By Miette Deschenes
A new system called Paths of Study has been introduced at The Evergreen State College (TESC) this year. Paths of Study, as described on TESC’s website, are “[a] sequence of programs in a particular broad subject area that have been planned out four years into the future.” Paths of Study (or Paths for short) are a list of classes in an area of study that students can use as a guide for what classes to take in order to achieve their desired degree. They are intended to be a framework that students can follow, if they choose, to create a clear path to achieve a degree that is comparable to another school, or to prepare them for further study outside of TESC.
Paths are not majors, but they are a more structured guideline than typically applied at TESC. They are not mandatory and students do not need to sign up in order to join them.
There are currently 11 areas of emphasis with Paths and more are in development. One example is the Environmental Studies Path. This Path, as written on TESC’s website, begins with “Exploratory” programs for freshmen. The suggested programs are Environmental and Gender Studies or any programs that combine arts and sciences. The next phase is “Foundational” programs, typically for sophomores through seniors, such as Integrated Natural Sciences, General Biology, and Introduction to Environmental Studies. These are prerequisites for the “Advanced” programs, such as The Fungal Kingdom, Marine Biodiversity, and Environmental Analysis, which are typically reserved for juniors and seniors. This Path would provide students who know they want to get a degree in Environmental Studies with a centralized list of potential classes they could take.It would also help students with long-term planning, so they know which programs are foundational and which are advanced.
“What Paths attempt to do is to support navigating what is often a complicated and hard to understand curriculum,” Dr. Krishna Chowdary, one of the faculty members involved in creating the Paths, told the Cooper Point Journal. “As they’re currently implemented, they are a framework.”
Dr. Chowdary said that the Paths were implemented as a response to what students have been indirectly asking for since TESC opened in 1967. “[Students] will say things like, ‘I can’t see how what I’m doing matters’… or they’ll say, ‘I can’t see how to do advanced work in the area that I’m interested in,’” he said when asked about the inspiration for Paths. “[We] had heard what students were saying and we were trying to figure out…a good way to implement this. And so other ways that this manifests is when we look at the reasons that students don’t stay at Evergreen.”
According to Dr. Chowdary, one of the most common reasons students leave TESC is that they cannot see how to do the work they want to do, even if it is offered, because that information is difficult to access or understand. Dr. Chowdary got this data from the Standing Committee on the Curriculum, a task force that annually reviews the curriculum and student data. The Standing Committee on the Curriculum started collecting student data around 2015 to determine student needs. This led to the inspiration for Paths, which intend to reduce confusion and, in Dr. Chowdary’s words, are “trying for transparency and navigability while also trying to preserve maximum student choice” by making information about possible programs and trajectories more accessible and understandable to students.
The Paths were initially intended to be rolled out as pilot programs. Dr. Chowdary recounted how the original plan was for Paths to be an opt in experiment for faculty. A few Paths would be developed and implemented, and after a few years, data would be collected, Paths would be adjusted, and more would be introduced. That plan was changed almost instantly. All faculty are now contractually obligated to be affiliated with a Path.
The creation of Paths was funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. As described in an article on TESC’s website, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation invested $800,000 in the Paths of Study project. Dr. Chowdary explained that the Mellon Grant was initially a small amount of money to fund the pilot program, and was then increased to allow faculty to finish development and implementation. A large amount of the grant was used to compensate faculty for the time and work they were putting into the Paths of Study project. This work included designing Paths and creating foundational programs to ensure standard options for students. The rest of the money was set aside for students. It is intended to be used to help students attend conferences or study abroad in subjects related to their area of emphasis or path of study. A process for students to access this money has not been officially implemented yet, but it is in development and there will be some kind of faculty sponsorship requirement.
Student reactions to the Paths have been mixed. While some students are aware of their existence, most are unsure of how they work or what they really are, and when asked about their opinions of Paths, some had never heard of them at all. A contributing factor to this confusion is the lack of accessible information about Paths. A page describing Paths was recently added to TESC’s website, but before this addition, the only definition of Paths was on the Fields of Study homepage. They were described as “a sequence of programs in a particular broad subject area that have been planned out four years into the future” — a broad description that left most readers with more questions than answers.
Some students, who asked to remain anonymous, said that they thought Paths sounded like a useful tool for students who need more structure than is typically offered at TESC. One student in particular, Flor Eby, supports Paths. They see them as a way for students to make better connections with faculty and to have a greater understanding of the options available to them.
“Paths of Study seems like a move towards creating majors,” they said. “The lack of majors is a big reason why people feel like they’re trapped here or if they don’t finish here, they can’t go somewhere else, they’ll have to start over…I feel like if they’re gonna go so far [as to] call it Paths of Study, why not just call it what it is and call it a major.”
Conversely, some students strongly oppose Paths. Maddie Lang, a junior, said that she and many of her friends dislike Paths because they are too similar to majors. “[People] thought they kinda defeated the purpose of how Evergreen’s curriculum was structured,” she said. “The unique way Evergreen’s programs are structured were a big part of the reason I chose [to enroll] so I’m not a huge fan of [Paths] as a concept.”
Dr. Chowdary’s response to this sentiment is that Paths are simply an option for students who feel they might need more structure than was previously offered. “[We] will still maintain all the freedom that students have and if they choose to follow a faculty-built path of study for their whole time at the institution, or for none of their time at the institution, or for the part of their time at the institution, that is still the students choice.”
As Paths are new to TESC this year, it remains to be seen if they will be successful. They are still being implemented and adjusted based on student reception. In addition to the Paths that have already been planned, several more are in development. Those in development include business, psychology, and gender & sexuality studies.
