Arts and Sciences—we think they do. Second, it must outline with specificity the types of methods and knowledge each code represents, and make clear how they should be applied in actual courses.

Third—and this is by far the largest step—the review must audit courses that have been assigned curriculum codes. This step is critical to ensure that curriculum codes are being applied accurately. Auditing should start with course evaluations, which are completed by students at the end of a course, and should include questions based on which curriculum codes are applied to the course. These questions should reflect the wording of the criteria for each particular Area of Knowledge or Mode of Inquiry. Courses with evaluations that do not match their code designations can be flagged for a more rigorous audit, which could involve committee members attending class sessions or conducting focus groups with relevant students and faculty.

A true curriculum review can’t stop with codes; it has to address the actual courses students take. Many Duke courses are too easy or too hard—Computer Science 82 is a pushover, Math 31 is intimidating—and there is little in between. The solution here is not just reapplying old codes—it is crafting new courses.