Charles Bailyn
Dean of the Faculty
A Liberal Arts Curriculum for the 21st Century:
Implications for Established Research Universities
 Introducing Yale-NUS College, a newly founded residential
liberal arts college in Singapore. Why this now?
 Curriculum Development: Process and Results
 Reflections and Implications
Yale-NUS College
 “An autonomous institution within the National University of
Singapore” – not a Yale branch campus
 Child of two parents…
 Governing Board: half Yale appointees, half NUS
 Funded by the Singapore Ministry of Education
 Leadership from Yale, NUS and elsewhere
 Separate faculty (tenured and tenure track)
 Campus adjacent to NUS
 Opening in August 2013 with 150 students and 50 faculty members
 Students >50% from Singapore (full financial aid for international
students)
 Faculty ~½ from US, ~¼ from S’pore (incl PRs), ~¼ other
 Eventual size: 1000 students and 100 faculty
Yale-NUS College
Yale-NUS College Curriculum Development
 A true blank slate! (NOT a branch campus…)
 In the past year, 3 dozen Yale-NUS faculty worked together
in New Haven in an “incubation year” to consider a liberal
arts curriculum for a global institution in the 21st century.
 Curriculum report “A New Community of Learning”
available on-line (google “Yale-NUS curriculum report”)
or hard copy from me
-
A new residential liberal arts college? Why??
A new residential liberal arts college? Why??
 In New Haven in 1828: The two great points to be gained in
an intellectual culture are the discipline and the furniture of
the mind; expanding its powers, and storing it with
knowledge. – Jeremiah Day in the “Yale Report”
A new residential liberal arts college? Why??
 In New Haven in 1828: The two great points to be gained in
an intellectual culture are the discipline and the furniture of
the mind; expanding its powers, and storing it with
knowledge. – Jeremiah Day in the “Yale Report”
A new residential liberal arts college? Why??
 In New Haven in 1828: The two great points to be gained in
an intellectual culture are the discipline and the furniture of
the mind; expanding its powers, and storing it with
knowledge. – Jeremiah Day in the “Yale Report”
 In the 21st century, “furniture” (=information) is readily
available to all; but “discipline” is more important than ever
 A “Community of Learning” featuring “Articulate
Communication”
Articulate Communication
 Writing, speaking, visualization
 Formal and informal, many modes
 To varied audiences
 Teachers
 Peers and team members
 “Students”
 Public at large
 Applies to faculty also!
Something to talk about – the Common Curriculum
 Arguments for a CC, as opposed to a distribution system
 Creates an intellectual community – for students and
faculty
 Avoids silos and student comfort zones
 Distinguishes between broad education and a series of
introductions to disciplines
 Broader than traditional “core” curricula
 Embedding non-western traditions from the start
 Including the social sciences and the sciences
Something to talk about – the Common Curriculum
 Coverage vs. Representation: the canon vs. the bullpen
 The problem of coherent juxtapositions
 Monolithic
 Dialogic
 Thematic
 Instructor autonomy
 Added material or projects
 Segmented courses
 Preparation vs completion – a first course, or a last?
Yale-NUS Curriculum: Common Curriculum
Year 1:
 Literature and Humanities I, II
 Philosophy & Political Thought I, II
 Scientific Inquiry (1st semester)
 Comparative Social Institutions (1st semester)
 Quantitative Reasoning (2nd semester)
 (Integrated Science) (2nd semester)
Year 2:
 Modern Social Thought (1st semester)
 Integrated Science (x2) or Foundations of Science (x2)
Year 3 or 4:
 Historical Immersion
 Current Issues
Yale-NUS Curriculum: Common Curriculum
Year 1:
 Literature and Humanities I, II
 Philosophy & Political Thought I, II
 Scientific Inquiry (1st semester)
 Comparative Social Institutions (1st semester)
 Quantitative Reasoning (2nd semester)
 (Integrated Science) (2nd semester)
Year 2:
 Modern Social Thought (1st semester)
 Integrated Science (x2) or Foundations of Science (x2)
Year 3 or 4:
 Historical Immersion
 Current Issues
Yale-NUS Curriculum: Comparative Social Institutions
Topics:
 Culture and Thought
 Markets
 Religion
 Family
 City
 Polity & Regime
 Race & Ethnicity
Approaches:
 Multiple Disciplines
 Lectures
 Contextualized Readings
 Visualizations (Maps & Charts)
 Experiments and Games
 Discussions
 Reports: Written, Oral, Pictorial
Yale-NUS Curriculum: Electives
 Pure electives
 Arts
 Skills
 Others
 Outside courses
 NUS courses
 Other institutions
 Courses toward a minor
 Courses within another major
 Additional courses in the major
Yale-NUS Curriculum: Majors and Minors
 NO DISCIPLINARY DEPARTMENTS!
 Categories of majors/minors
 Traditional disciplines (History, Philosophy, Economics,
Psychology, Anthropology)
 Broader paths (Literature, Life Sci, Phys Sci,
Math/Comp)
 Interdisciplinary (Arts & Hum, PPE, Env Studies, Urban
Studies, Global Affairs)
 Capstone projects: not necessarily purely academic,
communicated to various audiences
Reflections on Traditional Research Universities
Question: why couldn’t one simply do all this at Yale (or similar
institutions)?
(With apologies for texty slides!)
Reflections on Traditional Research Universities: 1
Most existing curricula are the sum over decisions by
individuals and departments. The curriculum is “owned” by
the faculty, but not collectively. Collective action is often
viewed as an administrative incursion into faculty autonomy –
and there is some truth in this. Alumni also represent a force
for stasis. Evolution at the systemic level is therefore very
difficult. As far as I can tell, no university has significantly
changed the broad structure of its undergraduate curriculum in
many years, although there are significant differences between
institutions.
Reflections on Traditional Research Universities: 2
Research vs teaching is a problem, but not as usually
construed. It’s not a matter of the time budget of individuals,
but of institutional structures such as disciplinary departments
and distribution systems. Many of these arose from the “Eliot
compromise” which enabled liberal arts colleges to co-exist
with research universities. By the implicit terms of this
compromise, faculty could do research and teach on whatever
they like. The justification for undergraduate education in this
model rests largely on proximity to expertise, which is
becoming much less important.
Reflections on Traditional Research Universities: 3
There has traditionally been no path to prominence through
teaching. In research, faculty can aspire to prominence
demonstrated by prizes and recognition within their discipline.
The relevant community of judgment is located outside any
particular educational institution. Those interested in
university service (aka administration) can aspire to a variety
of leadership positions, with their associated psychic and
material rewards. But it is hard to identify such a track for
those interested in prominence in pedagogy and teaching.
Recently, a new possibility has arisen, namely “MOOC gurus”,
which pushes directly against the values of on-campus
“articulate communication”.
Possible Paths Forward
 Two-tiered faculty, one attuned to the broadly-distributed
community of judgment of research, one attuned to local
pedagogical priorities. BAD TRACK RECORD! (e.g. post-war
Japan).
 “University Teaching Professors”
 Given “research relief” (= $$)
 Additional undergraduate teaching
 Real control over significant portions of undergraduate
curriculum
 Must be seen as representing the faculty
 Give up on the Eliot compromise
More To Come!