PBY Ugcc Final

UNDERGRADUTE CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT • MAY 2009
Phyllis Bryn-Julson Chair of the Voice Department • Member of the DMA Committee
Michael Formanek Jazz Faculty • Member of the Undergraduate Committee
Michael Kannen Chair of Chamber Music • Member of the Undergraduate Committee
Sharon Levy Music Theory Faculty • Member of the DMA Committee • Alumna
Robert Muckenfuss Vocal Coaching Faculty • Chair of the Faculty Assembly • Alumnus
Hollis Robbins Humanities Faculty • Chair of the Undergraduate Committee • JHU Alumna
Andrew Talle Chair of the Musicology Department • Member of the Academic Council
Keng-Yuen Tseng Yong Siew Toh Music Conservatory Chair in Strings at the Peabody Conservatory
Jenny Beck (Scribe) Academic Program Coordinator • Alumna

Paul Mathews (Chair) Music Theory Faculty • Interim Associate Dean of Academic Affairs • Alumnus
Mellasenah Y. Morris (Ex officio) Dean of the Conservatory and Deputy Director of the Institute • Alumna
THE PEABODY CONSERVATORY

OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
1 EAST MOUNT VERNON PLACE
BALTIMORE, MD 21202
© 2009 The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The UGCC would like to thank the following people for their assistance:
• James Dobson, Conservatory Registrar

• Sam Brannon, work study-student in the Office of Academic Affairs for his research on peer institutions which began in
the summer of 2008
• Caitlin Vincent, Tatiana Trono and Jeremiah Ricketson, work-study students in Academic Affairs who provided similar
logistical support
• Eileen Soskin, Gary Louie, Marian Hahn and Carolee Stewart, authors of the 1998 Curriculum Report
• Barbara Lambert and Elizabeth Bellamy in the Dean's Office
• Katsura Kurita, Associate Dean for Student Affairs
• Brian Barone and OASIS
• The faculty, staff, and students of the Peabody Conservatory
CONTENTS
i Executive Summary
1 Part I: Introduction & Charge
1 — The Immediate Context
2 — Curriculum: Time and Credit
3 — The Charge
7 — Time for Study and Practice
10 Part II: Findings & Recommendations
38 Part III: Curricular Tables
39 — The Undergraduate Core
39 — An Overview of Degree Changes
65 Notes
70 Abbreviations
71 Bibliography
74 Appendix A: Benchmark Comparisons
78 Appendix B: Informal Survey of Faculty and Undergraduates
Page ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UGCC) was empanelled by the Dean of the Conservatory in August 2008
and was charged to conduct a thorough overview of each undergraduate curriculum currently offered and to present
recommendations for curricular revisions/improvements to the Academic Council for ratification.
Accordingly, the UGCC makes the following 23 recommendations to streamline and restructure the current curriculum in
support of a more efficient use of the limited time available to Peabody undergraduates, and with the threefold goal of
focused musical training, a rigorous educational program, and demonstrated performance and leadership abilities.
Upon ratification by the Academic Council and with the concurrent review by NASM, the recommendations of the
UGCC should become high-priority action items. The Associate Dean for Academic Affairs should be tasked with
1. implementing the action items with the advice and consent of the Undergraduate Committee. The Academic Council
should require a report in each semester until the recommendations are implemented. Action items may only be
abandoned or significantly altered with the consent of the Academic Council. (p. 10)
Direct the Undergraduate Committee to liaise with the Director of Financial Aid and the chairs of academic
2.
departments to consider the benchmarks for satisfactory academic progress (p. 10)
Direct the Undergraduate Committee to Consider a Policy to Allow Students to repeat a class once, space permitting,
3.
for an improved grade. (p. 12)
Allow the Offices of Academic Affairs and Student Affairs to advise freshmen and sophomore students on the
4.
schedule and the curriculum until the students complete their 209 jury. (p. 12)
5. The 109, 209 and 309 juries (including the 309 recital) should be reduced from 2 credits each to 1 credit each. (p. 14)
The 209 jury, while still graded for the actual performance, should include a broader consideration of the student's
6.
overall record and result in a more detailed recommendation for future achievement. (p. 15)
7. The Composition and Computer Music Departments should adopt the equivalent of a 209 jury. (p. 16)
8. The Humanities curriculum should be condensed and restructured. (p. 16)
With the exception of Voice majors, the study of foreign language should no longer be a requirement for
9.
undergraduates. Foreign language classes should be offered as electives. (p. 20)
Recognizing the recent streamlining of inter-divisional registration (IDR) procedures, the Conservatory should create
10. more scheduling opportunities for students to take classes at Homewood. Peabody students and faculty must be made
aware of the opportunities that already exist. (p. 21)
The Music Theory Department should compress its current curriculum into five semesters plus a one-semester
11.
elective. (p. 22)
12. Music Theory should implement and staff a parallel theory track for students needing remediation. (p. 23)
Convene a working group of selected members from Musicology and other departments to assess the Music History
13. curriculum and recommend alternatives to increase credit hours and contact time to better meet the needs of the
students. (p. 24)
14. For most majors, Basic Conducting should be an elective, not a requirement. (p. 24)
Appoint the UGCC to work with representatives from the Ensembles Office, the Concert Office, the Opera
Department, and the Conservatory Dean's Staff to address the logistical problems of space and scheduling and to
15.
address the teaching mission of the large ensembles and their role in recruitment, admissions and retention. Put all
parties on a short reporting schedule for implementing changes in the 2010-2011 school year. (p. 25)
Page iii
Increase the overall number of electives offered, with special attention for career-oriented courses. For some majors,
16.
classes currently taken as requirements might be offered as electives. (p. 27)
17. The distinction between music electives and electives should be eliminated. (p. 30)
The Associate Dean of Academic Affairs should coordinate courses that are not associated with an extant department,
18.
including such offerings as The Business of Music, Arts Administration, and Anatomy and Injury Prevention. (p. 31)
Any change to the requirements of undergraduate degree programs should require the approval of both the
19.
Undergraduate Committee and the Academic Council. (p. 31)
The Conservatory should grant provisional authorization for departments to prepare "minors" or "concentrations."
20. Such concentrations should begin with the extant model for the Liberal Arts concentration and should require the
approval of the Undergraduate Committee and the Academic Council. (p. 32)
The Conservatory should institute and monitor a process to forge appropriate linkages between the Musicology,
21.
Music Theory and Humanities curricula. (p. 33)
The Conservatory should conduct a review of writing requirements and writing instruction across the undergraduate
curriculum. The review should be conducted by a faculty committee appointed by the Faculty Assembly, include the
22.
chairs of academic departments, and seek the advice of the University's Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education.
(p. 34)
All departments should prepare and submit a report about how they meet the guidelines for NASM and MSCHE.
23. The reports should be submitted to the Associate Dean of academic affairs by the end of the 2009-2010 school year
for presentation to the Academic Council in the fall of 2011. (p. 36)
Page iv
PART ONE • INTRODUCTION & CHARGE

The Immediate Context
The UGCC conducted its work following a short period of unprecedented change. The 2008-2009 school year began with a
new Dean of the Conservatory, a new Associate Dean for Student Affairs, and a new interim Associate Dean for Academic
Affairs. During the course of the 2008-2009 school year, Peabody saw the mid-year departure of the Associate Dean of
External Relations. These positions were held by people with long histories at Peabody: Emily Frank had been in Student
Affairs for over twenty years. The re-staffing of these senior positions fell to the Director of the Institute, who was then
beginning his third full year and was in fact the third executive in five years.1
In 2003 the Institute launched a comprehensive review process called the Peabody Change Team. The Change Team made
some bold revisions to the organization of the staff and leadership, but was derailed by the changing priorities of successive
executives. The current director, Jeffrey Sharkey, began his tenure with a directed review and revision of the Conservatory
admissions process. Following these changes, Director Sharkey implemented a new overview of the Institute called the
Strategic Planning Initiative to begin in the 2008-2009 school year. An overview of the curriculum was to play a key part of
Strategic Planning. The Conservatory, as a school of the Johns Hopkins University, was obliged to complete sections of a
Periodic Review Report (PRR) for the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), by March 2009.2 The
incomplete work of the Change Team, the new priorities of the Strategic Planning Initiative, and the concurrent assessment of
MSCHE has made the work of the UGCC a high priority for the Conservatory.
A Short History of Recent Curricular Revision at Peabody
After a long period of relative stability, the undergraduate curriculum changed dramatically between the 1984-1985 and the
1985-1986 school years. A list of the substantive changes follows:
• Credits were awarded for ensembles and chamber music for the first time.
• Credits were awarded for attending the Thursday Noon Concert Series.
• The number of credits awarded for lessons rose from 2 to 3 each semester and departmental seminars were instituted.
• The number of credits awarded for juries was reduced from 4 each semester to 2 each semester.
• The classroom Music Theory requirement was reduced from four years to three years.
• A year of Orchestration was added.
• Four credits were trimmed from the Liberal Arts curriculum.
As a result of these changes, students actually took fewer classes in 1985-86, but the number of credits increased. The B.M.
in orchestral instruments ballooned from 122 credits to 147 credits. As a result of giving credits for ensembles, performance
credits, formerly 26% of the total curriculum became 37% of the total curriculum. There were comparatively few changes to
the curriculum in the intervening twenty-five years, but the effect of the minor changes tilted the balance decisively in the
direction of credits for performance. In the 2008-2009 school year, performing credits comprise 41% of the curriculum.
In 1998, the Council of Chairs appointed a faculty committee consisting of Eileen Soskin, Gary Louie, Marian Hahn and
Carolee Stewart to review the undergraduate curriculum. None of the recommendations were ever enacted by the Council of
Chairs. The reasons for the inaction were never clear. It was a bitter experience for everyone involved in the process.
Largely due to the persistence of Eileen Soskin, then Associate Dean, many ideas in the 1998 report were revisited between
2003 and 2008 through the standing committees of the Faculty Assembly. Addressing the reforms individually proved more
successful, and the progressive agenda was aided by fortuitous timing: during a two-year antagonistic exchange with NASM
following a deferred renewal of accreditation in 2004, the Conservatory addressed some of NASM's concerns by creating the
Liberal Arts concentration, approving the five-year B.M./M.M program, and starting a two-year project to revise the
Humanities curriculum However, subsequent attempts at global curricular change met even less success than the 1998
effort: a 2004 subcommittee of the Undergraduate Committee issued no final report, and a 2005 subcommittee of the
Academic Council ultimately became indistinguishable from the 2004-2006 effort to revise the Humanities curriculum. This
last project involved an external review and over eighteen months of discovery and discussion. Despite adding no more than
two credits to the B.M., the new Humanities curriculum, which was offered for the first time in the 2006-2007 school year,
was the most substantive change to the undergraduate curriculum in twenty-five years.
Page 1
Curriculum: Time and Credit
A study of a curriculum inevitably becomes a calculation of credits. The accreditation guidelines of NASM and MSCHE, as
well as the expectations of the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC) as stipulated in the Code of Maryland
Regulations (COMAR), recommend or mandate a fixed instructional time for discrete objectives. Instructional time is
measured by credit; completion of learning objectives is measured by satisfactory grades which are recorded as credits.
Tuition is calculated by credits attempted and instructors are compensated by credits taught. Credit is the currency of the
educational exchange between the institution and the student.
In the United States, the definition of credit has been relatively stable for over a century: a credit hour is 50 minutes of
instructional time with an accompanying 1-3 hours of preparation time.3 COMAR defines credit as "the certification of a
student's successful completion of a unit of a course of study leading to a formal award granted by an institution approved to
offer a collegiate degree, such as an associate or higher degree," noting that credit "does not include credit that may be
awarded for remedial education."4 COMAR further specifies that one credit signifies a minimum of 15 sessions of actual
class time, 50 minutes each; a minimum of 30 sessions of "laboratory or studio time" of 50 minutes each; or a minimum of 45
hours of supervised "instructional situations such as practica, internships, and cooperative education placements."5
NASM defines one credit as, "at least three hours of work each week, on average, for a period of fifteen to sixteen weeks,"
noting that each credit also assumes "two hours of preparation for each week of the term." Thus, at Peabody, a three-credit
Music Theory class assumes three fifty-minute class sessions and six hours of studying; a two-credit Music History class
assumes two sessions and four hours of studying. Ensembles are largely regarded as laboratory courses, for which one credit
is awarded for 2-3 fifty-minute sessions each week. However, NASM also allows that ensemble credits can reflect the
amount of expected student preparation or a relationship to other credit requirements. Peabody grants two credits for
ensembles and has done so since 1985. Finally, regarding lessons, NASM suggests, "one credit hour be given for each three
hours per week of practice, plus the necessary individual instruction, with a maximum of six credits per term allowed for the
major subject in music performance," but notes that the credits should entail the equivalent of a final exam. Peabody has
been granting the maximum number of credits, but has done so by separating the "final exam" (i.e., a jury for 2 credits) from
the lesson for 4 credits.6
The UGCC has struggled to evaluate the amount of time students spend on the curricular tasks of the B.M. The comments of
the students and faculty, reprinted below in Appendix B (p. 78), make clear that many students and many colleagues believe
the students are overloaded. It is equally clear that the academic credit is an imperfect measure of time spent on each task.
Few expect students to spend six hours a week studying for a three-hour class. However, most studio faculty would prefer
that their students practice more than the 12 hours each week for which they receive credit, and many faculty already suspect
their students do practice more. In short, the credit hours do not reflect the student hours.
In many meetings, while struggling to reconcile the inconsistency between credit time and clock time, the UGCC has been
tempted to completely disregard credits and seek more accurate measures of student time. However, such a decision would
have profound consequences. Peabody is among a community of music schools. Peabody is obligated to assess its students
by means held in common with other schools to allow for transfer between schools and progression to higher degrees at other
schools. Moreover, unlike some peer institutions, Peabody is a school within a larger institution and must operate within the
framework of JHU. There is no legitimate substitute for the credit system in North America. The ETCS system that is
slowly taking hold in Europe as a result of the Bologna Declaration is interesting to consider, but is still comparatively recent
and hardly universal; the UK does not use the ETCS for its conservatories. 7
NASM accredits on a model of 120 credits for the B.M. degree, and many member institutions offer degrees for 120 credits;
indeed many schools actually include a sentence in their catalog indicating that beyond their curricular requirements,
students are required to take electives until they achieve 120 credits. The UGCC has tried to reconcile the difference between
the B.M. in voice at the University of Illinois (134 credits) and the B.M. in voice at Peabody (173) or the B.M. in violin at
Florida State (120 credits) as opposed Peabody (147 credits). The difference between these varying scales is clear: Peabody,
like most of its self-identified peer schools, requires considerably more classes. The rather imposing number of credits for the
Peabody B.M. is a problem that arose in 1985 when Peabody started awarding credits for ensembles and more credits for
lessons. In the intervening years, the problem has continued to grow as departments added more specialty requirements.
An earlier enthusiasm to cut credits eventually matured into the more reasonable effort to scale the elements of the degree as
much as possible. Cutting credits would mean either devaluing critical aspects of the degree – such as lessons and ensembles
– or cutting classes that are either required as part of accreditation standards or desired by the students as revealed in the
Page 2
UGCC survey. It is to be hoped that modest re-scaling of some curricular areas, coupled with the insertion of some elective
choices and some advising, will help the student manage time on an individual basis.
The Charge
The UGCC has responded to its charge by way of the recommendations presented the next section. Other tenets of the charge
are addressed in the following summary of our data collection and review.
1. Re-visit the Purpose/Mission of the Conservatory
The Peabody Institute characterizes itself in a mission statement, a vision statement, and a statement of educational
philosophy. These testaments were revised and thoroughly reviewed by the Peabody Change Team, 2003 – 2006.
The Mission of the Peabody Institute
Through comprehensive excellent education, The Peabody Institute nurtures talent and creativity; provides aspiring
musicians from diverse backgrounds with the skills to sustain professional careers; fosters lifelong involvement in
music and dance; and prepares students in artistic performance at the highest level, providing inspiration and
enlightenment to regional, national and international communities.8
Peabody Institute Vision Statement
• Peabody is among the finest music schools in the world, dedicated to comprehensive education and excellence,
while preparing students to become engaged members of society.
• Peabody is a place where the most gifted students desire to come to study with distinguished faculty.
• Peabody is dedicated to attracting and sustaining a diverse student body, faculty, and staff.
• Peabody is a place that provides lifelong music and dance opportunities through instruction, performance, and
outreach to regional, national and international communities.
• Peabody serves its students through individual and collaborative instruction in a caring and compassionate
environment.
• Peabody has the finest, state of the art facilities and operates in a secure financial environment.
• Peabody achieves its goals through a valued, dedicated staff and leadership.9
Educational Philosophy
Peabody students go on to occupy the top echelons of the music profession worldwide. However, because they
engage in broader, humanistic courses, they also are able to play important roles in society, not just on the concert
stage. The Institute’s students and graduates are music entrepreneurs who have a dynamic presence in society where
they are advocates not just for themselves, but also for the importance and relevance of music and art in
contemporary culture.
The Peabody's philosophy reflects its founder’s vision to bring together a community of artists, scholars, and
teachers to train future artists, scholars and teachers:
Philosophy #1: Peabody believes in liberal arts for musicians.
The Institute challenges its students to aspire to their highest potential as artists and as human beings. It seeks to
promote a respect for music as a discipline of the mind and spirit, a joyful affirmation of life, and a passionate
commitment to an ideal. By connecting its students with the great traditions of the past, Peabody gives them the key
with which to unlock the future. The Peabody trains its students to manage their own careers and to create their own
professional and artistic opportunities in the world.
Philosophy #2: Peabody does not promote cutthroat competition.
The Institute believes that excellence is achieved through a community with other artists, not isolation. Unlike other
leading conservatories where students are routinely pitted against one another in competition, the Peabody’s faculty
cultivates a student’s individual talents through collaboration.10
Page 3
Peabody's accrediting agencies, MSCHE and NASM as well as the State of Maryland, publish guidelines for mission
statements. MSCHE's guidelines are summarized as Standard One, reading in part, "The institution’s stated goals, consistent
with the aspirations and expectations of higher education, clearly specify how the institution will fulfill its mission."11 As
required by MSCHE, the Peabody mission statement is congruent with the JHU mission statement:
The mission of the Johns Hopkins University is to educate its students and cultivate their capacity for life-long learning, to
foster independent and original research, and to bring the benefits of discovery to the world.12
Peabody explained the new mission statement in its 2004 self-study for MSCHE13 and MSCHE responded, "It is the
conclusion of the team that the Peabody Institute meets the standard." 14
NASM's guidelines for mission statements are found in Section II A: Purposes of the Institution and Music Unit.15
COMAR's guidelines are consistent are more specific, but ultimately apply to the University as a whole. 16
Considering the various constraints for the mission statement and the considerable work preceding the formation of the
UGCC, the UGCC finds the mission statement appropriate. While the UGCC makes no formal recommendation to change
the mission statement, the Conservatory should include the mission and vision statement in the Catalog.
2. Conduct a thorough overview of each undergraduate curriculum currently offered
The UGCC review of the current curriculum began with the specific details of each major and gradually progressed to the
core requirements. Members of the committee took assignments to ask each department if the curricula, as listed in the 2008-
2009 catalog, reflected the work of the department. Much of this work was done by email or submitted to the curriculum as a
report; many of these emails and reports appear in the minutes or in the committee's work papers. The larger issues of
Humanities, Music Theory, Musicology and Ensembles were addressed in a less linear, less decisive fashion, and indeed the
work in these areas will continue through the final approval of the Academic Council and into the following year. All four of
these areas are in the curious position of teaching all of the students and yet having no undergraduate majors of their own.
In an effort to conduct a broader discovery away from curricular tables and syllabi, the UGCC created a survey for
undergraduate students and a parallel survey for faculty. The parallel surveys asked similar questions so that the UGCC
could compare the varying responses of students and faculty on key issues. This approach was modeled after National
Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the National Survey of Faculty Engagement (NSFE).
While this data is interesting to consider and undoubtedly influenced some of the recommendations, the surveys are
ultimately informal assessments and were conducted without any methodological rigor. Most of the student respondents and
all of the faculty respondents volunteered their participation, which means they came to the survey with a predisposition to
share their ideas. Moreover, the smaller sample of faculty makes for a rougher scaling of data with more unexpected spikes.
One or two dissenting answers – from a faculty of outspoken artists – can disrupt the presentation of faculty responses as a
Gaussian distribution (i.e., a "bell curve") and greatly increase a standard deviation.
The student survey elicited 111 respondents, and their information was collected in three stages:
1. Rollout Stage: 20 students completed the survey at the Town Hall Meeting on 18 November 2008.
2. Paper Stage: 23 students completed the survey between 19 November and 1 February 2009. Many of
3. Online Stage: 68 students completed the survey on line between 13 January and 1 February 2009. Because many of
the paper-based surveys were completed by freshmen, the URL for the online survey was only sent to sophomores,
juniors, and seniors. While the data from upperclassmen is undoubtedly richer, it may have inadvertently skewed the
data to ignore changes to the freshman experience over the last two years.
The faulty survey was completed by 45 members of the faculty in two stages:
1. 29 faculty members completed the paper-based survey between 2 December 2008 and 1 February 2009
2. 16 faculty members completed the online version between 20 January 2008 and 1 February 2009.
The surveys are referenced throughout the recommendations. The complete surveys are found in Appendix B (p. 78).
However, the UGCC asks the reader to be always mindful that the surveys are informal and unscientific. As a result, all
names and specific classes referenced by the students have been redacted.
Page 4
The findings of our overview and our recommendations are found in Part II.
3. Review Curricular Documents From Peer Institutions and From Our Accreditation Agencies
4. Review the most recent external assessments of our curriculum as presented by the NASM team,
NASM Commission, and external consultants
While curricular change has been slow, earlier efforts have provided a wealth of information. Of particular importance are
the voluminous working papers that Eileen Soskin left on her computer when she left the Conservatory. The documentation
from the dual accreditation processes of NASM and MSCHE was also a valuable source of information.
Following the example of the 1998 Curriculum Report, the UGCC compared its undergraduate curriculum to a number of
peer institutions:
• The Cincinnati College Conservatory of Music

