Editorial: Doubling Down on Triple Majors

Last week, we reported that the faculty voted to end triple and quadruple majors. Some reasons used to justify this include fears that students were not prioritizing breadth in their curriculums and were only taking on multiple majors to be more competitive for graduate schools and potential employers. However, the Board believes the new policy is the latest example of the college “solving” flawed systems by eliminating them entirely, as opposed to working towards meaningful compromises. By limiting student agency, the change indicates a larger distrust with the student body that goes against the independence an open curriculum promises.

We understand and sympathize with the faculty’s concern that students may be prioritizing prestige over the intrinsic value of a liberal arts education. Such actions contradict the college’s liberal arts philosophy: learning as an inherent value, clean from transactional needs. Moreover, the existence of both triple and double majors can create unhealthy pressure on other students to commit to multiple majors, even if it does not necessarily align with their own interests. While an increasingly competitive job market makes pursuing these credentials attractive, it is still important for us, as students, to reflect on our academic ambition: Why do we feel this need to “complete the major” instead of choosing courses that interest us? What will we prove? Will a third major accomplish what might be achievable with just two? At what point are we more focused on “gaming the system” than gaining an education?

However, pursuing multiple majors undoubtedly has value, allowing students to create their own niche in a school that offers a limited number of subjects. With no option for a data science degree, for instance, students at Amherst might instead pursue a plan of study combining statistics, mathematics, and computer science. By combining certain majors to “replace” a degree that Amherst lacks, students form their own path through the college. In addition, students often accumulate courses in unexpected subjects by taking the courses they find most interesting, intellectually fulfilling, or necessary for grad school applications. Oftentimes, classes across different disciplines are cross-listed, making this process easier. With enough time, students may have taken enough courses to have nearly completed multiple majors. This is what policies such as the open curriculum are for. This is what Amherst stands for.

In fact, what separates Amherst from many other liberal arts colleges such as Williams or even larger universities such as Princeton (which prohibits double majoring) is its flexible education model. The college has now spent several decades building its image as an institution where students are allowed to explore courses and take intellectual risks. Before then, Amherst was known for its rigorous New Curriculum, with many students complaining that they were forced to take courses they had no interest in. In committing to the open curriculum, Amherst is positioning itself as an institution that lets its students explore different subjects and “fall” into their majors, irrespective of depth. Moreover, Amherst’s willingness to participate in college rankings — unlike similar institutions like Colorado or Bard College — means it wants to attract ambitious students who might undertake multiple majors. These recent trends toward restricting academic flexibility suggest that the college is now trying to erase or renege on this identity, despite having highlighted triple majors just under a decade prior. The faculty must recognize that the institution they represent is not Reed, Yale or Columbia; they represent Amherst, and the elimination of triple majors could symbolically betray those who have sought this school out for its commitment to intellectual freedom.

Instead of ending triple majors, the college should add academic minors or concentrations, such as what Williams, Smith, and Holy Cross offer. The lack of minors can oftentimes feel frustrating for students, especially if they know they are interested in a department but lack the time or passion for a full major. While there is no experiential difference in having taken six courses versus having completed a minor or concentration, there is a difference for those who want recognition for their academic accomplishments and those who may need certain credentials for a job. Although taking courses for their intrinsic value is an admirable goal, by adopting an “all-or-nothing” accomplishment system, the current structure encourages students to tack-on majors. Providing minors would incentivize students to “stop early,” rather than pushing for a full major, and would likely reduce many students’ desire to triple major at all. We understand that the addition of academic minors poses its own set of issues, such as relegating certain departments to “secondary status,” but they would be far outweighed by the benefits of acknowledging students’ work in a field without requiring the high expectations of a major.

We want to reiterate that while we understand the faculty’s concerns for academic integrity — and urge the student body to reflect on their academic ambition — that does not translate to the college parenting our academic choices. Students come to Amherst for the flexibility its curriculum offers, and eliminating any level of academic freedom because a few “game” the system is antithetical to the college’s commitment to the liberal arts. How else will Amherst prepare its students “for leadership in an increasingly global and complex world” if it fails to trust them

Unsigned editorials represent the views of the majority of the Editorial Board (assenting: 8; dissenting: 1; abstaining: 1)