Prior to my arrival on College Hill, I spent the summer excitedly scrolling Courses@Brown, inspired by the hundreds of classes offered across disciplines. When September rolled around, I had my exact schedule planned out with my most desired classes. I knew what I wanted and was prepared to begin my academic journey with the right amount of structured exploration. When Academic Advising Day arrived, though, I was only able to successfully register for half of the classes I had hoped to take. Following the guidance of my advisors — and motivated by my desire to win the game of course registration — I was convinced that I would be able to get into these classes through sheer commitment and force of will. But the more I thought about it, I realized that this competitive mentality negated the very reason that I chose Brown.
While some competition is inevitable during registration season — classes are often capped, and for good reason — there are practices that mitigate and exacerbate this culture. Recently, some professors have been addressing overflowing course demand by instituting quizzes or requirements like writing samples to determine who gets — or, perhaps, deserves — a spot in courses with limited space. This strategy rewards students with the most prior knowledge by granting enrollment to those with the highest test scores or most impressive applications and subsequently boxes out students with less experience who are looking to expand their horizons. Other professors have opted for lottery systems, which randomly admit students, sometimes with weighting for factors like class year or concentration. To me, the aptitude-based admissions approach does not align with Brown’s fundamental academic ideology, which emphasizes exploration and intellectual curiosity.
When professors use entrance quizzes or applications rather than lotteries to select students for their courses, they risk turning their classrooms into spaces reserved for only those who demonstrate the most aptitude with the material, rather than all students who are eager to learn the topic. This shifts the Brown educational environment from a space that promotes discovery into one of competition, contradicting a flaw in higher education that Brown’s Open Curriculum attempts to challenge.
I don’t blame professors for turning to evaluative enrollment. Brown has long struggled with limited classroom space, which has been compounded by room closures following the Dec. 13 mass shooting. With 68% of courses at Brown capped at fewer than 20 students, not everyone is always going to be able to enroll in the courses they want. These small classes are necessary to foster intimate, discussion-based learning environments, but these environments are inherently selective. This creates a problem both for students who seek admission to the classes they are excited for and professors who ultimately cannot accept everyone.
But this pressure can’t lead us to sacrifice our core values, especially when there are alternative solutions that better fit Brown’s needs. Brown’s open curriculum is based on the idea that students should have the freedom to explore their academic interests across disciplines, including within subjects they have never studied before. Policies such as the Satisfactory/No Credit option further encourage students to take academic risks beyond their academic background without worrying so much about their grades. These principles emphasize that Brown courses are not just spaces for students to demonstrate their prior knowledge, but also opportunities to embrace the study of topics they have never encountered.
Expecting students to demonstrate proficiency in a subject matter they have not formally studied, even if it builds on prior learning in subjects like math or biology, fundamentally opposes a basic principle of learning: students can not be expected to enter every classroom as experts. In her 2025 Convocation address, President Christina Paxson P’19 P’MD’20 encouraged students to shop at least one course outside of their area of expertise, even if they were unsure of their ability to succeed. Requiring students to pass quizzes or submit applications to enroll in such courses undermines that very philosophy by turning opportunities for intellectual exploration into tests of prior knowledge.
Of course, advanced classes may require previous coursework or foundational knowledge. But these requirements are clearly stated before registration, rather than sprung on students during shopping period. Prerequisites listed on Courses@Brown ensure that students will be able to engage with higher-level material, and I fully support these metrics. In addition, for subjects such as languages, placement assessments allow students to determine which level best suits their background. Similarly, for some STEM subjects such as chemistry, students are invited to complete self-assessments before course registration. These tools empower students to evaluate their own ability and make informed decisions about their course enrollment, rather than forcing professors to serve as gatekeepers who determine whether students are qualified to pursue their academic interests. If a professor thinks their class is better suited for more experienced students like concentrators or upperclassmen, those details can be established during pre-registration. In courses where prerequisites are not clearly defined or critical, students shouldn’t have to prove their merits through last-minute tests.
Rather than asking students to compete for a spot by demonstrating their merit, a lottery or similarly randomized system would allow them to move on in a timely manner, explore other interests and learn to navigate disappointment. Brown’s Literary Arts department, for example, employs a lottery system for its introductory and intermediate level courses, meaning that registration is completely random. This system allows students to immediately know whether or not they are admitted into a course, or at least to be aware of their position on the waitlist.
The university must also ensure that course instructors provide transparent enrollment policies, whether by using waitlists, lotteries or by relying on the randomness of Courses@Brown. Shopping period can often be frustrating because it is full of uncertainty: students are left guessing who a professor will prioritize when determining their class rosters. Clearly stated enrollment policies would replace this ambiguity with a predictable process, allowing students to make informed decisions about their schedules instead of spending shopping period navigating a confusing system. Limited classroom space is a real problem that needs to be addressed, but in the case of course admission, it is not a justification for turning access to education into an academic audition.
By asking students to demonstrate what they already know instead of giving them the opportunity to learn something new, entrance quizzes and applications undermine students’ freedom to pursue their interests. We have already earned our place at Brown. We should not have to prove ourselves all over again just to explore the subjects that interest us.
Ary Hammerman ’30 can be reached at ary_hammerman@brown.edu. Please send responses to this column to letters@browndailyherald.com and other opinions to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
Leave a Reply