A “90-day sprint” to reimagine the American University Core curriculum is going to the Board of Trustees this Thursday and Friday for approval after professors voiced concerns during three discussions last month.
A committee titled the “Innovation and Experimentation in Education Programs” working group was formed in August. It proposed major changes: overhaul the Core to require business and artificial intelligence classes for all students; create a new three-year, 90-credit, nontraditional bachelor’s degree; and expand the AU Honors program.
The first of those major proposals has been described as a “90-day sprint” to overhaul the Core, with little official explanation of what that would entail. The initial goal was to redesign the curriculum in 90 days so it could be included in the upcoming 2026-2030 Strategic Plan, according to working group member Amanda Choutka, a senior professorial lecturer in the Department of Literature.
Under the proposed model, new students’ majors would consist of eight to 10 classes, or 24-30 credit hours — almost half the size of some current majors like International Studies. The same number of classes would be dedicated to “developing an entrepreneurial mindset in AU’s areas of strength (policy, international, STEM, business),” according to the group’s proposal.
It would include room for eight to 10 elective classes or a minor, two courses on professionalism and career readiness, five classes on business, sustainability and entrepreneurship and five on data science and artificial intelligence.
It is not clear if the changes would apply to current students. Generally, students’ degree structures are defined by the University Catalog from the year the student enters AU, according to the Undergraduate Academic Regulations.
On Sept. 30, Oct. 13 and Oct. 27, professors came in droves to express concerns about the proposal and discuss other ideas from the eight working groups tasked with advising administrators on the University’s next multi-year strategic plan. The planning process began at the start of 2025 and is now in its third stage, intending to launch a new strategic plan in January 2026.
The Board is reviewing a draft of the new strategic plan at its fall semester meeting, Nov. 13-14, Provost Vicky Wilkins said in an email to faculty last Friday. The plan is “the product of countless conversations across campus” and currently “offers a set of ‘pledges,’” but doesn’t include specifically how the University will achieve those goals, Wilkins wrote.
A pledge called “A Distinctive Curriculum” and an associated strategic initiative, known as “A Curricular Sprint and a Marathon,” that would work to implement the proposals, are going before the trustees for approval, Wilkins said in the email.
The 90-day sprint “will immediately update regulations, policies, and practices that currently slow student progress,” she said, continuing later: “The review process will emphasize exploration, simplicity, adaptability, inclusion, and experiential learning to make general education uniquely impactful.”
The work is not done for faculty, who have control of the curriculum through the Faculty Senate, and administrators. The University will form working groups, begin implementing the “pledges” and track the success of the changes, Wilkins wrote.
As higher education faces threats from the Trump administration and post-pandemic financial struggles, the University seems driven to separate itself from the pack and generate new revenue streams.
“AU is motivated by affordability concerns, workforce readiness, and flexibility,” the University wrote in a slideshow from the Sept. 29 discussion forum.
The three-year bachelor’s degree, titled “AU90,” aims to target career changers, public servants and veterans as well as traditional undergraduates, the slideshow says.
The University would also offer eight percent of the incoming class the opportunity to join Honors, guaranteeing recipients a three-year bachelor’s and one-year master’s program. The Innovation and Experimentation group also proposed vocational programs like hospitality, emergency management and sports performance.
A ‘real bad idea,’ or an ‘urgent need’?
Numerous professors worry that the proposal, if implemented, would chip away at AU’s liberal arts foundation, according to interviews with faculty as well as documents and emails reviewed by The Eagle.
Biology professor John Bracht, president of AU’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, told The Eagle after the Sept. 29 session that he thought the proposal was “half-baked at best.”
“Our value proposition — and there’s entrepreneurship for you — is to be a liberal arts university in D.C.,” Bracht said. “A lot of the document sounded like it didn’t understand the Core because it was written by one person on one committee and taken up. So now we’re all seeing it and thinking these are bad ideas.”
Bracht and Choutka both expressed concerns about the speed at which the University wanted to move.
The “90-day sprint” timeline was Wilkins’ idea, Choutka told The Eagle. Wilkins “stressed that if folks weren't on board with the 90-day timeline and the changes, they would not happen,” Choutka said. “She also explained, if we weren't on board with the 90-day aspect, then we could go through the usual two to three year process.”
Bracht called the timeline a “real bad idea.” In the meeting, he said he “was not satisfied with answers given.”
The working group’s recommendation did not include the 90-day timeline, but emphasized a need to move quickly.
“The most important potential risk is not moving fast enough due to entrenched or ill-informed stakeholders,” said the Innovation and Experimentation Working Group’s recommendations, though some faculty charged that the proposals’ creator was not fully informed about the Core.