• The Cleveland Institute of Music
• The Eastman School of Music at the University of Rochester
• The Jacobs School of Music at Indiana University
• The Juilliard School
• The Manhattan School of Music
• Mannes College of the New School for Social Research
• The New England Conservatory of Music
• The Oberlin Conservatory of Music
• The Shepherd School of Music at Rice University
For each of these schools, the UGCC compared the curricula for orchestral instruments, voice and piano. The UGCC also
compiled the thirty-year review of the Peabody curriculum. These documents are collected in Appendix A (p. 74).
5. Give consideration to the infrastructure that implements the curriculum, including physical plant,
faculty resources, size of the student body, and scheduling demands of curricular activities
The Peabody campus is a city block of nine buildings totaling 427,982 square feet: Conservatory Building, The George
Peabody Library, Leakin Hall, the New Academic Building, the two Peabody Residence Halls, Shapiro House, and the two
houses forming the Centre Street Annex. There are 41 classrooms, 52 studios, 57 practice rooms, 4 performance halls, and 3
recording studios.
In the 2003 NASM Self-Report, Peabody noted a growth in the student population from 601 in 1992-1993 to 648 in 2002-
2003, noting, "It is safe to say that Peabody has found the upper limit of a sustainable population, and will remain this size for
the foreseeable future."17 However, following the subsequent renovation, Peabody's student population increased again. In
the fall semester 2008, Peabody had 667 students: 333 undergraduate and 337 graduate students.
The Arthur Friedheim Library houses the music collection for the Peabody Conservatory, comprising in excess of 125,000
volumes. Peabody students also have access to the Johns Hopkins Sheridan Libraries collection, which contains over 2.6
million books and more than 30,000 print and electronic journal subscriptions, over 600,000 e-books, over 7,000 videos and
DVDs.
Peabody's physical plan and resources are comparable to peer institutions, scaled for equivalent student bodies. Persistent
concerns about space and the course schedule remain to be resolved. The concurrent work of the Dean's Space Audit
Committee will address some of the concerns about teaching and performance spaces. The schedule will be adjusted to
reflect the curriculum changes contained in this report.
Page 5
6. Communicate with each department on the curriculum for which they are responsible for delivering
7. Engage in regular dialogue on findings with the Faculty Assembly
Peabody is comprised of 14 departments: Chamber Music, Computer Music and Composition, Guitar, Jazz, Large
Ensembles, Liberal Arts, Music Theory, Musicology, Opera, Orchestral Instruments and Organ, Piano, Professional Studies,
Strings, and Voice. Each department has been contacted by members of the UGCC on multiple occasions. Four members of
the UGCC are chairs of departments; a fifth is a former chair. Two other members hail from other departments, including
one UGCC member who teaches in two departments.
The Chair of the Faculty Assembly is a member of the UGCC. During the curricular review, it fell to the Chair to brief the
full Assembly. Two memos were sent to the entire faculty requesting feedback, and the entire faculty was invited to
participate in the survey.
The Undergraduate Committee is a standing committee of the Faculty Assembly, tasked with advising the faculty and the
administration on matters pertaining to "undergraduate curricula; requirements for graduation; examinations, juries and
recitals; academic standing; undergraduate admissions, scholarships and awards, and matters of coordination between the
various undergraduate programs."18 Three of the nine faculty members on the Undergraduate Committee are also members of
the UGCC; the Chair of the Faculty Assembly and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs also participate in both
committees.
8. Prepare a list of core and area-specific requirements for each degree program
Part II consists of a list of core and area-specific requirements for each degree program. Each program is presented according
to NASM 2008 guidelines for preparing curricular tables.19
9. Address issues related to encouraging opportunities for broadening the mix of academic interests
among students to enrich their worldview and increase their level of career preparedness
Recommendations 10, 16, 18 and 20 address the need for more opportunities in the student schedule and more resources for
students to explore other areas. Recommendation 10 speaks to the ongoing work to streamline inter-divisional registration,
which should allow Peabody students to take more classes at Homewood. Recommendations 16 and 20 should allow for
more opportunities on the Peabody campus by allowing for more elective courses and for the creation of academic and
musical minors, or concentrations. Finally, Recommendation would allow the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs to
regulate non-departmental electives in the role of a de facto chairperson.
10. Facilitate broad colloquy on final recommendations with the Faculty Assembly
11. Present recommendations for curricular revisions/improvements to the Academic Council for ratification
A draft of the final report was released to the Faculty on 1 May 2009. The Academic Council voted unanimously to approve
the recommendations on 18 May 2009.
12. Begin implementation of new curricula in Fall 2009
Recommendation 1 speaks to the steps following the approval by the Academic Council.
Page 6
Time for Study and Practice
In November 2002, the committee writing the 2003 Self-Study conducted a survey of all students. The survey elicited the
responses of 113 undergraduate students.20 The students were asked to rate the performance faculty and the classroom
faculty on a scale of 1 to 5. Their answers follow:
Satisfied ◄—————————► Dissatisfied
Rating One Two Three Four Five
PERFORMANCE FACULTY
Students 60% 29% 7% 4% —
Satisfied ◄—————————► Dissatisfied

CLASSROOM FACULTY
Students 13% 48% 27% 9% 3%
As can be seen, 89% of the students rated the performance faculty in the top two quintiles with 60% rating the highest mark
followed by a 31-point drop to the second score. The students were clearly thrilled with the performance faculty and in a
separate question listed the major teacher as the most common answer to the question, "Why did you choose to come to
Peabody?" Responses were moderate and more distributed for the classroom faculty, with 75% of the students raking the
classroom faculty in the second and third quintiles.
The UGCC did not ask a similar question on its survey. One of the committee's informal agreements was to direct its
attention to the curriculum and to avoid discussions of curricular implementation: the teaching. However, even a cursory
examination of the UGCC would lead one to suspect that things haven't changed much: students are still strongly oriented
toward their major area and in their comments the students are quick to dismiss any class or teacher who inhibits their pursuit
of practice. We did ask students and faculty if classroom studies influence major studies and if classroom studies hinder
major studies. The results are telling:
Influence Definitely Probably Maybe Probably Not Definitely Not

Students 44% 30% 17% 8% 0%
Faculty 54% 26% 15% 3% 3%
Hindrance Definitely Probably Maybe Probably Not Definitely Not

Students 32% 27% 17% 18% 6%
Faculty 14% 14% 14% 25% 33%
While both faculty and students agree that classroom studies influence major studies, with the faculty by a slightly larger
margin, the faculty and students evenly divide on the issue of classroom studies hindering major studies: 59% of the students
find classroom studies a hindrance, while a nearly equal 58% of the faculty does not. A preponderance of anecdotal data,
both in the student comments and in everyday conversation, would suggest that the students are hindered by the classes – that
they otherwise rate highly on other questions – because it impedes their ability to practice.
The conflict between practice and coursework seems to have been exacerbated since 2002 when students were asked to rate
the course work and the balance between classes and 54% were above the median for satisfied against only 20% below the
median toward dissatisfied:
Satisfied ◄—————————————► Dissatisfied

Students 14% 40% 26% 10% 10%
Responding to concerns about student time and the amount of required classes, the UGCC did ask directed questions about
the amount of time actually spent on tasks and the corresponding estimation of faculty. For each academic area, the UGCC
asked students how much time was spent preparing for the class and the faculty was asked how much time they believed the
students spent preparing for the class.
Page 7
On average, how many hours per week do

On average, how many hours per week are
Students: Faculty: your undergraduate students spend
spent studying or completing assignments?
studying or completing assignments?
35.00% 50.00%
45.00%
30.00%
40.00%
25.00% 35.00%
30.00%
20.00%
25.00%
15.00%
20.00%
10.00% 15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
5.00%
0.00% 0.00%
< 1 hour 1–2 hours 2–3 hours 3–4 hours 4–5 hours > 5 hours < 1 hour 1–2 hours 2–3 hours 3–4 hours 4–5 hours > 5 hours
Theory 10.80% 31.50% 30.60% 18.90% 3.60% 4.50% Theory 4.20% 16.70% 45.80% 16.70% 4.20% 12.50%
Humanities 10.80% 27.00% 19.80% 18.00% 8.10% 9.00% Humanities 5.60% 38.90% 16.70% 11.10% 16.70% 11.10%
Musicology 13.50% 27.00% 32.60% 9.00% 6.70% 11.20% Musicology 0 35.30% 29.40% 11.80% 5.90% 17.60%
As always, the reader must consider the informal nature of the UGCC survey and further consider the imprecise grouping of
all Music Theory classes or all Humanities classes, when the content of these classes and the assignments of faculty vary
widely. But even conceding these informalities, there is a remarkable concurrence: approximately 57% of the students and
60% of the faculty calculate between 1 and 3 hours of preparation for each class. Not shown here, but easily seen in the
complete survey in Appendix B (p. 78), the students answering in the 1-3 hour brackets are also 2-5 times more likely to
report earning an A. Based on this informal data, 1-3 hours of preparation per week, per class, seems a fairly normative case
for the successful Peabody Undergraduate student.21
Most sophomores and juniors take concurrent Theory, Humanities and Musicology courses. Thus, students are spending 3-9
hours each week preparing for classes in addition to other performance-based classes such as ear-training, keyboard studies,
and repertoire studies. In this regard, they are remarkably aligned with many other college students. For the 2008 edition of
their annual report, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) surveyed 194,858 students, randomly sampled from
722 four-year colleges and universities in the U.S.22 When asked how many hours in a 7-day week they spent preparing for
classes, 17% of students said they spent 1-5 hours each week preparing for classes. 26% spent 5-10 hours; 20% spent 11-15
hours; 16% spent 16-20 hours; and the rest spent more than 20 hours each week preparing for classes.23 Thus, 43% of
undergraduate students overall are spending approximately as much time preparing for classes as Peabody students spend
preparing for Theory, Humanities and Musicology courses.
Conservatory students, however, are unlike other college students. As Joseph Polisi has observed:
… an incoming first-time college student in a Bachelor of Music degree program must make certain career and life
choices two of three years before a liberal arts major must make the same choices. Although strengthened by
accreditation standards during the past twenty-five years, the Bachelor of Music course of study is inevitably a
parochial one, focusing on honing performance excellence at the expense of more general studies.24
The "parochial aspect" of undergraduate degree programs at Peabody and among Peabody's peers concerns the amount of
practice demanded by individual studio faculty. When asked to estimate the amount of time students are practicing or
composing, the faculty respondents to the UGCC survey supplied answers ranging from 3 to 35 hours each week; the average
was 15 and the median was 16 hours each week. When asked how much students should practice, the answers ranged from
5-30 hours each week with an average of 19 and a median of 20 hours each week.
To conclude, consider an undergraduate junior performance major at Peabody. Assuming successful completion of all
classes in the first two years, the essential degree requirements for a semester at junior level are a class in Music Theory, a
class in Musicology, and a Humanities elective. While always mindful of the informal nature of the UGCC survey, the
students and the faculty suggest a junior performer – the most represented student in the survey – spends his or her time as
follows:
Page 8
Hours in Student Faculty Faculty Student

Credits Classes
Class Reports Estimate Expectation Hours
4 Lesson 1 — 15 19 16-20
3 Theory III 3 2 2 2 5
2 History of Music 2 2 2 2 4
3 Liberal Arts 3 2 2 2 5
12 RUNNING TOTALS 9 21 25 30-34
To which must be added ensembles…
2 Orchestra 3 UGCC estimates 2 hours [5]

1 Chamber Music 1 UGCC estimates 3 hours [4]
15 RUNNING TOTALS 13 39-43
And any departmental requirements …
0 Studio Class 1 [1]

2 Departmental Classes 2 UGCC Estimates 2 hours [4]
17 RUNNING TOTALS 16 43-47
For the normative case, the undergraduate degree requires approximately 43-47 hours from the student in the typical week.
No week is typical, however, and the strengths and weaknesses of individual students tend to preclude a normative case.
Finally, juries and recitals, as well as ensemble performances and other opportunities or commitments, increase the need to
practice at just the time classroom faculty is assigning papers and exams, further distorting a sense of a regular work
schedule. Finally, the tuition of the school is such that many students need to work.
Despite these difficulties, the fact remains that Peabody requires between 30 and 60 hours from its students each week. In
the recommendations that follow, the UGCC hopes to reorganize these hours to reduce the sense of imbalance reported by so
many students.
Page 9
PART TWO • FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon ratification by the Academic Council and with the concurrent review by NASM, the
recommendations of the UGCC should become high-priority action items. The Associate
Dean for Academic Affairs should be tasked with implementing the action items with the
Recommendation 1: advice and consent of the Undergraduate Committee. The Academic Council should
require a report in each semester until the recommendations are implemented. Action
items may only be abandoned or significantly altered with the consent of the Academic
Council.25
The UGCC is an ad-hoc committee assembled by the Dean of the Conservatory. It does not have the statutory authority to
enact changes to the Conservatory curriculum. Therefore, enacting the recommendations of the UGCC should become the
work of the Undergraduate Committee, department chairpersons, and other stakeholders, coordinated by the Associate Dean
of Academic under the authority and with the final approval of the Academic Council.
The Associate Dean and the various stakeholders should give particular attention to the means of transition for current
students. As a matter of institutional ethics and NASM Standards, Peabody can only apply a new rule to new students, but
must observe the guidelines that were in effect when current students entered the Conservatory.26 A useful model may be
found in the work of the Humanities Department, who applied various credit-articulation schemes for students following the
2006 revision of their curriculum.
Direct the Undergraduate Committee to liaise with the Director of Financial Aid and the
Recommendation 2 :
chairs of academic departments to consider the benchmarks for satisfactory academic
progress.27
On 22 April 2008, the Undergraduate Committee adopted a new benchmark for satisfactory academic progress (SAP). The
minimum acceptable GPA was raised from 2.0 to 2.5 and the minimum grade for lessons was raised from C to B-.
2007-2008 Catalog 2008-2009 Catalog
Undergraduate students who maintain a cumulative Undergraduate students who maintain a

and current grade point average of at least 2.00 and cumulative and current grade point average of at
a grade of at least C in their major area are least 2.50, a grade of at least B- in their major
considered to be in acceptable academic standing. area (lessons, juries, recitals, hearings), and are
More stringent academic regulations apply for making appropriate progress through the core
financial aid and scholarship recipients.28 curriculum are considered to be in acceptable
academic standing.29
One purpose of redefining the benchmark was to accommodate new procedures in Financial Aid. In the past, merit
scholarships were given on the basis of aptitude judged during the initial audition and only monitored by the Associate Dean
of Academic Affairs and the Undergraduate Committee. New procedures enacted after the 2006-2007 school year bundles
merit scholarships and financial aid in a way that is difficult to separate. As a result, the Associate Dean and the
Undergraduate Committee no longer have the authority to revoke merit scholarships.
Page 10
A cursory glance at our peer institutions reveals that Peabody's minimally acceptable GPA is 25% higher than its nearest peer
and 50% higher than the lowest minimum GPA among peer schools.
2.5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 [>2] 1.67 1.67
Juilliard30
Peabody
Eastman
Mannes
Oberlin
Indiana
MSM
CCM
NEC
CIM
Rice
It is also noteworthy that the SAP GPA for the JHU ASEN schools is 2.0.31
It may be useful to consider how a GPA might be calculated for a freshman student off to a bad start with a typical schedule:
GPA Calculation for the Typical Peabody Freshman

