UPPER/LOWER DIVISION: AN INITIAL PROPOSAL
How does it address much discussed needs?
This design would help students shape a whole interdisciplinary liberal arts education. It
strengthens avenues for gaining breadth (i.e., by studying across the curriculum) and
depth (by moving from introductory through advanced work in specific areas of interest).
The proposal supports planning unit-based and cross-unit collaborations: faculty would
decide the balance they want to strike between these modes of teaching.
Description
This design centers on two sets of distinctions: (1) between more broadly and tightly
focused interdisciplinary programs, and (2) between introductory-to-intermediate and
intermediate-to-advanced studies. Its key principle is that a rich mix of both kinds of
programs should be available at both stages of students’ educations. The curriculum
would thus feature four types of programs, which for purposes of discussion will be
named as follows: Core and Focus for introductory-to-intermediate (lower division)
studies, Area and Inter-area for intermediate-to-advanced (upper division) studies.
The Four Types of Programs
Across Planning Units
Within Planning Units
Lower Division
Core
Focus
Upper Division
Inter-area
Area
Core programs continue as broad explorations, predominantly for freshmen—but also
sophomores. Teams are broadly interdisciplinary, from more than one planning unit. (In
recent years, fewer than half of first-year seats in these programs have been taught by
faculty from more than one planning unit—see “Summary of Data” bearing on
Upper/Lower Division, attached.) The emphasis remains on study of a large issue, topic,
or set of questions, drawing on perspectives from multiple fields. In the course of these
inquiries, faculty (as now) introduce students to some essential features of those fields, so
that they begin to learn, say, to think like a biologist or see like a photographer. A twoquarter Core program would ground students in broad interdisciplinary thinking and
Evergreen learning communities, while leaving room for another Core or a Focus
program that year.
Focus programs give a new name and orientation for “entry-level,” mostly planning
unit-based work, involving allied fields. These programs would usually be taught by two
faculty. Most would be one-quarter. They would be aimed (as entry-level programs now
are) towards sophomores, but open to freshmen; and some juniors and seniors, including
transfers (even those with upside-down degrees) would be encouraged to take them to
gain foundational skills in particular areas. The idea is to widen students’ horizons and
prepare them for more advanced work through a series of immersions in different parts of
the curriculum. Ten intensive weeks of humanities, for example (with faculty trained,
say, in literature and philosophy) would prepare students for further work in humanities,
and serve equally well as an experience of humanities for those who don’t intend more
study in the area. For students concentrating in sciences or mathematics, where sequential
lower-division study is required prior to upper-division work, longer Focus programs
would be needed. Still, these students should have space to take at least one other Focus,
just as many other students would take a one-quarter science or math Focus.
Area programs, one to three-quarters long, taught (mostly, though not always) by
faculty from single planning units, are intermediate-to-advanced studies involving one or
more allied fields. Most of our upper-division curriculum already consists of programs of
this kind. The design proposed here should improve the depth of learning in many Area
programs, since more students would be better prepared for them through introductory/
intermediate studies beforehand. These programs (as now) would be open to sophomores
(and even the rare freshmen) who meet qualifications, with a faculty signature.
Inter-area programs, also for intermediate-to-advanced studies, one to three-quarters,
are formed across planning units. At present, broad interdivisional programs beyond Core
are mostly all-level; recalibrating them upward, this design would make them attractive
to a larger proportion of seniors. Current interest among faculty in cohorts and thematic
planning groups signifies a renewed emphasis on Inter-area programs. These offer
students the means of integrating a broad range of understanding regarding great issues,
problems, and questions, with advanced work on subjects of their choice.
Other modes of learning, of course, go in the design. Individual learning contracts,
internships, study abroad, and cluster contracts (groups of more or less closely
affiliated students working with a single faculty) would be done (as now) mostly as upper
division work. A senior project, carried out in the context of a program or independent
study, would be strongly encouraged as the capstone for students’ college careers. Fulltime programs offered for 12 (in some cases, 14) credits per quarter to allow for
additional work such as language study would be encouraged.
Feasibility
This idea for the curriculum does not ask faculty to change what, how, or with whom
they teach. Rather, it provides a terminology that translates distinctions we value into
meaningful developmental sequences for students. The right proportions among the four
types of programs would emerge from needs of students and interests of faculty. Faculty
would be able to move freely back and forth between upper and lower divisions, with the
choice at both levels to teach within or across planning units. Faculty workload would not
increase. (Faculty in quarter-long Focus programs, for example, could repeat their
syllabus if they wish.) Implementation would not overtax existing resources, calling
mainly for some reorganization of the catalogue, coordination through summer institutes,
and orientation for advising and admissions staff. The proposal requires collective faculty
agreement to commit to the structure for a reasonable trial period.