In addition to the post-mortem on the History and Theory Course, I also wanted to open a thread on what works, and what doesn’t work, about the organisation of the planning curriculum. We had quite an interesting class discussion today, that touched on issues such as the:
- relation of work placements to “academic” coursework
- organisation of the social science “core”, relative to the planning courses
- very structured character of the planning curriculum, and whether this leaves sufficient room for student electives
- need for “practical” electives
- desire for a greater variety of electives
- order of courses within the planning curriculum
- impact of frequent changes to the program
This list is far from complete, and I’ve tried not to outline issues in detail: I’m hoping that some of the students who participated in the discussion, and others who missed it, might be willing to provide feedback in their own words.
Specifically, I’m interested in hearing your opinions on what works best, and what could use improvement, in the planning curriculum - with the caveat that the comments should be constructive, and should focus on suggesting ideas for how to make things better. Also, let’s avoid naming names (unless the name is mine - you can criticise me directly, if you’d like).