Class Credits Grade Credits x Grade = Quality Points
Lesson 4 B- 4 x 2.67 = 10.68
Freshman Seminar 5 C- 5 x 1.67 = 8.35
Theory 3 C- 3 x 1.67 = 5.01
Ear-training 2 C- 2 x 1.67 = 3.34
Keyboard 2 C- 2 x 1.67 = 3.34
Thursday Noon 0.5 C- .5 x 1.67 = 0.84
Ensemble 2 C- 2 x 1.67 = 3.34
18.5 34.90
Total Quality Points ÷ Total Credits = GPA

34.895 ÷ 18.5 = 1.89
While a higher SAP GPA may suggest a certain standard of excellence and rigor, it may also suggest an institutionalized
pattern of grade inflation. It is worth considering whether the SAP GPA should be lowered. Alternatively, it may be worth
considering an "aspirational" 2.5 GPA for students with a lower actual SAP GPA whereby students would only merit a
review by the Undergraduate Committee if they fell below the actual SAP GPA.
Supplement to the Recommendation
On 22 March 2009, the Undergraduate Committee agreed to review the 2.5 SAP GPA benchmark. In the short discussion that
followed, members recalled that the current 2.5 SAP GPA was an attempt to mediate the difference between the previous 2.0
SAP GPA and a 3.0 GPA required for continued scholarship.
The Undergraduate Committee was enthusiastic about addressing the 2.5 SAP GPA and suggested a two-tier warning system,
not unlike the current system, which has been occasioned by the sudden change this year. Because the current 2.5 SAP GPA
benchmark began in the 2008-2009 school year, it only applies to freshmen; all upperclassmen have the lower, 2.0 SAP GPA.
As a measure of continuity between these two benchmarks, the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, at the direction of the
Undergraduate Committee, has been sending a "letter of concern" to upperclassmen who have fallen below the 2.5 SAP GPA
but are not below the 2.0 SAP benchmark. The letter reads in part:
[…] Since you currently meet the grade point benchmarks that were in place when you began your program, the
Committee decided not to place you on warning for dismissal. At the same time, the Committee wished to express
its concern that your term GPA falls below our current standards and asked me to send you a letter informing you of
their interest in your progress.
If, after being directed to review the guidelines, the Undergraduate Committee lowers the 2.5 SAP GPA benchmark, the
Committee would prefer to continue the practice of sending a "letter of concern" with the appropriate modifications.
Page 11
Direct the Undergraduate Committee to consider a policy to allow students to repeat a

Recommendation 3:
class once, space permitting, for an improved grade.32
The JHU ASEN schools have a policy to retake classes for better grades:
Students may repeat a course in which they have earned a grade of C+ or lower at Hopkins. The grade for the second
attempt of the course, and the associated credits, are recorded on the student’s transcript and are calculated into the
GPA. When the new grade is added to the academic record, the old grade is replaced with the letter R, indicating
that the course was retaken in a later term. R grades do not affect grade point calculations and do not carry credit
toward graduation. Only the grade in the repeated course receives credit and applies to the grade point average, even
when the repeated grade is lower than the original grade.
To absolve a grade, the same course must be taken at Hopkins, not another college or university.33
Implicit in this description is the idea that the course can only be repeated one time.34 The UGCC recommends that any
language in the catalog expressly state that students may only retake a class once and must retake the class at Peabody.
Following the advice of the Undergraduate Committee, the UGCC further recommends that students taking the class for the
first time – especially juniors and seniors – be given priority seating in any class.
While a retake policy is unlikely to affect many students, it may encourage students to retake skills-based classes such as Jazz
Improvisation, Ear-training or Keyboard Harmony. In such cases, students could improve their musical skills and their GPA.
On 21 April 2009, the Undergraduate Committee approved this recommendation for implementation in the 2009-2010 school
year, with the provision that the words "space permitting" be added to the final statement of the policy.
Allow the Offices of Academic Affairs and Student Affairs to advise freshmen and
Recommendation 4: sophomore students on the schedule and the curriculum until the students complete
their 209 jury. 35
Peabody's official policy on advising is found in the Student Handbook:
Academic advising at Peabody is a cooperative enterprise that relies on the student, faculty, Registrar, the Associate
Dean for Academic Affairs and their staffs. Students are solely responsible for completing the requirements of their
curricula and they should carefully check their own progress toward the degree or diploma each semester. Questions
which require special interpretation of academic requirements, performance requirements, or evaluation of transfer
credits, for both undergraduates and graduates, should be referred to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs.36
The 1998 Curriculum Review addressed the issue of undergraduate advising. After a measured review of advising practices,
the committee concluded:
We believe that all undergraduate students should have two faculty advisors to guide their course of study at
Peabody. In many departments, the primary advisor will be the studio teacher; in some departments, the primary
advisor will be the department chair; in some departments, the primary advisor may be faculty member appointed by
the department chair. Each department must discuss and decide these questions for themselves. Departments may
also wish to appoint a secondary advisor or suggest that students choose their own second advisor from among their
classroom faculty. This could be done some time during the first year of study at Peabody. Secondary advisors
might be appointed by primary advisors. The goal is for all students to have at least two faculty mentors. This
suggested system of advising could make Peabody, which has become a larger place in recent years, feel more like a
small school again.37
The complexity found in the 1998 curriculum committee's report reflects the underlying conflict of advising at Peabody. As
a matter of policy, each student is advised by his or her major teacher. In practice, many studio teachers cannot find the time
to study the undergraduate curriculum, given the little time they can devote to advising. However, major teachers insist on
retaining the title of advisor because of their truly unique role in shaping the musical development of the student.
Page 12
Despite the concerns raised by the 1998 report, the official Peabody position on advising meets the requirement posed by
accrediting agencies. Peabody described its advising policies in the 2004 JHU Self-Report for MSCHE,38 and the MSCHE
Final Report noted that Peabody's "advisement services are optimal."39 Clearly Peabody is within the requirement posed by
accreditation standards. However, Peabody's true clients are the students, and the students are not satisfied with advising.
As part of the review of current advising practices, the Undergraduate Committee held a forum with representatives of
OASIS – Peabody's Organization Advocating Student InterestS, which functions as a student government. Many participants
felt strongly that there should be a single person on campus whose sole role is to advise students. Current financial
conditions preclude the hiring, training, and maintenance of such a staff member. A second idea to come from the
conversation was the formation of a core group of students with special insight into the curriculum. Subsequent inquiry has
suggested that the faculty does not approve of using students to advise other students. Consider the feedback from the
UGCC's surveys, conducted between November 2008 and February 2009:40
How do you/your students find the answers to questions about the curriculum and schedule?
Student Total Faculty Studio Faculty
Answers
Responses Responses Responses
78.4% Ask friends 60.0% 50.0%
67.6% Read the catalog and manage 48.6% 40.0%
21.6% Ask the Registrar or Associate Dean for Academic Affairs 45.7% 45.0%
7.8% Ask other teachers 28.6% 20.0%
6.9% Ask my major teacher 60.0% 60.0%
How should Peabody approach the issue of advising?

Student Total Faculty Studio Faculty
Answers
Responses Responses Responses
54.5% A staff person who does nothing but advising 22.5% 15.79%
30.3% It should come from the major teacher 62.5% 152.63%
25.3% It should come from the registrar/dean 50.0% 73.68%
19.2% It should come from specially trained students 2.5% 10.53%
15.2% Students should be assigned to other teachers for advising 15.0% 5.26%
Analysis
The undergraduate curriculum is not terribly complicated. Over two-thirds of the curriculum allows for little choice: lessons,
large ensembles, small ensembles and juries are largely scheduled by the Registrar; the Music Theory classes are sequential;
and students chose four of five Music History classes. Moreover, the Humanities requirement is managed by the Humanities
department.
On the other hand, the normative Peabody student is actually an exception. Of the 111 students who completed the
Undergraduate Curriculum Survey, only 13 students (12% of respondents) began their first semester without either: 1)
advanced placement through on-site skills testing, AP testing, and/or transfer credits; 2) remedial coursework to take in
addition (or in place of) the stipulated first semester classes; or 3) some combination of advanced placement or remedial
coursework. Moreover, given the focus on skills-acquisition that is typical of music study, not all students advance in the
timely way that informs the curriculum. Even a cursory glance at a grade report indicates more in-progress (IP) grades than
would be typically found at a liberal arts or science college. Even the best music teaching fails to level students in the timely
way that is expected from curricular models.
In a developing framework for the future of advising at Peabody, it will be important to separate two key functions of an
advisor: 1) the advisor prepares the student for future endeavors such as further study and professional work; and 2) the
advisor helps the student navigate the complexity of the curriculum and course schedule. While these two functions are not
mutually exclusive, they are sufficiently independent to be performed by two separate people. In short, the cooperative
enterprise must be more sharply defined and the duties should be clearly assigned to the correct advising partners.
Students need help managing the individual scheduling situations in which they find themselves, which are often not codified
in curricular guidelines. Students also need better advice about the kinds of classes they could take to improve their
Page 13
musicianship and broaden their perspectives. Undergraduate students are primarily getting their information about the
curriculum from peers and self-study. As a result, certain tendencies have become essentially institutionalized as students
adopt the well-worn paths, and the paths of least resistance.
The 2003 Homewood CUE report encouraged divisions to locate more advising functions with teachers.41 However, both the
faculty and students agree that other teachers – notably classroom faculty – are a less attractive solution. Moreover, Peabody
has no mechanism to assess faculty advising or reward good advising with salary and promotion, as recommended by the
CUE report. Neither the students nor the faculty believe students should be advised by other faculty. The Undergraduate
Committee has been reluctant to take on an advising role.
Undergraduate students prefer advisement from Conservatory staff with cooperative advising from their major teacher. The
faculty – especially the studio faculty – also believes Conservatory staff should participate in advising. The Conservatory
Registrar does an enormous amount of advising and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs also advises students.
However, it seems unlikely two individuals – both managing small staffs and meeting other responsibilities – can manage the
advising of all students in the critical periods of orientation and course section.
Recommendation
The UGCC recommends that Peabody deploy staff from the Registrar, Academic Affairs, and Student Affairs to monitor and
advise students for their first three semesters. The role of Student Affairs would be particularly welcome since students are
required to live in the Peabody Residence Halls for their first two years. After the successful completion of the 209 jury,
more of the advising duties would shift from Student Affairs to the teaching departments of the Conservatory, in cooperation
with the Registrar and Academic Affairs.
The UGCC further recommends that for the duration of staff involvement in advising, the duties of advising should be
appended to the job descriptions of the staff who advise students. While this has little bearing on the extant staff, any
personnel change should note the role of advising in the general description. For example, the forthcoming announcement
for the position of Academic Program Coordinator will include the following:
Participate with colleagues in the offices of the Student Affairs and the Registrar to advise undergraduate students in their
first two years of study.
Note that this recommendation has dynamic links to a number of other UGCC recommendations, notably: Recommendation
6, which changes the nature of the 209 jury; Recommendation 16, which requests more elective classes; and
Recommendation 20, which encourages departments to devise concentrations, or minors.
On 24 March 2009, the Undergraduate Committee approved this recommendation for implementation in the 2009-2010
school year.
The 109, 209 and 309 juries (including the 309 recital) should be reduced from 2 credits
Recommendation 5:
each to 1 credit each.42
One of the more unusual features of Peabody's curriculum is the awarding of 2 credits for juries and recitals, which amounts
to 8 credits of the undergraduate degree. Peabody may be the only school of music to award credit for juries.
The 1998 curriculum committee recommended that the credit for juries and junior recitals be reduced from two credits to one
credit. Previously, there was a concern to balance lessons and performance credits with other studies to ensure that students
who have trouble with their coursework will not be threatened with loss of scholarship. However, following the
implementation of new financial aid procedures and new guidelines for satisfactory academic progress, students are no longer
threatened with loss of scholarship. Rather, students who fall below the guidelines are referred to the Undergraduate
Committee, where the Conservatory faculty decides the appropriate course of action.
By removing three credits from the total number of credits awarded for lessons, juries, recitals and ensembles, the percentage
of total credits awarded in the major area is not significantly disturbed (56-57 credits out of a total of 147 credits for
orchestral instruments in the 2008-2009 Catalog).43
Page 14
While Peabody may be awarding jury credits for reasons that are no longer relevant, the credits are in the best interests of the
school and the students. The UGCC regards the jury grade and credit as interdependent assessments of student progress. A
separate jury grade makes that function particularly clear to students and faculty alike and thus constitutes a best practice of
student learning assessment, as mandated by MSCHE Standard 14.
At the end of each year, students and faculty may compare a lesson grade and a jury grade and raise questions about any
differences between the formative assessment and the summative assessment. Formative assessment takes place in weekly
private lessons: the lessons allow professors to spot-assess student progress and to prescribe exercises to improve
performance in advance of summative assessment. Summative assessment occurs in multiple levels. At the smaller level,
units of study are assessed and weighted in advance of a semester grade. At a slightly larger level, a jury before a panel of
faculty garners a second grade. The Associate Dean's review of student grades at the conclusion of each semester constitutes
a second layer of assessment. Any problems are referred to the Undergraduate Committee, constituting a third layer of
assessment.
Lesson Grade Student and faculty Associate Dean for Undergraduate

comparison of Academic Affairs' Committee's review and
Jury Grade grades review possible action
Assessment Assessment of Student Learning
The interaction of these two assessment mechanisms is recursive. At the largest level, the annual juries are formative
assessments that progress to an ultimate summative assessment and capstone project: a public recital.
The UGCC recommends that the conservatory embrace the role of student juries as an assessment of student learning. Juries
should continue to be graded and recorded for credit. However, successful juries and junior recitals should be awarded only
one credit. Only the final recital should be awarded two credits. Thus, a successful 309 junior recital should merit one credit,
while the 395 recital – as the final recital of the B.M. in Music Education – should merit two credits.
year. The Registrar suggested that the UGCC clarify whether a half-recital, also given the course number 309, be offered for
one or two credits.
The 209 jury, while still graded for the actual performance, should include a broader
Recommendation 6: consideration of the student's overall record and result in a more detailed
recommendation for future achievement.44
At both MSM45 and Juilliard46 – two peer schools also accredited by MSCHE – the sophomore jury is a midcourse
assessment of student progress. Students must pass these promotional or continuation juries to continue in their course of
study. At Peabody, the 209 jury is also a promotional jury and already described as an important benchmark in the
undergraduate curriculum. The current Peabody Catalog describes it as follows:
The purpose of the 209 jury taken at the end of the sophomore year (4th semester or credit hour equivalent) is to assess the
student's overall progress and to determine whether or not he or she should be advised to continue in the chosen curriculum.
On the basis of this jury and the student's overall record, the jury committee makes recommendations for the student’s
remaining years of undergraduate study. It is in the student's best interests that a careful professional assessment and
subsequent recommendation be made.47
Unfortunately, given the non-descript names "Department Examination" and "209 Jury," students and faculty have
overlooked or forgotten the significance of the sophomore jury. Particular to the Peabody 209 jury is the idea that the faculty
should consider the student's overall record. The UGCC would like to formalize that procedure. In other words, of the three
juries, the middle jury should include not only an assessment of the student's actual juried performance, but a consideration of
how the student has progressed based on lesson grades, prior jury grades with comments, and audition scores.
Page 15
By adding a review of grades, the 209 becomes a natural place in a student's curriculum for departments to take on a more
active role in the student's advising (as detailed in Recommendation 4). These considerations should be noted by the faculty
on an expanded comment sheet to be filed in the student's record.
The UGCC recommends an expanded consideration of the student's overall practice be observed by studio faculty with the
assistance of the offices of the Registrar and Academic Affairs.
year. The Conservatory Registrar asked the UGCC and Associate Dean to give due consideration to the collection of records
in advance of the 209 jury.
The Composition and Computer Music Departments should adopt the equivalent of a 209
Recommendation 7:
jury.48
As noted in Recommendation 5, a jury complements a lesson grade and provides a more critical assessment of student
progress. The Composition and Computer music department should institute the equivalent of a 209 jury to assess student
progress in the first two years of study and to recommend areas to improve in the final two years of study.
The mechanics of implementing such a jury do not seem prohibitive. Students would need to enroll in a 209 jury for one
semester. In the fall semester 2008, there were approximately 12 composition majors and 11 computer music majors pursuing
undergraduate degrees. If these numbers are normative and remain relatively constant, there would be approximately 4 to 6
juries each year.
The pedagogical details of a composition jury should be left to the departments to arrange. The departments would do well to
begin with the procedures and criteria used for the admission interview (the audition). As such, student might be required to
submit a small portfolio in advance of a May jury. A comparison of admission interview with the grading criteria for senior
recitals should make it possible to plot a mid-degree benchmark for undergraduate students. Students should be made aware
of the assessment guidelines and consequences well in advance of their 209 jury. Finally, the departments should consider
Recommendation 6 about the 209 jury in other areas. Students would be especially well-served by detailed comments and
recommendations for future study.
Existing models of composition juries (sometimes called a continuation jury or a portfolio review) are easily found at public
universities. Because public universities spend public money, they are often compelled to institute measures to demonstrate
student learning assessment. Two particular models worth noting are found at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champagne49
and the University of Georgia.50 Among peer institutions, MSM51 and Juilliard52 conduct sophomore juries for composers.
The UGCC recommends that both the Composition Department and Computer Music Department develop a procedure and
assessment criteria for a sophomore jury in time for the class entering in the 2009-2010 school year.
On 21 April 2009, the Undergraduate Committee – including Dr. McGregor Boyle, the Chair of Composition and Computer
Music – approved this recommendation for implementation in the 2009-2010 school year.
Recommendation 8: The Humanities curriculum should be condensed and restructured.53
The Humanities form an unquestionably important role in the undergraduate curriculum. Indeed, that importance is found
atop Peabody's Educational Philosophy statement: "Peabody believes in liberal arts for musicians."54 The Humanities
department notes that such study "is essential to Peabody's highest educational goals, uniquely challenging Peabody students
to aspire to their highest potential as responsible and productive artists and members of the human community."55
Despite these inarguable ideals, an assessment of the current Humanities curriculum has proven a high-profile task for the
UGCC. While always careful to recognize the informal nature of the UGCC surveys and remembering especially the
Page 16
relatively small rate of response among the faculty, it would nevertheless seem that among the three academic departments,
Humanities was identified as a particular concern in the UGCC survey:
How do you feel about the number of courses required in Humanities?
Fewer courses More courses Just right

Students 75% 2.9% 22.1%
Faculty 33.3% 25 % 41.7%
Naturally, given the single-minded focus of a conservatory education, the Humanities classes seem to stand apart in the
minds of many students. The other academic departments can justify their place in a student's busy life by virtue of
nomenclature: Music Theory and Musicology. To be sure, the quality of otherness associated with Humanities is found in
many student comments, which may be adumbrated, "we're here to study Music, not Humanities."
In 2004, the Academic Council commissioned an external review of the Liberal Arts curriculum.56 Subsequent review of the
report and further discussion resulted in a new Humanities curriculum which was unanimously approved by the Academic
Council on 16 November 2005 and the Undergraduate Committee on 13 December 2005. The new Humanities curriculum
included two dramatic changes: 1) the institution of a five-credit Humanities seminar for all entering undergraduates; and 2)
the institution of distribution requirements: three designated areas from which students must take courses.
Content and Competencies as Defined by Peabody Accreditation Standards
The courses designated as Humanities at Peabody are called General Studies by NASM and General Education by MSCHE
and COMAR. NASM, while noting that "specific competency expectations are defined by the institution," notes that alumni
of B.M. programs should have the following skills:
1. The ability to think, speak, and write clearly and effectively.