Choutka said she asked the proposal’s creator, Kogod School of Business professor and Director of the Veloric Center for Entrepreneurship Tommy White, whether he had thoroughly examined the existing Core. White said his thoughts had been “taken over” by revisions after the working group’s recommendations were submitted.
“He admitted he had not looked at the Core website,” she said. “He wasn't familiar with the course descriptions, and then explained this was based on student feedback, and his colleagues in Kogod's feedback on AU Core and their belief that students weren’t getting jobs from this.”
In an email to History Department Chair Max Paul Friedman that was obtained by The Eagle, Wilkins acknowledged that the proposals “have struck many as alarming or at least a bridge too far.”
Friedman declined to comment for this story and said his involvement was “limited to encouraging faculty to speak up about the process.”
Wilkins said in the email she was “uncomfortable” with some recommendations, but that they “have been helpful in reinforcing an urgent need to rethink our Core.” She also wrote that the University, from the start, “committed to taking the working group recommendations seriously and making them publicly available even as we worked on refinements.”
Bracht said he thought there were likely pressures to quickly implement the plan from the Board of Trustees, who “often don’t fully understand liberal arts in a way that faculty do. As faculty, this is problematic.”
Bracht acknowledged some problems with the Core but said he thought it was in an overall good state. He specifically took issue with a requirement to take AI classes and the proposal’s “de-emphasis on liberal arts.”
The Oct. 13 discussion focused on a road map for a 90-day period of identifying “low-hanging fruit,” such as regulations or practices that can be quickly changed, Wilkins said in an Oct. 10 email to faculty.
The Oct. 27 meeting took place over Zoom to accommodate staff and faculty who couldn’t come to campus for the other sessions.
Selective student feedback
The University celebrated the engagement from the discussion sessions and indicated it would change the proposals based on community feedback.
“The working sessions on the community, curriculum, and curiosity areas provided outstanding discussion and ideas,” Vice President and Chief Communications Officer Matt Bennett said in a statement sent through an unnamed spokesperson.
Bennett said the community will develop the road maps for that work and work to advance “immediate opportunities” to create those changes.
“Working with urgency in this and all areas is part of our commitment to meet student needs and adapt to the rapidly changing world,” the statement continued.
The Innovation and Experimentation Working Group consisted of two faculty representatives from Kogod, two School of Public Affairs faculty, one representative from each of the other schools, three staff members, two undergraduates and one graduate student.
Alyssa Guevara, a senior in SPA, told The Eagle in an email that she was asked to participate, but was not involved “due to prior commitments.” Michael McGee-McCoy, a junior in CAS, confirmed he attended and said in an email that he felt the working group sessions were productive. The graduate student declined to comment.
With the ongoing planning process, some students were selected for the preliminary working groups, but for the feedback phase. Only faculty and staff were invited to the discussion sessions in September and October.
Vice President of Student Affairs Raymond Ou and Dean of Undergraduate Education and Academic Student Services Bridget Trogden wrote in a statement sent through a spokesperson that they received the feedback from students on the Core curriculum. But, Assistant Vice President and Deputy Chief Communications Officer Elizabeth Deal said only some students were selected to give feedback.
Ou has led two feedback sessions with student leaders — namely from Student Government — and said he has received direct feedback about the curriculum.
“As I speak with students engaged with the strategic planning process, we solicit input from students and plan to do so as the faculty considers a new Core,” Ou said in the statement.
Trogden said that she regularly meets with students to discuss the undergraduate curriculum, identify issues and gather data to address them.
“The strategic plan allows us a chance to accelerate these efforts in lowering any unnecessary barriers to students receiving a degree,” Trogden said in the statement. “The student voice is central to the process.”
Trogden also founded the Council on Undergraduate Education to serve, she said, to explore areas of improvement in the curriculum.
The council regularly includes participation from members of SG and the Undergraduate Senate’s Student Rights and Academic Services Committee. Feedback from these students is incorporated into undergraduate academic strategic planning.
There is also an SG representative on the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee of the Faculty Senate, according to Trogden.
There are dozens of proposals still on the table as the University reviews its upcoming strategic plan, from topics like infrastructure and alumni relations to inclusion. The University has said it will host discussion sessions for student feedback, but those have yet to be scheduled.
Bracht underscored that curriculum changes must be approved by the Faculty Senate.
“It’s not the administration’s role to dictate what the curriculum is,” he said, continuing later: “The faculty have control of the curriculum. That is the faculty’s domain and we’re not willing to give that up. And to be clear, I don’t think she [Wilkins] wants us to give that up.”
Sophie Milner-Gorvine, Olivia Wood and Ella Altman contributed reporting.
This article was edited by Cara Halford, Abigail Hatting and Walker Whalen. Copy editing done by Sabine Kanter-Huchting, Ariana Kavoossi, Avery Grossman, Audrey Smith and Ava Stuzin. Fact-checking done by Aidan Crowe.
