The University plans to completely overhaul the undergraduate core curriculum in less than 90 days, slashing majors to as few as eight classes, mandating five courses each in business and artificial intelligence and potentially replacing the liberal arts foundation that distinguishes American University from other universities in D.C.
The Board of Trustees reviewed this proposal at their mid-November meeting, and, if approved, these changes could reshape what it means to be an American University student.
The proposal, which originated from a single Kogod School of Business professor on the Innovation and Experimentation working group, has raised alarm bells among faculty who worry it undermines the University’s identity as a liberal arts institution. More troubling is how few students have been consulted in a process that could fundamentally alter their education.
The working group’s “Big Bet 1” would reimagine the traditional 120-credit undergraduate degree: 8-10 courses in a major (about half the current number), 8-10 electives or a minor, five business courses, five AI courses and two career-readiness classes. The proposal specifically states it aims to make AU students “career ready,” so employers say, “Wow — I’ll hire them!”
The current core curriculum — built around Habits of Mind and Complex Problems — has room for improvement. But the system works, and it provides exactly what a liberal arts education should: exploration across topics, critical thinking skills and the freedom to discover unexpected passions within classes.
Editorial board members spoke passionately about classes they never would have taken without the Habits of Mind requirements — ARTS-240 Artist’s Perspect: Printmaking, GOVT-425 Jazz & Civil Rights Movement, EDU-280 Social Justice & Urban Education — courses that opened new perspectives and interests. Isn’t that the entire point?
According to the working group’s own documentation, the proposal’s creator, Kogod School of Business Senior professorial lecturer and director of the Veloric Center for Entrepreneurship Tommy White, admitted to College of Arts and Sciences senior professorial lecturer Amanda Choutka that he hadn’t thoroughly examined the existing core or reviewed course descriptions. His ideas were based primarily on employer surveys and anecdotal feedback from Kogod faculty and students — hardly a comprehensive foundation on which to reimagine the University’s entire academic identity.
The working group’s recommendation acknowledges that “the most important potential risk is not moving fast enough due to entrenched or ill-informed stakeholders.” This dismissive framing suggests that faculty and students who value liberal arts education are obstacles to be overcome rather than essential voices to be heard in the design of a university curriculum.
Provost Vicky Wilkins insisted on the rushed 90-day timeline, according to The Eagle, reportedly saying that if faculty weren’t on board with the speed, the changes wouldn’t happen. But this creates a false choice between overhauling the University’s core in three months or maintaining the status quo with no improvements. Those are not the only options.
The last core revision occurred in 2018, following extensive community input. The two before that were in 2009 and 1989. Curricular changes of this magnitude typically take years of careful deliberation. There’s no such justification for ramming through such sweeping changes in three months.
The lack of meaningful student consultation makes this worse. The Innovation and Experimentation working group included only two undergraduates: Alyssa Guevara, who confirmed to The Eagle she was invited but couldn’t participate due to prior commitments, and Michael McGee-McCoy, who attended meetings. One graduate student, Emma Diehl, also participated but declined to comment.
For the feedback phase, only faculty and staff were invited to the discussion sessions in September and October. The University scheduled its first general student feedback session on Nov. 19, following its proposal presentation to trustees. Regular students had no structured opportunity to weigh in through surveys, town halls or other inclusive means before the proposal was given to the trustees.
It’s difficult to ignore that this proposal emerged from Kogod, which operates separately from other schools in fundraising and recently partnered with Perplexity to provide “cutting-edge AI tools to all students, staff, and faculty.” Five required business courses and five required AI courses would drive significant enrollment to Kogod offerings — a convenient outcome for a school that already has the resources to expand in these areas.
The proposal offers no plan for the University to actually deliver 10 required business and AI courses to every undergraduate student without massive new investments that the University cannot afford, given its current deficit.
If the University wants to add a Habit of Mind focused on digital literacy or business, that’s a worthwhile investment. Redeveloping Encounters to better incorporate career-readiness could address concerns without fully gutting academic programming. Hiring more full-time faculty to teach core courses would improve quality and create mentorship relationships that students value.
But an entire transformation of AU’s academic identity driven by one person’s vision, employer surveys and, seemingly, Kogod’s funding priorities, deserves more than 90 days and a handful of meetings.
The Faculty Senate has control over the curriculum, and it needs to exercise it. If changes are necessary, they should come through the normal review process with comprehensive student and faculty input.
The Board should recognize that rushing such fundamental changes risks damaging the University’s academic reputation and student experience for future generations of Eagles. If the proposal can’t withstand scrutiny over a normal timeline, that’s a sign it needs more work, not that it should be rushed through anyway.
AU students, present and future, deserve better than to be sidelined while administrators and a single working group member reimagine their education. Before the University commits to this transformation, it needs to answer the basics. What problem is this solving? Why can’t it be solved through improvements to the existing core? Is chasing employer preferences in 2025 really worth sacrificing what has made AU special for decades?
The University keeps asking what should make AU distinctive, but the answer is already here: a liberal arts education in the nation’s capital, where students develop critical thinking skills and have opportunities to explore their passions. That’s worth preserving, and it’s worth much more than 90 days of consideration.
This piece was written by Alana Parker and edited by Quinn Volpe and Walker Whalen. Copy editing done by Sabine Kanter-Huchting, Arin Burrell, Paige Caron and Andrew Kummeth. Fact-checking done by Aidan Crowe.