2. An informed acquaintance with fields of study beyond music such as those in the arts and humanities, the natural
and physical sciences, and the social sciences.
3. A functional awareness of the differences and commonalities regarding work in artistic, scientific, and humanistic
domains.
4. Awareness that multiple disciplinary perspectives and techniques are available to consider all issues and
responsibilities including, but not limited to, history, culture, moral and ethical issues, and decision-making.
5. The ability to identify possibilities and locate information in other fields that have bearing on musical questions and
endeavors.57
MSCHE's guidelines are outlined in Standard 12, General Education, and require that students "demonstrate college-level
proficiency in general education and essential skills, including at least oral and written communication, scientific and
quantitative reasoning, critical analysis and reasoning, and technological competency."58 Noting that the Humanities
curriculum should be "should be purposeful, coherent, engaging, and rigorous," MSCHE further expects a curriculum that:
• expresses the educational philosophy of the institution for each undergraduate degree program or cluster of degree
programs;
• incorporates essential knowledge, cognitive abilities, and an understanding of values and ethics;
• enhances students' intellectual growth; and
• draws students into new areas of intellectual experience, expanding their cultural and global awareness and
sensitivity, and preparing them to make enlightened judgments outside as well as within their academic specialty.59
Finally, the expectations of the State of Maryland, outlined in COMAR Title 13b, are not appreciably different, requiring
students to be equipped to:
(a) Communicate effectively in oral and written English;

(b) Read with comprehension;
(c) Reason abstractly and think critically;
(d) Understand and interpret numerical data;
(e) Understand the scientific method;
Page 17
(f) Recognize and appreciate cultural diversity;

(g) Understand the nature and value of the fine and performing arts; and
(h) Demonstrate information literacy. 60
Particular to the MSCHE fundamental elements is the need to demonstrate the competencies as appropriate to the
discipline."61 NASM qualifies the B.M. as a "professional baccalaureate degree," thus establishing the needs of B.M. alumni
as the needs of professional musicians. While both NASM and MSCHE emphasize oral and written communication, NASM
notes that students seeking the B.M. need demonstrate only an "informed acquaintance" in the natural and physical sciences
and the social sciences, and a "functional awareness" of "differences and commonalities regarding work in artistic, scientific,
and humanistic domains."62 Finally, COMAR, MSCHE and NASM include discussions on student facility with technology
in the context of their sections on general studies or general education. However, in both cases, the placement of technology
seems more one of convenience than of appropriate linkage. Peabody should not necessarily relegate this element of the
curriculum to an already taxed Humanities department. For more about oral and written communication, see
Recommendation 22; for more about technological literacy, see Recommendation 21.
Time on Task
According to NASM, general studies should comprise 25-35% of the curriculum.63 MSCHE notes that a program of
sufficient scope should be the equivalent of 30 semester hours for baccalaureate programs.64 COMAR seems by far the most
restrictive, requiring "not less than 40 hours."65
Regarding NASM, it should be noted that NASM makes recommendations assuming a degree consisting of 120 credits.66
Thus, NASM recommends a general studies core of 30-42 credits. However, the 2004 Humanities External Review showed
that no peer institution has a general studies requirement of 30 credits.67 The UGCC found the same to be true in its 2008-
2009 comparison to peer institutions, found in Appendix A (p. 74). NASM also notes that music courses such as "music
history, music literature, or ethnomusicology courses, or courses in acoustics or aesthetics" may be included in the category
of Humanities, "if conceived and taught in relation to other realms of human experience." 68
Similarly, peer institutions accredited by MSCHE require less than 30 credits. The general studies requirements for peer
schools are as follows:
• Juilliard: All students in the B.F.A. and B.M. degree programs are required to complete 24 credits in the Liberal Arts.69
• Manhattan School of Music: All students in the undergraduate degree program are required to take 24 credits (voice
students, 18) distributed among Humanities Core and Elective classes.70
• Mannes College The New School for Music: In accordance with the requirements of New York State, at least 25 percent
of the credits in each major are in liberal arts courses.71
Like NASM, MSCHE allows for these skills to be "taught or developed as part of courses in the major," further specifying
that "skills and knowledge derived from general education and the major should be integrated because general education and
study in depth, together, comprise a quality undergraduate education."72 Finally, noting the need for an "appropriate balance
between specialized and more general knowledge," MSCHE further delineates:
The institution's ability to demonstrate that its students are able to integrate and apply in different contexts the core
knowledge and skills learned in their course work is a critical component of successful undergraduate educational
programs.
General education offerings should reflect the particular programs and mission of the institution. However, general
education courses should not focus narrowly on those skills, techniques, and procedures specific to a particular
occupation or profession. The content of general education within specialized degree programs should be
comparable, though not necessarily identical, to traditional academic offerings at the collegiate level or above.73
Finally, while COMAR would seem to require 40 semester hours, it also notes that nonpublic institutions may satisfy the
general education requirement with "an integrated and structured general education experience required of all students,
adopted by the governing board of the institution, which shall be demonstrated to the Commission at the time of initial
approval or reaffirmation of approval, to achieve the goals of general education as defined in §E(1) of this regulation."74
COMAR Title 13B is implemented by the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC), which was only established in
1988. The earliest state agency to perform this function was the Maryland Advisory Council on Higher Education, which was
only established in 1963. Peabody has been granting diplomas since 1882 and has clearly demonstrated the achievement of
Page 18
these goals. Moreover, our closest peer under the same guidelines is the Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA). MICA's
undergraduate curricula list 42 credits of "Liberal Arts Requirements," but 15-18 of those credits relate to Art History or Art
Theory, leaving a non-discipline core of 24-27 credits.75
Analysis
The current humanities curriculum requires 32 credits for all undergraduate students. Among peer institutions studied, only
Rice University requires more credits (39). The average number of credits for non-vocalists is 27 credits; the mean number
of credits is 24. It seems clear that given the priority placed on elective coursework, detailed in Recommendation 16,
Peabody can lower its requirements while promoting more electives.
A particular concern of undergraduates is the first semester Humanities Seminar (PY.260.115). The five-credit Seminar is
described as follows:
A team-taught course designed for new Peabody undergraduates. The course introduces students to college-level
academic studies. Designed as a text-based, interdisciplinary course, course themes and assignments change from
year to year. The course fosters critical thinking through discussion and a range of carefully supervised projects in a
small-group setting. Writing and collaborative work are central to the Humanities Seminar.76
The Humanities Seminar serves a number of pedagogical purposes and condenses the 8-10 credits required in the previous
curriculum. The division into a large lecture – the only course offering that demands all the students of a single class – and
small break-out sections is undeniably appealing to parents and accrediting organizations. On paper, everything about the
Seminar seems right. However, the first two years of the Seminar have been difficult. While always acknowledging the
unscientific nature of the UGCC survey, the results pertaining to the Seminar are disquieting. Of 71 students rating the
Seminar from 1 (bad) to 10 (good), the mean rating was 4.27 with a standard deviation of 2.63, and the median rating was 4.
Only 28% rated this class above a 5. The third offering of the Seminar, in the fall semester 2008, fared better on course
evaluations. Nevertheless, it would seem the Seminar is not reaching the students with quite the efficiency and impact that
was intended.
A final issue of concern is the amount of classes and their area designations as compared with the staffing issues of the
Department. The Humanities curriculum requires courses in three study areas: Language and Literature (LL), Global
Perspectives (GP), and Historical/Philosophical Studies (HP). Peabody has only two full-time Liberal Arts professors, in
addition to a full-time language professor, and a full-time writing professor. Most of the designated electives are taught by
the Liberal Arts professors. As a result, it is difficult to offer enough classes in each of three areas in any given year. For
example, in the 2008-2009 school year, there is no class that is only designated GP. Rather, two courses (PY.260.216
Twentieth Century Aesthetics and Politics and PY.260.232 World Film) are designated HP/LL and HP/GP, respectively.
Recommendation
The UGCC recommends that the Humanities Seminar be offered for 4 credits instead of 5 credits. The reduction will make
the class a bit shorter for students while not too adversely affecting the curriculum. The UGCC also recommends the
Humanities faculty give due consideration to splitting the 4 credits into 3 credits of Humanities Seminar and 1 credit of
expository writing to be delivered and assessed with a distance-learning modality.
The UGCC further recommends that one three-credit Humanities LL elective be removed from the requirement. A second
three-credit Humanities elective should be available for classes in other departments subject to reasonable guidelines to be
determined and made clear by the Humanities faculty. For example, it should be possible to take certain classes in
Musicology and perhaps even Music Theory if these courses require a certain degree of text-based analysis, critical thinking
and writing. The UGCC expects this modest restructuring will allow the Humanities faculty to offer the required
distributions of the curriculum on a regular schedule. Finally, Recommendation 9 removes the study of foreign language as a
requirement, thus making foreign language a reasonable choice for LL elective credit.
Page 19
Thus, the recommended Humanities curricula are as follows:
Humanities Curriculum Humanities Curriculum for Voice
Humanities Seminar 4 Humanities Seminar 4

2 LL electives 3+3 Italian 1 3+3
2 GP electives 3+3 French 1 3+3
2 HP electives 3+3 German 1 3+3
1 HE elective 3 HP Elective 3
1 "Humanities-approved elective" 3 GP Elective 3
TOTAL: 28 TOTAL: 28
year.
With the exception of Voice majors, the study of foreign language should no longer be a
Recommendation 9:
requirement for undergraduates. Foreign language classes should be offered as electives.77
The study of foreign language is a hallmark of a liberal education. Language study has always been part of the curriculum at
Peabody. However, in recent years there have been several attempts to limit or eliminate requirements for foreign languages
in the B.M.
As late as 2005, the undergraduate curriculum at Peabody required twelve credits in foreign language. The 2004 external
review addressed the language requirements, but went no further than recommending that the requirement be assessed. A
faculty response to the external review went further, opining that there should be no language requirement for B.M. students
at Peabody with the exception of voice majors.78 In the ensuing discussions at the Academic Council, it was ultimately
decided that the foreign language requirement would be reduced to one year, as reflected in the curriculum beginning in the
2006-2007 school year.
MSCHE makes no recommendation about foreign language. NASM does not require the study of foreign language for non-
voice majors, but does note that "Historical and analytical studies in the arts and studies in foreign languages are
recommended for all performers."79
The Jacobs School of Music at Indiana, one of the nation's largest universities, is the only peer institution that requires all
undergraduate students to study foreign language. All of the independent schools and conservatories have long since
discontinued the requirement. Moreover, the nature of language study is changing in the larger educational community.
NSSE's 2008 survey of 194,858 students found that only 41% of graduating seniors had done foreign language coursework.
A 2007 study by the Modern Language Association found that overall enrollments in foreign languages rose by 12.9%.80
However, that same survey found that, with the exception of Italian, the significant growth since 1980 is found in languages
not traditionally associated with Western Classical Music: Arabic (over 100% growth); Chinese and Korean (over 30%
growth) ; American Sign Language, Italian, Japanese, and Portuguese (over 20% growth) and Spanish (10.3% growth).81
The UGCC recommends that the Conservatory no longer require foreign languages for all students. Rather, foreign language
classes should be offered for voice majors and for any other student who chooses to study language as an LL Humanities
elective.
year.
Page 20
Recognizing the recent streamlining of Inter-Divisional Registration (IDR) procedures,

