Balancing the Curriculum (2011 Strategic Plan)

We have a strong commitment to address unsustainable workloads in high-demand areas, and we also seek to develop a plan to strategically balance the curriculum of the College for the future. We consider the arts and sciences to be essential and exciting components of a liberal arts education. Both areas require up-to-date resources and workspaces to offer students and faculty opportunities for creative discovery and innovation. We want to find ways to move forward in both directions, supporting the needs of the arts and humanities, where a lot of current student demand manifests itself, and developing the sciences to further attract a diverse group of students. In addition, we recommend that the College support and develop those programs that create bridges between the arts, sciences, and technology and develop their synergistic potential, such as the Lemelson Center (Design and Fabrication Center) and DART (Design, Art and Technology).

Comments
Please include your thoughts on the importance of the initiative, how to frame the issue, things that may be missing, and any additional comments here (you can do so by logging into Hampedia and clicking edit):

(Please edit the above statement:)


 * "We consider the arts and sciences to be essential and exciting components of a liberal arts education" to read "We consider the arts, humanities, social sciences and sciences to be equally essential and exciting components of a liberal arts education." As is, it reads as if the arts and sciences are the only areas that are essential and exciting. Karen Koehler
 * I think the above edit vastly improves the statement, although it might be clearer to say something to disengage the Humanities from the arts in the second sentence, since the arts and the humanities are different in training, in disciplines, and in their role in the liberal arts. Mary Russo
 * In terms of balancing the curriculum, the Humanities are underrepresented in terms of numbers and resources. Usually, the core of a liberal arts College, they are hardly mentioned except with the arts. They are not the same as the arts. They require spaces for offices, lectures, and seminars. WE need an Humanities Center. The arts have their own particular needs ,but they are not identical with philosophy, literature, religion, history, art history or cultural studies. Please make it clear what "both directions" are. We are neither in the direction of "science" nor of art-making.
 * I would just re-emphasize the need to strengthen the sciences at Hampshire. Although it may not reflect the work that they actually have to do, the descriptions of the positions of faculty within HACU and CSI indicate a high degree of specialization, unlike in the CS and NS departments, where a small number of teachers seem to have to deal with very broad subjects (although this is also is true of music, writing, and the arts). Also, Hampshire is already known as a humanities and arts college, so in regards to allocating our resources to expand our appeal, it would make sense to take a look at the sciences. Of course, it is also important to strengthen all programs that are struggling. Also, I personally would like to see more philosophers at Hampshire, to better reflect current trends and anticipate future trends in American philosophy. As an analytic philosophy student, I am frustrated by the lack of analytic philosophy courses (due to the lack of analytic philosophy teachers) and the perception I've encountered of Hampshire as a school which does not do analytic philosophy. Devin Morse
 * I agree with everything said so far, but I'd like to add that it's not just certain departments that get a disproportionate number of students, but certain faculty, who are wonderful in so many ways, but who get stretched a bit thin. I think that what's needed is not just a change in curriculum, but a change in the way that students are placed with advisers. Ellen Green
 * I am unclear as to what is meant by "balancing the curriculum." The first sentence in these comments points to how this point of strategic planning is really focused solely on the arts and (natural and cognitive, I assume) sciences- why I am not sure. I think it needs to be restated why these two particular areas or schools need to be given more attention at this time in order to "balance the curriculum." As has been stated, all of the areas of study need attention and further collaboration/integration of work. -Ilana Rossoff, F08
 * I agree with Karen Koehler's edit in the first comment, except that I would question using the term "social science" when our former School of Social Science (now CSI) recently rejected that label. It's not really clear to me how this initiative differs from Resource Planning (2011 Strategic Plan) .  Rebecca Thomas, F'07
 * I think this goal lacks substance. Hampshire will never be able to provide everything its students want, because we provide a special form of education, not specialization in certain academic areas. I stopped taking courses at Hampshire in my second year - and there's nothing wrong with that. That being said, devising ways to map out curricular needs holistically, not only intra-Hampshire but more strategically taking into consideration the Five Colleges and shifting student needs, is very important. However, this goal voices that need (in a less than ideal fashion, I agree with some of the above comments), without giving any meaningful hints at how it intends to address the issue. I could be in complete support or in complete opposition, depending on how the college intends to go about "balancing" the curriculum. - Ananda Valenzuela