THE DUKE RESPONSE

Recognizing the importance of the curriculum in establishing the educational agenda for Duke, Dean William H. Chafe set a review of the undergraduate curriculum as the major 1997-98 Arts and Sciences priority. This initiative arose in response to a variety of factors. First, the University underwent a year of planning discussions in preparation for its 1997 reaccreditation review by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. As a part of this review, faculty from across the university met for over a year to discuss the theme Balancing the Role of the Research University, and an undergraduate subcommittee focused on issues, such as writing and independent research, germane to the undergraduate curriculum. Augmenting these efforts were ongoing cycles of external department reviews and a series of reviews and discussions of the University Writing Program.

These factors were accompanied by cumulative modifications to the 1986 curriculum. The 1986 curriculum report Structure and Choice in Liberal Education became effective in Fall 1988, but components, such as relatedness and the number of courses required for the major, were modified with the 1993 review. Additional changes were adopted in subsequent Arts and Sciences Council actions: for example, the first-year seminar requirement was approved in 1994.

Another factor was the increasing tendency for students to omit certain areas of knowledge: a study prepared for our committee by Duke's Office of Institutional Research reveals that at least 47% of 1996/7 graduating seniors entirely omitted one area of knowledge (19% of seniors omitted foreign language, 10% omitted quantitative reasoning, 13% omitted natural sciences, 3% omitted civilizations, 2% omitted social sciences, and 0% arts and literature). Trends suggest that foreign languages are being increasingly omitted and that, after a sharp rise in the omission of natural sciences and quantitative reasoning, further increases have slowed somewhat. Appendix/Link 2 provides five graphic representations of ten-year trends in course omission.

In fact, faculty themselves were recognizing new curricular needs. In recent years, the Duke faculty have shown a willingness and capacity to enhance the curriculum through new courses, new programs and alignment of courses, and new emphases within courses. Most telling in this respect, is the FOCUS program, Duke's signature program for first-year students which clustered seminar experiences around interdisciplinary themes. Other significant changes have occurred with innovations in majors, programs, and certificates, such as Biology, Women's Studies, and Markets and Management. In addition, there has been a significant increase in faculty participation in first-year seminars and capstone courses. Thus, there appears to be widespread internal momentum for faculty innovation in teaching and curricular development.

These observations intersect with a another substantively important issue: the 1986 curriculum, and how students were using it, was becoming increasingly out of step with the world around us. The increasing pace of change, the growing fragmentation of knowledge, the increased frequency and intensity of encounters with other cultures, and the growing complexity of ethical choices argue for a curriculum which would be better adapted for preparing students for such a world. Perhaps ironically, what these considerations underline was the enhanced value of the qualities fostered by a liberal arts education in a world too often focused on pre-professionalism and technological training. Indeed, a strong liberal arts education is essential to assure that our students have the breadth of knowledge and skills and intellectual flexibility to prepare them to be leaders in their professions and communities and to have satisfying intellectual and personal lives.

Cumulatively, the changes in the world in which universities operate and for which they prepare their students, coupled with the piecemeal changes in the current curriculum and the interest of faculty, signaled a propitious moment for curricular review. What was needed was a comprehensive assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current curriculum and an integrated vision for the years ahead.

In September 1997, Dean Chafe appointed a Curriculum Review Committee, chaired by Peter Lange (Political Science) and including Anne Allison (Cultural Anthropology), Robert Bryant (Mathematics), Alvin Crumbliss (Chemistry), David Ferriero (University Librarian), Julian Harris (Honor Council), Nancy Hewitt (History), Karla Holloway (English), Stephen Jaffe (Music), Benjamin Kennedy (Duke Student Government), Robert Thompson (Trinity College), Lee Willard (Trinity College), and Ellen Wittig (Trinity College). Dean Chafe's charge for the committee revolved around six issues:

  • whether to move back to a core curriculum requiring all students to engage in all basic domains (humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences) of knowledge
  • whether, in a world of increasing complexity and cultural interchange, to require students to be exposed to a diversity of world cultures
  • whether to ensure that all Duke graduates are familiar with the principles of science and the scientific way of addressing intellectual problems
  • whether, in a world that depends on international communication, to re-institute a foreign language requirement
  • how to improve the University Writing Program
  • how to enhance the senior experience of our students through capstone courses and independent research

As expressly stated in the charge to the committee, Dean Chafe emphasized that he did not seek a curriculum that imitated that of other universities. Rather, what he sought was a curriculum that would draw from our own traditions and speak on our own behalf as a premier educational institution. These issues were underscored in a November 1997 letter from the Provost published in the Faculty Forum which supported the agenda proposed by Dean Chafe and offered different models for the flow of the undergraduate curriculum and the strengthening, in particular, of the first and senior college years.

Next: GUIDING PRINCIPLES