the Conservatory should create more scheduling opportunities for students to take classes
at Homewood. Peabody students and faculty must be made aware of the opportunities
Recommendation 10:
that already exist. The Humanities Department should clarify the articulation of credits
transferred between the campuses, noting the kinds of classes that may be applied to the
Humanities curriculum and the appropriate levels of these classes.82
For some time, Peabody students and faculty have raised concerns about access to courses offered on the Homewood
campus. An examination of data provided by William Conley, the Dean of enrollment and academic services for the
Homewood campus, revealed the following:
• According to a report run by the ASEN Registrar, there were 3,252 available seats in 376 sections of 223 classes on 4
September 2008
• There were 2,092 seats available in 289 sections of 193 classes on 16 October 2008.
• All of the available ASEN sections have the Humanities (H) designation. 85 sections of 59 courses were designated
Humanities and Social/Behavioral Sciences (HS). One section was designated Humanities and Qualitative/Mathematical
Sciences (HQ) and one was designated Humanities and Natural Sciences and Social/Behavioral Sciences (HNS).83
• Peabody students submitted 124 IDR requests for 113 sections of 111 classes.
• Peabody students were enrolled in 96 sections of 67 classes on 24 October 2008.84
• Of the 96 of the Peabody students, 87 were undergraduates; 9 were doctoral students.
• 77 ASEN students were enrolled in classes or lessons at Peabody as of 24 October 2008.
In sum, 87 of 324 (27%) Peabody undergraduates enrolled in the fall semester 2008 had the wherewithal to register and
attend a class at Homewood. Moreover, it would seem that most Peabody students take one or two classes at Homewood. In
the UGCC survey of undergraduate students, 46% percent of the students indicated that they had taken one class at
Homewood. However, Homewood currently has the capacity for undergraduate Peabody students to take several classes a
semester.
Of the students who completed the UGCC survey, 63% indicated they would take a class at Homewood if they had "more
time in the schedule to take such classes." When asked about the kinds of electives they prefer, 45% indicated "classes that
have nothing do with music, and 43% further specified "classes at Homewood." Of Peabody faculty who completed the
survey, 44% indicated that students should be allowed to take classes at Homewood as electives. An overwhelming concern
in both groups is the opportunity to take Homewood classes as part of their Humanities requirements. It is hoped that the
recommendations of the UGCC will address the scheduling issues faced by Peabody students. As the previously cited data
indicates, Homewood has an enormous capacity to accommodate the interests of our students.
Another concern of students and faculty is the processes for IDR. Among surveyed students, 66% indicated they would take
a class at Homewood with "easier cross-registration." One student noted that IDR was "far too inconvenient." However,
some of the more challenging issues of IDR have already been addressed.
Independent of the research by the UGCC, James Dobson, the Conservatory Registrar, worked with Betsy Paul, the Associate
Registrar for ASEN, to streamline the IDR process. The two of them fashioned the following procedure for IDR which was
first used for the spring semester 2008:
Interdivisional Registration Instructions for ASEN Courses
Peabody students may request to enroll in Arts and Sciences or Engineering courses. To increase your
success in obtaining the courses you request, please review the following.
All interdivisional registration forms and add/drop/withdrawal forms must be submitted and processed
through your HOME division Registrar’s Office.
Submit all paper work to the Peabody Registrar’s Office. This includes all approvals, registrations, adds,
drops, audit, credit changes, and withdrawals.
Page 21
Please be aware that you must follow the HOST school’s registration deadlines. These deadlines can be
found on the Registrar’s web site:
• http://www.jhu.edu/registrar
• Click on Undergraduate and Graduate Students
• Click on Important Notices
The Homewood Registrar’s Office will start processing interdivisional course requests on the first Monday
in January for the spring semester (January 5, 2009) and on the first Monday in August for the fall semester
(August 3, 2009).
All inquiries about interdivisional requests must be addressed at the home division.
A major advantage of this new procedure is that it guarantees that Peabody IDR requests will be processed before the start of
classes. Previously, it was unclear when IDR requests were processed and some students believed their IDR requests
languished until after the ASEN drop/add period closed.
The UGCC recommends that administrators from both campuses try to schedule classes in a way that is efficient for students
from both campuses. The UGCC further recommends that the Humanities department should clarify the articulation of
credits transferred between the campuses, noting the kinds of classes that may be applied to the Humanities curriculum and
the appropriate levels of these classes.
The Music Theory Department should compress its current curriculum into five
Recommendation 11:
semesters plus a one-semester elective.85
The current Music Theory curriculum has not changed appreciably since 1986. The order of the classes changed in 1999 and
the details of the courses were clarified in 2007, but there has been no change to the amount or content of the courses since
the Conservatory changed from a four-year requirement to a three-year requirement. For the last decennial review by
NASM in 2004, the Theory curriculum was described in great detail and was not found wanting. However, while the
curriculum has remained constant, the department has changed considerably. Since 1999, seven faculty members have
retired and have been replaced with eight new faculty members.86 In a department of eleven, this change has been nothing
short of a generational shift. During the same period the enrollment of the Conservatory ballooned from 601 students in
1992-1993,87 to 670 students in the fall of 2008.
During the rapid change of personnel and the influx of students, no appreciable thought was given to the relationship between
the increased demands on the new faculty and the old curriculum. One of the more unique features of the Peabody Theory
curriculum has always been the idiomatic application by individual teachers. While it has been common to offer multiple
sections of the same class for years, it has never been common to use the same syllabus, much less the same textbook for
concurrent sections. In the past, the idiosyncrasies of multiple approaches were extolled as a virtue, and any potential ill
effects were balanced by the experience of the faculty. Now that the department typically offers five to six sections of the
core Theory classes, the idiosyncrasies abound. The varying teaching styles are further complicated by the fact that the
increased student population has not been countered with an increase in faculty. As a result, the department has need of more
adjuncts. In 1994-1995, the Department had one adjunct: Sharon Levy, then already a Ph.D. in Music Theory and
completing her DMA in piano at Peabody; now already one of the senior members of the department. In the 2008-2009
school year, there are six adjuncts, many of them teaching more than one class and only half of them with a terminal degree
in hand. Finally, the Department has to contend with staffing the music minor on the Homewood campus, which requires
adjuncts for ten sections each year and the Department administers an M.M. program in Music Theory Pedagogy which only
began in 1994.
These changes, scarcely noted while progressing, seem dizzying in retrospect. However, the students have identified a lack
of unity in the department's multiple sections. Most adjuncts teach Theory I, and that was the lowest-rated class among the
Music Theory offerings in the UGCC survey. Moreover, when asked about the content and teaching of Theory classes,
students found it wanting: 53% suggested it "should be more uniform and consistent across courses" while only 30% said it
"has a good balance of consistency and variety of approach." Nevertheless, music theory is valued by the Peabody
Page 22
community. When asked to comment on number of required classes 78% of the students and 71% the faculty found the
requirement to be "just right."
The 1998 curriculum review committee recommended that Music Theory condense its curriculum into five semesters and
that students be required to elect a sixth semester from a range of electives. This change would, "give all undergraduates a
secure knowledge of diatonic and chromatic harmony, traditional forms, and an introduction to twentieth-century musical
techniques, and then allow them to take one course in an area of particular relevance to their field of study or of particular
interest to them." [CITE] The UGCC makes the same recommendation. Given the overall effort to allow students more
choice in their studies, the ability to take an elective in Music Theory seems appropriate. Moreover, given the dramatic
changes in the school and in the department since 1998, this recommendation takes on a special significance. A compressed
music theory core, coupled with the new fundamentals track detailed in Recommendation 12, should make for a swifter
passage through the core and require less adjuncts. In addressing that goal, the UGCC hopes the Music Theory Department
can continue to clarify its curriculum and further unify its approaches to teaching and assessment.
The UGCC recommends a six-semester Music Theory core be compressed to five semesters with an additional one-semester
elective.
Supplement to the Recommendation.
On 22 March 2009, the Music Theory approved this recommendation. Dr. Kip Wile, Chair of the Department, requested "the
UG theory core be amended to include a five-semester sequence to replace the current six semesters, with the addition of an
elective in music theory following the fifth semester."88
year.
Music Theory should implement and staff a parallel theory track for students needing
Recommendation 12:
remediation.89
In 1988, responding to the reduction of the core curriculum from eight semesters to six semesters, the Department devised a
new means of remediating students who enter the Conservatory with deficiencies in Music Theory. From that time on,
weaker students were put into a remedial "booster" course called Theory Fundamentals, taught by graduate students. In
2004, students who entered the Conservatory with poor ear-training skills were put into yet another remedial class called Ear-
training fundamentals. It was around this time that the Ear-training classes for all students reverted to a five-day schedule
with 20 minutes on each day.
The net result of these changes was that students who entered the Conservatory with theory deficiencies were saddled with an
enormous amount of remedial work to be taken at the same time as the coursework all other students were taking. This
presents a considerable difficulty since these students are also first-time college students and adjusting to the rigors of
Conservatory training in a new environment. Finally, the heavy course load was especially problematic for voice majors,
who carry more credits than any other major. A typical freshman singer enrolls in 23 credits in their first semester. To add
the equivalent of 4 credits of remedial work is to add a lot and to expect unreasonable results without providing the space to
practice and internalize new skills.
As a result, the UGCC recommends a parallel theory track for student needing remediation with a view to reintegrating the
tracks further along in the undergraduate curriculum.
Supplement to the Recommendation.
The Department of Music Theory, working in concert with the Voice Department, voted to enact this recommendation and
requested, "a new track for students placed into Fundamentals, in which the first three semesters of the UG theory core will
cover Fundamentals sequentially rather than simultaneously with Theory I."90
The new parallel track, which will begin in the 2009-2010 school year, will only apply to the first three semesters. Students
in the track will rejoin their peers for the fourth and fifth semester before taking an elective in the sixth semester.91
year.
Page 23
Convene a working group of selected members from Musicology and other departments
Recommendation 13:
to assess the Music History curriculum and recommend alternatives to increase credit
hours and contact time to better meet the needs of the students.
The Musicology Department recently studied the effectiveness the Music History curriculum by studying the results of music
history placement exams in August 2007 and August 2008. Students accepted to the graduate program at Peabody must take
the placement exam upon matriculating. By comparing the placement results of 24 recent Peabody alumni with 52 recent
graduates of other institutions, the Musicology Department was able to assess student learning in their curriculum.92
The collected data was reviewed by the biostatistician Dr. Harold Lehmann, Associate Professor in the Bloomberg School of
Public Health. The raw scores for placement indicate that alumni from other schools are scoring as much as 13% higher on
Peabody's placement test, graded by Peabody's faculty after being submitted anonymously, than Peabody's own alumni.93
The included data also shows that the Peabody alumni earned B+/A– grades in Music History and that Peabody students on
average have higher SAT scores than students from the schools from which the other 52 matriculants previously graduated.
Reflecting on these results, the Musicology Department has argued persuasively that Peabody students need more
coursework in Musicology. The current undergraduate curriculum requires students to take 4 classes of 5 offerings: Music
History I-IV and Music and Culture. Each of these classes is offered for 2 credits and thus total 8 credits by the end of the
degree program.
NASM has no specific requirements for Musicology. They note: "music has a long history, many repertories, multiple
connections with cultures, and numerous successful methodologies." However, "the institution is responsible for decisions
regarding breadth and depth and for setting proportions among [repertories and methodologies]."94 Among the 11
benchmarked peer institutions, Peabody joins Indiana, Mannes and Cincinnati in requiring the least credits in Musicology; IU
and Mannes require related coursework that may overlap the Musicology competencies. The average requirement is 10
credits; the most extensive requirement is the 14-credit requirement of MSM, entailing 8 sequential credits and 6 credits of
electives.
Students are enthusiastic about the Musicology curriculum, with 70% asking for "more courses" in the UGCC survey. Given
the choice between survey courses and survey courses balanced with seminars, 55% answered "Survey courses serve my
needs," and overall, 48% report the curriculum has "a good balance of consistency and variety of approach." Only half of the
faculty respondents answered the questions on this part of the survey, but of those who did answer, 42% noted that current
requirement is "just right," while 68 % suggested: "Survey courses should be balanced with courses on specific topics (e. g.,
Beethoven quartets)."
The Musicology Department has proposed increasing each class from 2 credits to 3 credits. The third credit might entail a
weekly class session devoted to directed listening. Adding four credits to the requirements would place Peabody among the
more demanding schools of our Peers. Moreover, as noted in the introduction and as found in the survey, students are
currently doing work for the Music History classes that is more commensurate with a 3-credit class.
The UGCC is open to Musicology's proposal to increase contact time, and a majority would like to see an increased number
of credits. Some members have suggested that the Department should make some changes to its current curriculum to
redistribute the competencies. Some members have suggested compressing the survey and adding seminar style classes. It
has also become clear that any change effected should also apply to the Jazz History classes, which serve that same role in the
Jazz curriculum.
Since it is beyond the purview of the UGCC to anticipate the consequences of increasing faculty loads and graduate assistant
hours during a time of financial duress, the UGCC recommends that the Academic Council appoint a working group to study
the possible solutions and make a recommendation by the middle of the spring semester 2010.
Recommendation 14: For most majors, Basic Conducting should be an elective, not a requirement.95
NASM makes no specific recommendation about conducting. In its description of components for all programs, conducting
is included in a list of musicianship skills:
Page 24
The content of traditional course work in musicianship such as sight-singing, ear-training, harmony, keyboard harmony,
counterpoint, orchestration, conducting, and music literature is important. However, this content can be organized and taught
in a variety of ways to produce comprehensive musical competence.96
It is not clear that the inclusion of conducting in the preceding list – as the eighth term in a sequence of nine terms – obligates
Peabody to offer a separate class in conducting, especially in that it is not coupled with rehearsal skills. Later, in the
guidelines for the B.M., NASM indicates: "Rehearsal and conducting skills are required as appropriate to the particular music
concentration."97 The particular concentrations are made clear in the subsequent description of majors, where conducting and
rehearsal skills are specifically required for degrees in Composition, Sacred Music, Pedagogy, Music Therapy, and Music
Education.
Among peer institutions, Peabody is one of 4 schools to require conducting for all majors; 8 schools do not. While
conducting is required in the curriculum of many other schools, including many of the schools with executives represented on
the NASM board, other musicianship skills such as orchestration and counterpoint are not.
Of the Peabody students who responded to the UGCC survey, 82% found it "important to take conducting." Moreover,
students are particularly fond of Dr. Parker's Basic Conducting class and will likely continue to take it as an elective.
However, only 53% of the faculty agreed that conducting was important for their students.
The UGCC recommends that conducting only be required for the following majors: orchestral instruments, organ, and music
education. Other majors should be encouraged to take conducting as appropriate to their interests and workloads.
year.
Appoint the UGCC to work with representatives from the Ensembles Office, the Concert
Office, the Opera Department, and the Conservatory Dean's Staff to address the logistical
Recommendation 15: problems of space and scheduling and to address the teaching mission of the large
ensembles and their role in recruitment, admissions and retention. Put all parties on a
short reporting schedule for implementing changes in the 2010-2011 school year.
The large ensembles constitute one of the largest instructional areas of the Conservatory. Every instrumentalist taking
lessons is assigned to a large ensemble in every semester. Every vocalist, pianist, organist, guitarist, composer, and computer
musician must perform in a large ensemble between four and six semesters. As of April 2009, there are 403 students enrolled
in large ensembles; 300 of those students are undergraduates. With the exception of the opera companies, undergraduates
form the majority of most large ensembles. Twenty-eight undergraduates are enrolled in more than one large ensemble,
including one student who is enrolled in three ensembles.
While it is not the most musical consideration, it is nevertheless true that each ensemble is in effect, a large class. As such,
students receive credit for their participation in that class. Peabody grants credits for ensembles as if they were laboratory
courses using a formula advanced by NASM: one credit is awarded for three 50-minute recitation periods per week.98 In
practice, published schedules for the large ensembles actually show six hours of rehearsals each week. However, each
orchestra requires services in only 10 of the 15 weeks in a semester, so the time on task is accounted for by NASM standards.
Finally, Peabody is among 7 of 13 benchmarked peer schools to award 2 credits for ensembles; the other peer schools award
1 credit.
The notion of large ensembles as big classes is also useful for considering the scheduling issues. PCO, PSO, and PWE each
contain between 15% and 25% of the undergraduate students. PWE and PCO meet at the same time. PSO meets at the same
time as the two choruses. PJO overlaps PSO on two days of the week. Thus in any given rehearsal frame, a significant
number of undergraduates are engaged in rehearsal. This creates a number of difficulties for students engaged in multiple
ensembles. In recent years a significant number of classes have also been offered in these ensemble time slots.
At a slightly larger level, the concert schedule creates a number of difficulties for the Peabody community. The Ensembles
office must balance a dizzying number of issues to plan their year. The Institute as a whole should be encouraged to assess
Page 25
the benefits and costs of special events, especially

since the benefits are hard to quantify, while the Ensemble Enrollment: Spring 2009
costs are largely meted out in wear-and-tear on our
students. While it is far beyond the charge of the Ensemble Total Undergraduates
UGCC and reflects carefully-considered
hierarchical structures and personnel data, the Peabody Symphony Orchestra (PSO) 107 60
UGCC encourages the Institute to examine the Peabody Concert Orchestra (PCO) 100 80
reporting structure of the faculty and staff
coordinating the ensembles and concerts. Since Peabody Wind Ensemble (PWE) 71 57
participation in large ensembles is a requirement in Peabody Singers 40 35
Conservatory curricula, the Dean of the
Conservatory should be a stakeholder in Peabody-Hopkins Chorus 41 37
discussions about the ensembles. Peabody Jazz Orchestra (PJO) 25 22
The role of the large ensembles in the curriculum is Peabody Opera Theatre 41 18
one of the most delicate and difficult issues for the Peabody Chamber Opera 13 2
Peabody community. The ensembles faculty is
charged with operating the ensembles as learning Peabody Improvisation/Multimedia 15 13
laboratories. The yearly auditions, the rotation of
players through the instrumental ensembles, the selection of repertoire with progressing difficulty and the impeccable record-
keeping of the Ensembles office all speak to the dedication of the Ensembles faculty and staff to address the competencies in
a manner consistent with Peabody's resources. Over the course of a four-year degree, an instrumentalist will likely spend
more time with a conductor than with any other faculty member.
Needs of the Three Large Instrumental Ensembles Enrollment of the Three Large Instrumental Ensembles: 2000-2009
Instrument Need
Flute 14 140
Oboe 12
130
Clarinet 20
120
Bassoon 12
110
Horn 17
Sax 8 100
Trumpet 18 90
Trombone 10 80
Bass Trombone 3 70
Euphonium 2
60
Tuba 5 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Percussion 17 PCO 104 123 116 116 111 124 111 110 112 100
PSO 84 130 123 127 122 127 119 129 123 107
Harp 8 70 86 85 89 74 73 76 72 66 72
PWE
Violin 76
Viola 28
Cello 32
Bass 19
TOTAL 301
Given the intense master/apprentice relationship that develops between musicians and major teachers, many members of the
studio faculty believe they should play a more-determinate role in the large ensemble experience. Given their own
professional experiences, some studio faculty would like to see more variety in the large ensemble program. NASM is clear
about the role of ensembles in the curriculum, noting that students should play in ensembles throughout the baccalaureate
program to achieve "growth in artistry, technical skills, collaborative competence and knowledge of repertory through regular
ensemble experiences." However, NASM also notes that ensembles "should be varied both in size and nature."99
Page 26
The Ensembles faculty has sought to address this need by soliciting the support of studio faculty. Through much of the fall
semester 2008, the Ensembles staff hosted discussions by student groups, led by studio faculty. Finally, the Ensembles
faculty has expressed its concern that dividing its principal ensembles into smaller groups would inevitably promote the
better players at the expense of players who need more mentoring and experience. Moreover, the sheer size of Peabody's
student body and the limitations of space and faculty and staff resources may impede the rotation of repertoire in a
curricularly meaningful way. These problems would prove especially difficult for woodwind and brass instrumentalists, who
need a vigorous complement of strings for a legitimate orchestral experience.
Recommendation
The scheduling issues of the large ensembles are complicated. However, the UGCC would like to participate in meaningful
discussions with the Ensembles faculty and staff in pursuit of a regular schedule for the entire Peabody community. It is to
be hoped that early success in the shared goal of a regular schedule will open all parties to the more difficult discussion of
best practices and outcomes for Peabody students. The Peabody leadership should contribute to these discussions and
manage the inevitable disputes without taking sides. It may be useful to consult with orchestral professionals or mutually-
respected colleagues from peer institutions.
In light of the known complexities and the unimagined complications yet to be revealed, the UGCC recommends a period of
discussion and discovery with the mandate of presenting objectives with a timetable of implementation in advance of the
2010-2011 school year.
Increase the overall number of electives offered, with special attention for career-oriented
Recommendation 16: courses. For some majors, classes currently taken as requirements might be offered as
electives.100
The UGCC was charged with broadening the mix of academic interests among students to enrich their worldview and
increase their level of career preparedness. Because of the fairly rigid structure of music curricula, students can only address
these concerns in the careful selection of classes for elective credit. While some majors require 10 elective credits, most
majors require as little as 6 or 4 elective credits and some majors require none at all. Moreover, Peabody's elective
requirements and offerings are further hindered by the artificial division into electives and music electives (as addressed in
Recommendation 17). Finally, the number of electives offered overall is quite small.
The 1998 curriculum committee addressed these very issues, noting in their introduction:
An almost completely prescribed course of study is not the only way to ensure an excellent education. An almost
completely prescribed course of study is not the way to attract the most creative and interesting students to Peabody.
An almost completely prescribed course of study is not the way to prepare our students for the hectic rate of change
in the professional music world. 101
Five years later, the 2003 Self-Report for NASM addressed the rigidity of the undergraduate curriculum noting that the
"paucity of classroom electives for undergraduates should be remedied." 102
The State of Maryland has no guidelines that apply: the word elective does not appear in COMAR Title 13B. MSCHE
provides no specific guidelines for elective credits. NASM notes that "elective areas of study in undergraduate professional
programs comprise 10-15% of the total curriculum..."103 However, that statement refers the reader to Section III.C.2, which
notes that "the extent to which a particular curriculum will contain any opportunities for free electives or electives chosen
from a specified set to establish course requirements" is "the prerogative of the institution."104 Moreover, speaking
specifically to the B.M., NASM advises institutions to provide opportunities for: elective study; a specific emphasis or minor;
or elective studies in a specific outside field. 105
In the strictest interpretation, Peabody meets these criteria in that we allow elective study at Peabody, allow for a
concentration (i.e., a minor), and allow for elective study at Homewood that leads to the Liberal Arts Concentration.
However, Peabody's compliance with these guidelines hinges on the word opportunity, for while these classes and programs
are offered, there has been little consideration of how they may fit into a student's schedule and curriculum.
Page 27
Peabody Students and Faculty on the Subject of Electives
The UGGC surveys show a difference in the opinion of students and faculty regarding the optimal number of electives.
Students Answer Faculty

39 (40.2%) of 97 responses Too many electives required 6 (22.2%) of 27 responses
55 (56.7% )of 97 responses Just enough electives 11 (40.7%) of 27 responses
3 (3.1%) of 97 responses Not enough electives 10 (37%) of 27 responses
In both groups, the majority answered there are "just enough electives." However, the second most-frequent answer for
students was "too many electives," while "not enough electives" was the second most-frequent answer among the faculty (by
the narrowest margin possible). The differing opinions may suggest a more fundamental difference between the abstract
concept of electives, as perhaps viewed by classroom faculty, and the rather small selection of electives that are actually
available to undergraduates on the Peabody campus. Moreover, it may further underscore the confusion created by the
difference between electives and music electives. Some members of the faculty may not realize just how few electives
Peabody has offered on a regular basis.
Regarding the content of electives, both the students and the faculty showed great enthusiasm for all of the options provided.
Students Answers Faculty

56.7% Profession-oriented classes (music business) 61.1%
49.5% Repertoire classes 52.8%
45.4% Classes that have nothing to do with music 52.8%
43.3% Classes at Homewood 44.4%
39.2% Languages 27.8%
36.1% Additional theory/musicology classes 38.9%
25.8% Music technology classes 52.8%
Both faculty and students showed the greatest enthusiasm for profession-oriented classes.
Regarding profession-oriented courses, NASM recommends that B.M. programs should give students the opportunity to gain
a basic understanding of the nature of professional work in their major field and acquire the skills necessary to assist in the
development and advancement of their careers.106
Peabody already offers four profession-oriented courses:
• 360.411: The Music Business: Cash, Contracts, Copyrights

• 360.415: The Arts Administrator
• 360.416: Orchestra Management
• 360.421: The Business of Music
However, four classes for 350 undergraduates is a meager offering. Moreover, because these classes are offered at the four-
hundred level, each of these classes may also be taken by graduate students for elective credit. In essence, these four classes
serve almost 650 students. At this writing, there are three classes listed in the catalog under General Studies. These three
classes have 94 enrolled students; 46 graduate students – including one DMA student – and 48 undergraduate students,
including one double-degree student.107
Accordingly, as part of Recommendation 21, Peabody should examine the courses offered at KSAS and determine which
classes offered, if any, would assist students in developing career-savvy skills.
Regarding repertoire classes, the students and the faculty had more to say. Among the participants in the survey, 93% of the
students and 83% of the faculty want to see advanced courses in the major area of study. Moreover, 70% of the students and
78% of the faculty would like to those advanced courses offered as electives.
Page 28
Analysis
Electives can refer to several kinds of classes. Some electives are specified by department (e.g., voice majors must take
Vocal Literature electives) and some electives are specified by kind (e.g., a skills elective, such as Ear-training III). Free
electives are hereafter designated by the expression general elective.
Students don't necessarily want more general electives, and the curriculum can hardly accommodate an elective requirement
commensurate with 15% of the credits of a B.M. Consider the B.M. in Voice: at 173 credits in the 2008-2009 Catalog, a
15% requirement for general electives would amount to 30 credits.
However, students do want more options in their choice of general electives. And students and faculty agree that there
should be a focus on profession-oriented courses. However, the Conservatory is not in a position at this time to invest in
more faculty to teach profession-oriented classes. Moreover, at any time, such expenditure should involve a complete
cost/benefit analysis and a study of the impact on available teaching spaces.
While not general electives, students can still take more electives if some of the courses that are now required are no longer
required but rather encouraged. Reducing the number of requirements in the departments can serve a number of purposes.
In the most likely case, the students will take the classes that were previously required but we can count them as electives
instead of requirements. This is admittedly only a matter of semantics, but it would help Peabody demonstrate a regard for
the NASM recommendations about electives. In other, specialized cases, it may be appropriate for some students to take
alternate classes instead of taking the classes that are currently required. One can imagine appropriate substitutions in the
case of students who come to their studies with special abilities that render some courses less necessary. Another possibility
might include a student who decides to adopt a minor (pending the outcome of Recommendation 20). In that scenario, a
student may present a case to his or her advisor and major teacher to take some classes in the place of other classes while still
following the requirements of the degree.
Recommendation
The UGCC recommends that departments with extensive requirements for their majors reduce the number of requirements
and increase the number of required electives. A complete list of these departmental requirements may be found with the
curriculum for each major in Part III.
The UGCC further recommends that departments seek opportunities to offer elective courses without unduly interrupting the
normal teaching mission of the departments. Such elective courses could take one of two forms. Some elective courses could
fulfill the students' interest in taking courses in advanced studies in their major area. While attractive to both students and
faculty, the feasibility of such courses must be judged by the number of prospective students available and prepared for
specific advanced study. Other courses may be electives of a more general nature designed to appeal to larger groups of
Conservatory students. A particular interest of some studio faculty would be a singing class for non-singers.
When the opportunity arises – and it is to be hoped, before the 2014 decennial reviews of NASM and MSCHE – the UGCC
recommends that the Conservatory increase the offering of profession-oriented classes. Not every profession-oriented class
need meet on a regular schedule. NASM's guidelines provide for irregularly scheduled courses, noting:
When institutions offer programs and courses for abbreviated time periods, or in independent study, they must ensure that
students completing such programs or courses acquire levels of knowledge, competence, and understanding comparable to
that expected of students completing work in the standard time period.108
Some innovative thinking and scheduling may provide for a workshop on auditioning, or resume-writing, that can be
condensed into several weekends or into a time bracket when members of one orchestra are on break between services (such
as when the other orchestra is involved in an opera). Moreover, some Conservatory projects on the horizon, such as a degree
in Arts Leadership or a reinvigorated career services center, may provide faculty and opportunities for elective career-
building courses.
Independent of these prospects, the UGCC recommends that the work to foster appropriate linkages between the classroom
departments (furthered in Recommendation 21) will include some consideration of elective courses at Peabody, on the
Homewood campus, and ultimately as distance-learning courses.
Page 29
Recommendation 17: The distinction between music electives and electives should be eliminated.109
In the introduction to the B.M., the Catalog provides the following definition of an elective:
Electives. Unless otherwise specified, the term elective means class elective. Questions about the appropriateness of
courses for elective credit can be directed to the Registrar’s Office.110
In the introduction to the M.M., the description is expanded to include: "Ensemble credits cannot be counted as elective
credits."111 In the requirements for undergraduate degrees, two additional descriptors are used: general electives and music
electives. Neither is explained. If an explanation were required, it would include the following elements:
• Any class not offered by the Humanities Department would qualify as a music elective, since it would likely be taught by
music faculty.
• Any class offered by the Humanities Department would qualify as an elective but not a music elective.
• Most other classes where the principal activity is not playing an instrument or singing would qualify as an elective,
including General Studies, Music Theory, Musicology, Repertoire Classes and Jazz Classes (with perhaps the exception
of Improvisation). At the risk of being facetious, an elective would seem to involve sitting at a desk.
• However, most of the classes from the previous bullet would also qualify as music electives because of the content of the
class.
In its Handbook, NASM only uses the expression music elective in discussions of liberal arts degrees with a major in music:
presumably to distinguish music-related electives from electives in other divisions of a liberal arts institution.112 For the
professional baccalaureate or B.M., NASM only uses the unqualified word elective.
The distinction between elective and music elective at Peabody is largely a distinction drawn by the Registrar and the
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs. Too often, it is a decision made during a degree audit: i.e., the decision is made after
the student has taken the class. More often than not, it is a decision that is largely based on institutional memory. The
same classes are offered with an amazing consistency, and these classes tend to be placed in one category or the other based
on the students requirements.
No one currently working in the Peabody administration can remember when or why the distinction between electives and
music electives came to be. It is assumed that this distinction arose as a way to delineate classroom electives (reframed
general electives) from electives such as minor lessons or playing in the Peabody Camerata. Some have suggested the
distinction was inserted to add some academic heft to the degree programs. If so, this safeguard is no longer required. The
ensembles are thoroughly and vigorously regulated by the Ensembles Office and the Chamber Music program is running
beyond its capacity. Given the current student population, there is simply no room for students to fulfill their elective
requirements by taking extra ensembles. Moreover, minor lessons require a per-credit charge; students do not typically fulfill
their elective credits with additional lessons. Finally, the B.M. does not require additional academic heft by any standard of
accreditation or in comparison with any peer institution. Peabody's B.M. requires 18 credits of Music Theory compared with
the average of 17.5 and the median of 15 credits among peers; 8 credits of Music History, compared with the average of 8.7
and the median of 8 among peers; and 32 credits of Humanities compared with the average of 26.5 and the median of 24
among peers. Thus, 58 credits of the degree qualify as electives and music electives (compared with an average of 52.5 and a
median of 50 credits among peers). The recommendations of contained in this report, if enacted, would do little to disturb
these percentages.
The UGCC recommends that the distinction between music electives and electives should be eliminated. The purpose of this
distinction is no longer apparent. Students, faculty, and staff find the language confusing.
year.
Page 30
The Associate Dean of Academic Affairs should coordinate courses that are not associated
Recommendation 18: with an extant department, including such offerings as The Business of Music, Arts
Administration, and Anatomy and Injury Prevention.113
The Conservatory regularly offers a number of elective courses that are not part of the curricular offerings of an established
department. These courses are typically taught by adjuncts or by Conservatory faculty taking on a responsibility beyond their
typical roles. These "orphan electives" do not present any particular problem at present, but should any problem arise, there
is no way to manage a problem without the direct involvement of the Dean and the faculty. More significantly, there is no
oversight of these classes and no regular coordination other than what is provided by faculty alternating their offering or
schedules. Finally, absent a place at the Council of Chairs or any other forum, there is no mechanism for the teachers of
these scattered classes to expand their offering or to study and develop the competencies such courses may have in common
with current curricular offerings.
Someday, it may be appropriate or even necessary for the Faculty Assembly through its standing committees to review the
offering of such courses and to reshape them into a formal curricular area. Until such time, the UGCC recommends that the
Associate Dean of Academic Affairs should coordinate courses that are not associated with an extant department.
Any change to the requirements of undergraduate degree programs should require the
Recommendation 19:
approval of both the Undergraduate Committee and the Academic Council.114
The Conservatory faculty, acting through the Faculty Assembly, appoints the Undergraduate Committee. The duties of the
Undergraduate Committee are enumerated in the Faculty Constitution:
This committee shall oversee undergraduate programs, including the Bachelor of Music and the Performer's
Certificate. It shall advise the faculty and the administration on matters including: undergraduate curricula;
requirements for graduation; examinations, juries and recitals; academic standing; undergraduate admissions,
scholarships and awards, and matters of coordination between the various undergraduate programs [amended 10/89,
3/01]. 115
The Faculty assembly also acknowledges the primacy of the Academic Council on curricular matters in Article VIII:
The Academic Council is the principal oversight body recognized by the University in each division. Its primary
function is the maintenance and improvement of academic standards, exercised through the approval of
appointments, the conduct of regular departmental reviews, study of proposed new degree programs, and
consultation on all administrative policies having a potential impact on academic quality [amended 12/97].116
However, the Faculty Constitution does not establish a correct conduct for curricular change. While the Constitution does
note that "major policy decisions" of the standing committees "shall be referred to the Council of Chairs for ratification," it
does not specify the nature or scope of such policy decisions.117
Even a cursory review of curricular changes over the last ten years indicates a pattern of quick action in the Undergraduate
Committee with relatively little oversight of the other standing committees. Some of these changes, such as the change to the
Humanities curriculum, the change to the Jazz curriculum, the scheduling of Ear-training on every day of the week, and the
institution of the Liberal Arts Concentrations, would have benefited from broader colloquy and the advice and consent of
other constituencies. This situation is particularly complicated by the high degree of overturn in the Undergraduate
Committee: unlike the DMA Committee which has included a core group of faculty for years, the total composition of the
Undergraduate Committee changes rapidly, and the group retains little of its mission-oriented memory. The Academic
Council features the Deans of the Conservatory as well as the Dean of the Preparatory, who may be a key resource for any
decisions that involve the teaching rooms and performance areas. Moreover, the Academic Council also features the
participation of the University's Provost, who may prove a useful resource in matters regarding University policy and
MSCHE accreditation.
The UGCC recommends that any future changes to the undergraduate curriculum be referred to the Academic Council for
final approval.
Page 31
year.
The Conservatory should grant provisional authorization for departments to prepare

"minors" or "concentrations." Such concentrations should begin with the extant model
Recommendation 20:
for the Liberal Arts concentration and require the approval of the Undergraduate
Committee and the Academic Council.118
While particular to the United States and Canada, academic minors (or concentrations) have become a part of student life and
an efficient way to summarize and document the study of a particular subject.119 Peabody already offers two minors: a JHU
Liberal Arts Concentration and a JHU Engineering Concentration. The Liberal Arts Concentrations is described as follows:
Bachelor of Music with JHU Liberal Arts Concentration
Peabody students wishing to earn a Bachelor of Music with a liberal arts concentration must complete six courses at
the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences on the Homewood campus with at least three at the 200 level or higher. At
least one of the courses must be an expository writing course or a writing-intensive course.
Language courses at the 100 level in the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences cannot be used to fulfill the
requirements for the liberal arts concentration. Music courses offered at the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences
cannot be used to fulfill the requirements for the liberal arts concentration.
All students planning a B.M. with a liberal arts concentration must have their proposed program of study approved
by the chair of the Humanities Department of the Peabody Conservatory of Music.
The following statement will appear on the transcript of any Peabody student who successfully completes a liberal
arts concentration: Liberal Arts concentration completed on the Homewood campus of The Johns Hopkins
University. 120
The Homewood concentrations were approved by the Undergraduate Committee on 16 December 2003 and were first offered
in the 2004-5 school year. Despite being offered for five years, they have not become known to the Peabody students and
faculty. In the UGCC survey, only 22% of the students and 21% of the faculty indicated knowledge of concentrations. It is
to be hoped that the new advising system advanced in Recommendation 4 will make these opportunities more apparent to
students.
The UGCC survey clearly indicates that the prospect of getting a minor does appeal to both students and faculty. 73% of the
students expressed interest in earning a minor and 78% of the faculty said a minor would be appropriate for their
undergraduate students. Moreover, the survey collected information about the minors that appeal to students and faculty.
What sorts of music concentrations or minors do interest you?
Students Option Faculty

53.2% Chamber Music 73.1%
36.4% Conducting 65.4%
33.8% Musicology 65.4%
24.7% Jazz 0%
23.4% Composition 65.4%
20.8% Music Theory 73.1%
15.6% Early Music 69.2%
13.0% Music Technology 61.5%
Page 32
NASM and MSCHE are uncharacteristically lax on the guidelines for offering minors. NASM seems primarily concerned
with the offering of music minors to students who major in other areas.
Minors and areas of emphasis require less time in the subject area and are not designated majors. Normally, course
work in an area of emphasis occupies at least 10% of the total curriculum; course work in a minor, at least 12%.121
Peabody's peer institutions offer minors. Cleveland offers a wide range of minors in such fields as: music theory,
eurhythmics, composition, audio recording, music history and literature, and any performance area. 122 Cincinnati offers a
minor in Electronic Media.123 MSM offers a minor in composition. 124 NEC offers a pedagogy minor. 125
Guidelines and Recommendation
A proposal for a new minor should consider the following factors:
• Admission to a minor should involve a faculty review of a student's academic record, performance ratings (if applicable)
and potential to complete the minor without delaying satisfactory academic progress in the student's major.
• A minor should consist of approximately 18 credits of which a majority should be completed at the 200 level or higher.
• Departments should consider when in the course of study students should declare a minor.
• Departments should give due regard to the types of classes and amount of credits that can be applied to both a major and
a minor field.126
• Departments should carefully consider the curricular obligations of students pursuing varying majors. In the 2008-2009
Peabody Catalog, there is a difference of 52 credits between the requirements for a B.M. in Guitar and a B.M. in Music
Education / Voice.
• Departments should give due regard to whether or not credits for a minor can be earned at other institutions.
• Departments should assign faculty to advise students on minor requirements.
• Studio lessons are the most expensive aspect of a conservatory education. For the 2008-2009 year, one hour minor
lessons are $7,650 per year; half-hour minor lessons are $4,670. Minors that require studio lessons will need to be
carefully examined and/or subject to limited enrollment. Note also that not all studio faculty take minors.
• Minor lessons do not include the price of a recital. Programs should consider the impact of a recital on the heavily
strained resources of the Concert Office.
The UGCC recommends that interested departments submit proposals for "minors" or "concentrations." Such concentrations
should begin with the extant model for the Liberal Arts concentration. Minors should require the approval of the
Undergraduate Committee and the Academic Council.
The Conservatory should institute and monitor a process to forge appropriate linkages
Recommendation 21:
between the Musicology, Music Theory and Humanities curricula.
As noted in Recommendation 8, NASM and MSCHE allow institutions to count certain courses from the major area as
general studies credits. Both agencies also encourage institutions to foster creative interaction between general studies and
classes that support the major. MSCHE notes that "skills and knowledge derived from general education and the major
should be integrated because general education and study in depth, together, comprise a quality undergraduate education."127
NASM notes that the "areas of inquiry from general education are directly supportive of various specializations in music."128
Both agencies also expect the interaction between areas to form a kind of learning synergy. MSCHE expects students to
apply the skills and abilities developed in general education to the major or concentration. Moreover, the cross-application of
these skills should figure into the institutions assessment of student learning.129 NASM expects "synthesis," noting that, "by
the end of undergraduate study students must be able to work on musical problems by combining, as appropriate to the issue,
their capabilities in performance; aural, verbal, and visual analysis; composition and improvisation; history and repertory;
and technology."130
The Humanities, Musicology, and Music Theory Departments should examine their curricula and look for meaningful
relationships to support such synthesis. As a start, Musicology and Music Theory should consider the competencies
articulated by the area designators and look for analogues in their own curricula. Conversely, the historical progression of
Page 33
the Music Theory curriculum as well as the broad social concerns of the Musicology curriculum seem well fit to the
Historical/Philosophical (HP) designation in Humanities.
The departments should consider content, but they should also consider pedagogical methodology. Student writing is a
competency that is developed in the Humanities and Musicology Departments, as well as perhaps the Music Theory
Department. Recommendation 21 speaks to the writing competency. Another competency for consideration is the use of
technology for research. MSCHE describes technology thus:
Several skills, collectively referred to as "information literacy," apply to all disciplines in an institution's curricula.
These skills relate to a student’s competency in acquiring and processing information in the search for
understanding, whether that information is sought in or through the facilities of a library, through practica, as a result
of field experiments, by communications with experts in professional communities, or by other means. Therefore,
information literacy is an essential component of any educational program at the graduate or undergraduate levels.131
NASM has less formal standards, but did take Peabody to task on this issue during the 2004 process. Technology was in fact
NASM's first item for response, noting:
It does not appear that the orientation and computer use listed above necessarily have anything to do with the field
of music, either generally or applicable to the area of specialization. The response should explain how the
institution assures that all Bachelor of Music students in Performance, Music Education, and Jazz Performance
acquire this knowledge about the use of technology in music.132
At present, Humanities is the only department that engages students in technology in an overt way. However, it is clear that
some faculty in Musicology and Music Theory are using technology in the classroom and beyond the classroom.
The 2004 External Review of the Humanities Department included recommendations to "create links with the music
curriculum."133 In the intervening five years, very little seems to have been done. The UGCC recommends that the Academic
Council institute and monitor a process to discover and elaborate the appropriate linkages.
The Conservatory should conduct a review of writing requirements and writing

instruction across the undergraduate curriculum. The review should be conducted by a
Recommendation 22: faculty committee appointed by the Faculty Assembly, include the chairs of academic
departments, and seek the advice of the University's Vice Provost for Undergraduate
Education.134
Student expository writing is a perennial concern in academia. In most colleges, undergraduate students take remedial or
orienting writing courses in their first semester and continue to write papers for the duration of their studies. The varying
schedules of Peabody undergraduates and the heretofore foreign language requirements have made it difficult both for
students write consistently and for faculty to track progress in student writing.
The agencies that accredit Peabody do not make specific recommendations regarding writing. NASM notes that a student
with a B.M. degree should have "the ability to think, speak, and write clearly and effectively."135 COMAR is equally
imprecise, suggesting that students leave with the ability to "communicate effectively in oral and written English."136
MSCHE insists that schools be able to demonstrate "institutional requirements assuring that, upon degree completion,
students are proficient in oral and written communication, scientific and quantitative reasoning, and technological
competency appropriate to the discipline."137
Unlike much teaching at Peabody, writing can be viewed in the context of the larger college experience. For the 2008 edition
of their annual report, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) surveyed 194,858 students, randomly sampled
from 722 four-year colleges and universities in the U.S. 138 This survey provides reliable data about undergraduate writing,
described as follows:
Page 34
First-year students wrote 92 pages and seniors wrote 146 pages on average
during the academic year.
Among seniors, the amount of writing varied considerably by major
(Figure 12) [excerpted to the right]. Those majoring in the social sciences and
arts and humanities wrote considerably more than many of their peers.
Students studying the physical and biological sciences wrote less.
The amount of writing was positively correlated with engagement,
i.e., the more students wrote, the more they engaged in active and
collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, enriching experiences, and
deep learning.139
While these statistics may not be appropriate for a conservatory – a school of majors not considered in the NSSE sample –
Peabody could extrapolate a clearer picture of best practices by analyzing the data in detail.140 Of particular interest is the
finding that more writing is required of students as they progress through their studies: on average, students in the survey
wrote 50% more pages as seniors than as freshmen. While this makes intuitive sense, the curricular structures for orchestral
instrument majors tend toward fewer requirements in their final years. Left unadvised, as is frequently the case, Peabody
undergraduates could easily take elective courses on campus and elsewhere in the final year with very few writing
requirements. Still other observations about writing practices in the 2008 NSSE are worth noting. Students who wrote more
tended to learn more and retain more of what they learned. Students wrote more when they had closer interactions with
supervising faculty. Finally, the NSSE in concert with the Council of Writing Program Administrators (WPA) concluded:
"The more importance a faculty member placed on preparing multiple drafts of a paper, the more likely they were to
emphasize deep approaches to learning."141
Closer still to Peabody is the example of the Homewood colleges, KSAS and WSE. Undergraduates at these schools have a
standard writing requirement, described as follows:
A writing-intensive (W) course is one in which students write at least 20 pages of finished writing, distributed over
multiple assignments, usually 3 or 4 papers, throughout the semester. Instructors respond to students’ work in
written comments or in conference, or both; and students have at least one opportunity to receive their instructor’s
feedback on a draft and then revise.142
Students earning a B.A. at Homewood must complete 12 credits (four courses) in writing-intensive courses. Once again,
while the UGCC acknowledges that these exact figures may not be appropriate for Peabody students, there are many things to
admire about the clarity of this system, including:
• The designation (by means of the W) of which classes will require intensive writing and how many of such classes are
required.
• The designation – indeed guarantee – of support for those papers by indicating the instructors role in assessment.
• The indication that at least one of the papers will be work-shopped in successive drafts.
• The expected number of pages and the expected division of the work into "3 or 4 papers."
• The clear indication that the writing is integral to the course, and thus, integral to the assessment of the student's
formative and summative assessment: i.e., the writing is not just a means to earn the grade; the writing itself is part of the
grade.
Also worth noting is the fact that Homewood tracks students even before they matriculate, on the basis of their verbal SAT
score. Peabody already does a fair amount of comparable tracking on the basis of TOEFL scores. It may be worth
investigating the current placement and progress of native English speakers to ensure that they are well served.
Peabody's peers do not emphasize writing in catalog descriptions of their curriculum. In the Peabody catalog, the sentence,
"Writing is emphasized in liberal arts courses." is arguably the strongest commitment to expository writing for
undergraduates in the Catalogs for all of the major US conservatories.143
At Peabody, the Humanities Department has been the only department to promote the importance of writing. The
Humanities Department teaches writing within its classes, makes writing a part of its curricular requirements, and manages a
student-run writing center for the advantage of all undergraduate students.144 However, competent writing is also required for
Page 35
satisfactory completion of Music History courses. It is worth noting that students who apply for a graduate degree at
Peabody must take a Musicology test that consists of answering essay questions. That test, as a measure of preparedness,
speaks to the level of writing competence expected of students who complete the Music History curriculum. The teaching
objectives of Music Theory leave little room for expansive writing assignments. However, with the approval of
Recommendation 11, students will be required to take an elective which would likely involve writing at least one paper.
While the UGCC praises the work done by the Humanities Department to teach, promote and support expository writing, it is
nevertheless clear that writing serves student work in more than just Humanities coursework. Accordingly, it would be in the
best interest of students if the Musicology Department, and perhaps the Music Theory Department, would collaborate with
Humanities to discuss the standards for expository writing and the expectations of Peabody's undergraduate students. In
particular, the departments should collaborate on the following issues:
Page Length: As the length of a paper is frequently the first question from students who receive a writing
assignment and sometimes the last question faculty want to answer, the departments should develop
some guidelines for the amount of writing required for the comparatively small number of classes
that require writing.
Process: The departments should decide when it is appropriate for students to workshop papers in successive
drafts and when students should be required to manage these issues on their own.
Short-term Evaluation: The departments should consider the modalities of evaluating student writing and whether the
constituent parts of writing assignments can be abstracted and expressed on a rubric.
Formative Evaluation: Given the additional support of other areas, the Humanities Department should consider a means
for benchmarking student work and re-evaluating writing as a student progresses through the B.M.
Style: The departments should consider and clearly delineate the hallmarks of academic prose that
appropriate for the musical inquiry.
Citation: While admittedly the most mechanical detail of student writing, there is little question that students
could improve their handling of source materials if a school-wide standard and style could be
adopted.
Academic Integrity: A vigorous and unified approach to citation would also clarify the rules about plagiarism.
Finally, the departments should consider the special issues attending writing about music, including the use of standard
Italian performing directions (e.g. forte), the standard practices for capitalization and/or italicization of titles (Symphony in
D, as opposed to Symphony Fantastique), the use of abbreviations (m. for measure, mm. for measures), and many other
conventions found in academic writing about music. These conventions can be determined by examining the style guides for
academic journals, or by consulting the books on writing cited in the UGCC's bibliography.
The UGCC recommends that the Humanities Department and the Musicology Department coordinate with the Associate
Dean of Academic Affairs and submit a report on these recommendations to the academic council by the end of the 2009-
2010 school year.
All departments should prepare and submit a report about how they meet the guidelines
for NASM and MSCHE. The reports should be submitted to the Associate Dean of
Recommendation 23:
academic affairs by the end of the 2009-2010 school year for presentation to the Academic
Council in the fall of 2011.145
Despite changes in the Department of Education, the trend in higher education is steadily toward accountability and
outcomes. Experienced officials at the University have opined that the guidelines for the 2009 PRR have put a greater
emphasis on assessing student learning than any prior accreditation measures. The move toward greater accountability and
assessment may be complicated by three further variables:
Page 36
• Edgar Roulhac, JHU's Vice Provost for academic services, has just been appointed to a three-year term as a
commissioner and member of MSCHE.
• Members of the PRR Committee are crafting a proposal for a standing university committee on assessment, reporting to
the provost and chaired by the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. Peabody, as a division of the university, will need to
participate in that committee.
• JHU will soon appoint a new provost who will bring his or her own ideas about assessment. One idea that has been
discussed is the appointment of a senior-position "thought leader" to oversee student learning assessment. There are
currently 70 higher-education administration jobs advertised in the category of "Assessment, Accreditation, and
Compliance."
Accordingly, facing the dual assessments of NASM and MSCHE in 2014, Peabody should begin to benchmark its progress
toward sailing through these accreditation processes. The curriculum should already meet the objectives of the accrediting
agencies. However, the departments should begin to assess the teaching and assessment practices of their faculty with a view
toward determining what steps should be taken in advance of writing self-reports. Each department should prepare a report
for the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, who should then present the reports to the Academic Council in the fall of 2011.
Page 37
PART THREE • UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULA
If the 23 Recommendations of Part Two are approved and enacted, most undergraduate degree curricula will have 8 less
required credits. Other changes to undergraduate degree programs have been made in direct coordination with departments
and are too specific in nature to merit the broad elaboration of a recommendation. The specific changes are reflected in the
curricular tables that follow, which follow the format required by NASM.
The following conventions are used for the tables:
EXAMPLE
The NASM Study Area Credits Each year of study is written
MAJOR AREA ONE TWO THREE FOUR

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Departmental Examination xxx • 109–209–309 3 1 1 1 3
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Large Ensemble 910 • xxx 16 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16
53 53
SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–31115 3 3 3 3 3 15
Music Theory 6 / Elective 710 • xxx 3 3 3
Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 5558 2 2 2 2 8
26 26
Course Title/s The bullet separates…
190 • 495 The Number of credits are shown for

each semester of study( Fall | Spring )
…the department prefix…
…from the course number.
The dash shows sequential courses: 111–112

The comma shows non-sequential courses: 311,312
Page 38
The Undergraduate Core
UG CORE [PROPOSED] 2009–2010 UG CORE 2008–2009
MAJOR AREA MAJOR AREA

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 Major Lesson 100 • 100 32
Departmental Examination xxx • 109–209–309 1–3 Departmental Examination xxx • 109–209–309 6
Recital 190 • 495 2 Recital 190 • 495 2
Large Ensemble 910 • xxx 8–16 Large Ensemble 910 • xxx 8–16
44–53 48–56
SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC
Thursday Noon Recital Series 530 • 501–502 1 Thursday Noon Recital Series 530 • 501–502 1
Thursday Noon Alternate Project 530 • 503–504 1 Thursday Noon Alternate Project 530 • 503–504 1
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8
Keyboard Studies I–II 710 • 155–156–255–256 8 Keyboard Studies I–II 710 • 155–156–255–256 8
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 Music Theory I–III 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 18
Music Theory 6 / Elective 710 • xxx 3 Basic Conducting 330 • 311 1
Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555 8 Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555 8
44 45
GENERAL STUDIES GENERAL STUDIES

Humanities Seminar 260 • 115 4 Humanities Seminar 260 • 115 5
Humanities electives GP 260 • xxx, xxx 6 Humanities Foreign Language 260 • xxx–xxx 6
Humanities electives HP 260 • xxx, xxx 6 Humanities electives LL 260 • xxx 3
Humanities electives LL 260 • xxx, xxx 6 Humanities electives GP 260 • xxx, xxx 6
Humanities elective HE 260 • xxx 3 Humanities electives HP 260 • xxx, xxx 6
Humanities-approved elective 260 • xxx 3 Humanities elective HE 260 • xxx 6
28 32
ELECTIVES ELECTIVES
Electives xxx • xxx 3 Electives xxx • xxx 4–10
3 4–10
TOTAL TOTAL
118–128 129–143
• Reflects the difference in credits for juries

• Reflects the removal of Basic Conducting as a requirement for all degrees
• Reflects the restructuring of the Humanities curriculum
• Reflects the standardization of electives and the room for students to take more electives or to elect to practice.
An Overview of Degree Changes
Performance and composition B.M. degrees are divided into four components:
• The Major Area, comprising lessons, ensembles, juries and recitals;

• Supportive Courses in Music, including Music Theory, Musicology, repertoire studies, and specific musical skills;
• General Studies; and
• Electives.
Music Education Degrees substitute Professional Studies for Electives.
Page 39
% NASM
% NASM
% NASM
% NASM
TOTAL
%Total
%Total
%Total
%Total
Credits
Credits
Credits
Credits
CHANGE
DEGREE 2008-2009 to 2009-2010
MAJOR AREA SUPPORTIVE GENERAL ELECTIVES 08-09 Difference

Guitar 62 52% 42% 52 43% 35% 28 23% 19% 6 5% 4% 148 157 -9 -5.7%
Performance & Composition
Harpsichord 56 47% 39% 53 44% 37% 28 23% 20% 6 5% 4% 143 150 -7 -4.7%
Early Music Instruments 58 48% 42% 49 41% 36% 28 23% 20% 3 3% 2% 138 148 -10 -6.8%
Orchestral Instruments 55 46% 41% 45 38% 34% 28 23% 21% 6 5% 4% 134 145 -11 -7.6%
Organ 61 51% 40% 59 49% 39% 28 23% 19% 3 3% 2% 151 159 -8 -5.0%
Piano 49 41% 34% 60 50% 42% 28 23% 20% 6 5% 4% 143 155 -12 -7.7%
Voice 49 41% 33% 67 56% 45% 28 23% 19% 6 5% 4% 150 173 -23 -13.3%
Jazz Performance 57 48% 40% 48 40% 34% 28 23% 20% 9 8% 6% 142 149 -7 -4.7%
Composition Majors 55 46% 36% 63 53% 41% 28 23% 18% 6 5% 4% 152 163 -11 -6.7%
Computer Music – Composition 55 46% 35% 69 58% 45% 28 23% 18% 3 3% 2% 155 163 -8 -4.9%
Computer Music – Performance 73 61% 45% 57 48% 35% 28 23% 17% 3 3% 2% 161 173 -12 -6.9%
Performance & Compositon AVERAGE 57.3 48% 39% 56.5 47% 38% 28.0 23% 19% 5.2 4% 4% 147 157.7 -10.7 -6.7%
MAJOR AREA SUPPORTIVE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL
Music Education: Guitar 61 51% 36% 52 43% 30% 31 26% 18% 27 23% 16% 171 173 -2 -1.2%
Music Education: Orchestral Instruments 53 44% 32% 44 37% 26% 31 26% 18% 40 33% 24% 168 172 -4 -2.3%
Education & Recording
Music Education: Piano 47 39% 28% 58 48% 35% 31 26% 18% 32 27% 19% 168 177 -9 -5.1%
Music Education: Voice 46 38% 27% 67 56% 39% 31 26% 18% 27 23% 16% 171 178 -7 -3.9%
Music Education: Jazz Performance 55 46% 34% 48 40% 30% 31 26% 19% 27 23% 17% 161 168 -7 -4.2%
Music Education: Composition 55 46% 29% 62 52% 33% 31 26% 16% 40 33% 21% 188 198 -10 -5.1%
Recording Arts: Composition 55 46% 28% 55 46% 28% 28 23% 14% 59 49% 30% 197 199 -2 -1.0%
Recording Arts: Guitar 62 52% 31% 50 42% 25% 28 23% 14% 59 49% 30% 199 218 -19 -8.7%
Recording Arts: Jazz Performance 57 48% 30% 46 38% 24% 28 23% 15% 59 49% 31% 190 207 -17 -8.2%
Recording Arts: Orchestral Instruments 55 46% 30% 43 36% 23% 28 23% 15% 59 49% 32% 185 201 -16 -8.0%
Recording Arts: Organ 61 51% 30% 57 48% 28% 28 23% 14% 59 49% 29% 205 216 -11 -5.1%
Recording Arts: Piano 49 41% 25% 58 48% 30% 28 23% 14% 59 49% 30% 194 206 -12 -5.8%
Education & Recording AVERAGE 54.7 46% 30% 53.3 44% 29% 29.5 25% 16% 45.6 38% 25% 183 192.8 -9.7 -4.9%
TOTALS
All B.M. Degrees AVERAGE 55.9 46% 37% 54.9 46% 36% 28.8 24% 19% — — — 166 176.0 -10.2 -5.8%
All B.M. Degrees MEDIAN 55.0 46% 32% 57.0 48% 33% 28.0 23% 18% — — — 168 173.0 -10.5 -5.1%
Standard Deviation 4.8 4% 5% 8.3 7% 7% 1.4 1% 2% — — — 21.77 22.3 5.4 2.8%
For each of these components, the first column shows the number of credits required for that component in each major. The
second column relates the component as a percentage of the total degree according to NASM's guidelines. NASM calculates
the relative weighting of components based on a requirement of 120 credits, noting that for program requirements exceeding
120 credits, the combined percentage of the components will exceed 100%.146 The third column relates the component
credits as a percentage of the actual number of credits, which can be found in the Total column.
According to NASM's description of the B.M. in performance or composition, study in the major area of performance should
comprise 25-35% of the total curriculum (i.e., the NASM-abstraction of a curriculum of 120 credits). Supportive courses in
music should comprise 25-35% of the curriculum. Studies in the major area and supportive courses in music normally total
at least 65% of the curriculum.147 In every performance major, Peabody exceeds this guideline by 20% or more. NASM also
indicates that general studies should comprise 25-35%. Peabody's majors are currently at 23% of the NASM calculation.
However, since NASM allows institutions to count some Music History courses as General Studies (as noted in
Recommendation 8, pp. 16 &f.), and since Peabody's majors so far exceed the requirement for supportive courses in music,
Peabody is clearly in compliance.
For Music Education and Recording Arts degrees, NASM groups the major area with supportive courses and expects both
components to comprise 50% of the curriculum. General studies should comprise 30-35% of the curriculum and professional
education should comprise 15-20%.148 Here again, Peabody's degrees so far outpace the requirements for supportive courses
that many can be counted as General Studies. Moreover, unlike the performance degrees, the Music Education degrees are
more tightly controlled by the State of Maryland and the covenants of reciprocity with other states. Similarly, Recording
Arts degrees are shaped by a consulting arrangement between NASM and the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET).
Page 40
GUITAR

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Departmental Seminar 470 • 545–546 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Departmental Examination 171 • 109–209 3 1 1 1 3
Half Recital 171 • 309 1 1 1
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Chorus 910 • 511, 512 8 2 2 2 2 8
Guitar Ensemble 950 • 541, 542 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Small Ensemble 950 • 531–532 2 1 1 2
62 62
Thursday Noon Recital Series 530 • 501–502 1 ½ ½ 1
Thursday Noon Alternate Project 530 • 503–504 1 ½ ½ 1
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Keyboard Studies I 710 • 155–156 4 2 2 4
Guitar Music Skills I–II 530 • 585–586–587–588 4 1 1 1 1 4
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
Guitar Literature 530 • 431, 432 4 2 2 4
Guitar Pedagogy 530 • 637-368 4 2 2 4
Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555 8 2 2 2 2 8
52 52
GENERAL STUDIES
Humanities Seminar 260 • 115 4 4 4
Humanities electives GP 260 • xxx, xxx 6
Humanities electives HP 260 • xxx, xxx 6
3 3 3 3 3
Humanities electives LL 260 • xxx, xxx 6 9 24
Humanities elective HE 260 • xxx 3
Humanities-approved elective 260 • xxx 3
28 28
ELECTIVES
Electives* xxx • xxx 6 3 3 6
6 6
TOTAL
148 17.5 17.5 17.5 18.5 18 20 39 148
* Strongly Suggested: Lute Tablature and Notation 530 • 431-432
Page 41
HARPSICHORD

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Organ Minor 010 • 100 2 1 1 2
Voice Minor* 010 • 100 2 1 1 2
Baroque Ensemble 950 • 527–528 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Baltimore Baroque Band 910 • 527–528 8 2 2 2 2 8
56 56
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Keyboard Skills for Piano Majors I–II710 • 211–212 4 2 2 4
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
Continuo I–II 530 • 315–445 4 2 2 4
Harpsichord Literature 530 • 421–422 2 1 1 2
Harpsichord Tuning 370 • 492 2 2 2
Baroque Ornamentation 530 • 441–442 4 2 2 4
Basic Conducting 330 • 311 1 1 1
53 53
GENERAL STUDIES
3 3 3 3 3
28 28
ELECTIVES
Electives xxx • xxx 6 3 3 3
6 6
TOTAL
143 15.5 16.5 16.5 19.5 17 18 40 143
* Or other instrument with the permission of the Department.
Page 42
VIOLA DA GAMBA, BAROQUE FLUTE, RECORDER,

BAROQUE OBOE, BAROQUE VIOLIN/VIOLA, BAROQUE CELLO,
RENAISSANCE LUTE, BAROQUE LUTE, THEORBO

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Minor Lesson 010 • 100 2 1 1 2
Baroque Ensemble 950 • 527–528 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Early Music Large Ensemble 910 • 527–528 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 12
58 58
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Keyboard Skills for Piano Majors I–II710 • 211–212 4 2 2 4
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
Major Instrument Literature xxx • xxx 4 2 2 4
Baroque Ornamentation 530 • 441–442 4 2 2 4
49 49
GENERAL STUDIES
3 3 3 3 3
28 28
ELECTIVES
Electives xxx • xxx 3 3 3
3 3
TOTAL
138 15.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 16 17 37 138
VARIATIONS:
— for Lute Majors 143 credits
Lute Tablature and Notation 530 • 431-432 4
Continuo I–II 530 • 315–445 4
No Elective Required -3
— for Viola da Gamba Majors 142 credits
Continuo I–II 530 • 315–445 4
Viola da Gamba Consort 530 • 353–354 [4]
[Substitutes for 4 credits of Baroque Ensemble]
— for Baroque Cello Majors 142 credits
Continuo I–II 530 • 315–445 4
Page 43
STRINGS, BRASS, WOODWINDS, HARP, PERCUSSION

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Small Ensemble 950 • 531–532 2 1 1 2
55 55
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Keyboard Studies I–II 710 • 155–156–255–256 8 2 2 2 2 8
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
45 45
GENERAL STUDIES
3 3 3 3 3
28 28
ELECTIVES
6 6
TOTAL
134 17.5 17.5 16.5 17.5 14 15 36 134
VARIATIONS:
— for Strings and Percussion: 136 credits
Small Ensemble 950 • 531–532 +2
— for Violin & Viola: 134 credits
Junior Recital 115, 113 • 309 [2]
[Replaces 309 jury]
— for Flute: 134 credits
Piccolo Class 530 • 463–464 [2]
[Taken as a required elective]
Page 44
ORGAN

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Large Ensemble [Chorus] 910 • xxx 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 12
Piano Minor 010 • 100 2 1 1 2
Voice Minor 010 • 100 2 1 1 2
61 61
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Keyboard Skills/ Piano Majors I–II 710 • 211–212 4 2 2 4
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
Sight Reading 530 • 111–112 4 2 2 4
Resources /Church Organist 530 • 425–426 6 3 3 6
Continuo I: Figured Bass 530.315 2 2 2
Organ Literature 530 • 423–424 6 3 3 6
59 59
GENERAL STUDIES
3 3 3 3 3
28 28
ELECTIVES
3 3
TOTAL
151 18.5 18.5 18.5 19.5 21 20 35 151
Page 45
PIANO

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Large Ensemble [Chorus] 910 • xxx 8 2 2 2 2 8
Small Ensemble 950 • 531–532 4 1 1 1 1 4
49 49
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Keyboard Skills for Piano Majors I–IV710 • 211–212–311–312 8 2 2 2 2 8
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
Sight Reading 530 • 111–112 4 2 2 4
Accompanying 530 • 213–214 2 1 1 2
Keyboard Literature I–IV 530 • 411–412–413–414 8 2 2 2 2 8
Piano Pedagogy 530 • 667 2 2 2
60 60
GENERAL STUDIES
3 3 3 3 3
28 28
ELECTIVES
6 6
TOTAL
143 15.5 15.5 17.5 18.5 19 20 37 143
* Recommended Electives include:

Second Semester of Piano Pedagogy (530 • 668)
Basic Conducting (330 • 311)
Page 46
VOICE

Major Lesson 100 • 10x 24 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 24
Vocal Coaching 186 • 411–412 4 1 1 1 1 4
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Departmental Seminar 480 • 545 1 1 1
Large Ensemble 910 • xxx 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 12
Opera Performance Electives 910 • 54x 3 1 1 1 3
49 49
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Music Theory [Intensive] 1–3; 4–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
Singing in English – English Song 530 • 475–476 4 2 2 4
Singing in Italian – Italian Song 530 • 469–470 4 2 2 4
Singing in German – German Lieder 530 • 477–481 4 2 2 4
Singing in French – French Melodiè 530 • 483–480 5 3 2 5
Acting for Opera 530 • 491 1 1 1
Stage Movement 530 • 391 1 1 1
Opera Literature 560 • 473–474 4 2 2 4
67 67
GENERAL STUDIES
Italian I 250 • 111-112 6 3 3 6
German I 240 • 111-112 6 3 3 6
French I 230 • 111-112 6 3 3 6
6 6
Humanities elective GP 260 • xxx 3
28 28
ELECTIVES
6 6
TOTAL
150 21.5 19.5 18.5 18.5 16 18 38 150
* Second year language or Vocal Literature elective strongly recommended
VARIATION
Early Music Concentration 157 credits
Early Vocal Literature 530 • 543–544 4
Baroque Ornamentation 530 • 441–442 4
Historical Diction for Singers 530 • 559 2
Renaissance Ensemble 950 • 529–530 Six total semesters of Renaissance
Baroque Ensemble 950 • 527–528
6 } and/or Baroque Ensembles
Minus German Lieder 530 • 481 -2
Minus French Melodiè 530 • 480 -2
Minus Chorus in 3rd year 910 • xxx -4
Minus one Opera Performance 910 • 54x -1
Page 47
JAZZ PERFORMANCE

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Departmental Examination 109–209–309 3 1 1 1 3
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Large Ensemble: PJO 910 • 537–8 16 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16
Small Ensemble 950 • 525–526 4 1 1 1 1 4
57 57
Jazz Fundamentals 710 • 127-128 4 2 2 4
Ear–training I 710 • 123–124 4 2 2 4
Jazz Ear-training 710 • 263–264 4 2 2 4
Music Theory 1–2 710 • 111–112 6 3 3 6
Jazz Theory/Keyboard Lab I–II 710 • 259–260–359–360 8 2 2 2 2 8
Jazz Arranging and Composition 710 • 361–362 4 2 2 4
Jazz Improvisation I–II 530 • 561, 562, 563, 564 8 2 2 2 2 8
Construct. Listening–Jazz History 530 • 569–570 4 2 2 4
Musicology: two of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555 4 2 2 4
48 48
GENERAL STUDIES
3 3 3 6 3 3 3
Humanities electives LL 260 • xxx, xxx 6 24
28 28
ELECTIVES
Electives* xxx • xxx 9 3 3 3 9
9 6
TOTAL
142 17.5 17.5 16.5 17.5 19 20 16 18 142
* Recommended Electives include:

Introduction to Web Page Design (350 • 465)
Music Notation Software (350 • 871)
Instrumentation & Arranging (710 • 412)
Page 48
COMPOSITION

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Departmental Examination xxx • 209 1 1 1
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Applied Minor 010 • 100 4 1 1 1 1 4
55 55
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
Music Theory: advanced electives 710 • xxx, xxx 6 3 3 6
Orchestration 710 • 413–414 6 3 3 6
Introduction to Computer Music 350 • 463–464 6 3 3 6
63 63
GENERAL STUDIES
3 3 3 3 3
28 28
ELECTIVES
6 6
TOTAL
152 16.5 15.5 17.5 18.5 19 19 46 152
Page 49
COMPUTER MUSIC: COMPOSITION

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Depart. Seminar: Composition 310 • 545–546 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Depart. Seminar: Computer Music 350 • 545–546 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Large Ensemble [Chorus] 910 • xxx 4 2 2 4
55 55
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
Orchestration 710 • 413–414 6 3 3 6
Introduction to Programming 350 • 466 3 3 3
Studio Techniques 350 • 835 3 3 3
69 69
GENERAL STUDIES
3 3 3 3 3
28 28
ELECTIVES
3 3
TOTAL
155 17.5 16.5 19.5 20.5 19 19 43 155
Page 50
COMPUTER MUSIC: PERFORMANCE

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Computer Music Minor 010.100 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Departmental Seminar: Computer Music
350 • 545–546 8 2 2 2 2 8
Small Ensemble 950 • 531–532 4 1 1 1 1 4
73 73
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
Introduction to Programming 350 • 466 3 3 3
Studio Techniques 350 • 835 3 3 3
57 57
GENERAL STUDIES
3 3 3 3 3
28 28
ELECTIVES
3 3
TOTAL
161 18.5 18.5 20.5 21.5 21 22 39 161
Page 51
MUSIC EDUCATION: GUITAR

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Recital 190 • 395 2 2 2
Chorus 910 • xxx 8 2 2 2 2 8
Guitar Ensemble 950 • 541, 542 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Small Ensemble 950 • 531–532 1 1 1
Voice Minor 187 • 111 1 1 1
61 61
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
Guitar Pedagogy 530 • 637–638 4 2 2 4
52 52
MUSIC EDUCATION
Introduction to Music Education 510 • 112 1 1 1
Basic Instrumental Pedagogy 510 • 213 1 1 1
Conducting the Secondary Ensemble I 510 • 237–238 4 2 2 4
Conducting the Secondary Ensemble II 510 • 337 2 2 2
Vocal/General: Elementary–Secondary 510 • 311–314 6 3 3 6
Music and Language 510 • 413 3 3 3
Music and the Special Student 510 • 414 3 3 3
Intern Teaching 510 • 411 6 6 6
Intern Teaching Seminar 510 • 441 1 1 1
27 27
GENERAL STUDIES
Introductory Psychology 290 • 111 3 3 3
US History xxx • xxx 3 3 3
Humanities electives xxx • xxx 21 3 3 3 3 9 21
31 31
TOTAL
171 18.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 29 24 12 20 171
Page 52
MUSIC EDUCATION: ORCHESTRAL INSTRUMENTS


Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Departmental Examination xxx • 109–209 2 1 1 2
Recital 190 • 395 2 2 2
Large Ensemble 910 • xxx 14 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14
Small Ensemble 950 • 531–532 2 1 1 2
Applied Minor xxx • xxx 1 1 1
53 53
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
44 44
MUSIC EDUCATION
Class Woodwinds – Brass 510 • 211–212 5 3 2 5
Class Percussion 510 • 223 1 1 1
Conducting I :Choral–Instrumental 510 • 237–238 4 2 2 4
Conducting II: Choral–Instrumental 510 • 337–338 4 2 2 4
Methods I: Vocal/General –Instrumental 510 • 311–312 6 3 3 6
Class Strings 510 • 324 3 3 3
Instrumentation and Arranging 710 • 412 3 3 3
40 40
GENERAL STUDIES
31 ` 31
TOTAL
168 17.5 21.5 23.5 26.5 25 21 11 22 168
Page 53
MUSIC EDUCATION: PIANO

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Recital 190 • 395 2 2 2
Small Ensemble 950 • 531–532 2 1 1 2
47 47
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Keyboard Skills for Piano Majors I–IV 710 • 211–212–311–312 8 2 2 2 2 8
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
Sight Reading 530 • 111–112 4 2 2 4
Accompanying 530 • 213–214 2 1 1 2
58 58
MUSIC EDUCATION
32 32
GENERAL STUDIES
31 31
TOTAL
168 17.5 21.5 24.5 24.5 25 19 11 25 168
Page 54
MUSIC EDUCATION: VOICE

Major Lesson 100 • 10x 24 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 24
Vocal Coaching 186 • 411–412 2 1 1 2
Recital 190 • 395 2 2 2
Large Ensemble 910 • xxx 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 12
Opera Performance Electives 910 • 54x 3 1 1 1 3
46 46
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
Singing in English – English/American Song 530 • 475–476 4 2 2 4
Singing in Italian – Italian Song 530 • 469–470 4 2 2 4
Singing in German – German Lieder 530 • 477–481 4 2 2 4
Singing in French – French Melodiè 530 • 483–480 5 3 2 5
Acting for Opera 530 • 491 1 1 1
Stage Movement 530 • 391 1 1 1
Opera Literature 560 • 473–474 4 2 2 4
67 67
MUSIC EDUCATION
27 27
GENERAL STUDIES
Italian I 250 • 111-112 6 3 3 6
German I 240 • 111-112 6 3 3 6
French I 230 • 111-112 6 3 3 6
Humanities Elective xxx • xxx 6 6 6
31 31
TOTAL
171 21.5 23.5 23.5 23.5 26 22 11 20 171
Page 55
MUSIC EDUCATION: JAZZ

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Large Ensemble: PJO 910 • 537–8 14 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14
Small Ensemble 950 • 525–526 4 1 1 1 1 4
55 55
Ear–training I 710 • 123–124 4 2 2 4
Music Theory 1–2 710 • 111–112 6 3 3 6
48 48
MUSIC EDUCATION
27 27
GENERAL STUDIES
31 31
TOTAL
161 17.5 21.5 20.5 21.5 26 25 11 18 161
Page 56
MUSIC EDUCATION: COMPOSITION

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Applied Minor 010 • 100 4 1 1 1 1 4
55 55
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
Orchestration 710 • 413–414 6 3 3 6
62 62
MUSIC EDUCATION
Class Woodwinds – Brass 510 • 211–212 5 3 2 5
Class Percussion 510 • 223 1 1 1
Conducting I :Choral–Instrumental 510 • 237–238 4 2 2 4
Conducting II: Choral–Instrumental 510 • 337–338 4 2 2 4
Methods I: Vocal/General –Instrumental 510 • 311–312 6 3 3 6
Class Strings 510 • 324 3 3 3
40 40
GENERAL STUDIES
31 ` 31
TOTAL
188 16.5 21.5 24.5 26.5 31 28 12 28 188
Page 57
MUSIC EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC
MUSIC EDUCATION ONE TWO

Human Growth and Development* 882 • 411 0 — 0
Class Woodwinds – Brass 510 • 211–212 5 3 2 — 5
Class Strings 510 • 324 3 3 — 3
Class Percussion 510 • 223 1 1 — 1
Methods I: Instrumental Music 510 • 312 3 3 — 3
Methods II: Instrumental Music 510 • 313 3 3 — 3
Music and Language 510 • 413 3 3 — 3
Music and the Special Student 510 • 414 3 3 — 3
Intern Teaching 510 • 411 6 6 — 6
27 9 12 6 — 27
MUSIC EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

VOCAL/GENERAL MUSIC
MUSIC EDUCATION ONE TWO

Vocal/General: Elementary–Secondary 510 • 311–314 6 3 3 — 6
Conducting the Secondary Ensemble II 510 • 337 2 2 — 2
Music and Language 510 • 413 3 3 — 3
Music and the Special Student 510 • 414 3 3 — 3
Intern Teaching 510 • 411 6 6 — 6
21 15 6 0 — 21
Page 58
RECORDING ARTS: COMPOSITION
MAJOR AREA ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Applied Minor 010 • 100 4 1 1 1 1 4
55 55
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
Orchestration 710 • 413–414 6 3 3 6
55 55
RECORDING ARTS
Basic Recording I 550 • 111–112 4 2 2 4
Basic Recording II 550 • 211-212 4 2 2 4
Basic Recording III 550 • 311–312 4 2 2 4
Circuits – Signals & Systems (WSE) EN.520 • 213–214 8 4 4 8
Advanced Recording I 550 • 411–412 6 3 3 6
Intro Electrical and Computer Engineering EN.520 • 137 3 3 3
ECE Laboratory (WSE) EN.520 • 345 3 3 3
Psychoacoustics 550 • 517 3 3 3
Acoustical and Audio Measurements 550 • 519 3 3 3
Copyrights and Contracts 360 • 411 2 2 2
Advanced Recording II 550 • 513–514 6 3 3 6
Musical Acoustics–Electroacoustics 550 • 515–516 6 3 3 6
Internship 550 • 419 4 4 4
56 56
GENERAL STUDIES
Calculus I–II (KSAS) AS.110 • 108-109 8 4 4 8
Physics/Lab (KSAS) AS.171 • 101–102 8 4 4 8
Humanities Electives xxx • xxx 12 3 3 3 3 12
28 28
ELECTIVES
One Professional Elective* xxx • xxx 3 3 3
3 3
TOTAL
197 18 18 20 21 25 22 24 25 14 10 197
* Students choose one advanced elective from Peabody or WSE

in consultation with the department.
Page 59
RECORDING ARTS: GUITAR

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Half Recital 171 • 309 1 1 1
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Chorus 910 • 511, 512 8 2 2 2 2 8
Guitar Ensemble 950 • 541, 542 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Small Ensemble 950 • 531–532 2 1 1 2
62 62
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
Guitar Pedagogy 530 • 637-368 4 2 2 4
50 50
RECORDING ARTS
Internship 550 • 419 4 4 4
56 56
GENERAL STUDIES
28 28
ELECTIVES
3 3
TOTAL
199 19 20 20 21 27 26 20 22 14 10 199
Page 60
RECORDING ARTS: JAZZ PERFORMANCE
MAJOR AREA ONE TWO THREE FOUR FOUR

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Large Ensemble: PJO 910 • 537–8 16 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16
Small Ensemble 950 • 525–526 4 1 1 1 1 4
57 57
Ear–training I 710 • 123–124 4 2 2 4
Music Theory 1–2 710 • 111–112 6 3 3 6
46 46
RECORDING ARTS
Internship 550 • 419 4 4 4
56 56
GENERAL STUDIES
28 28
ELECTIVES
3 3
TOTAL
190 19 20 16 17 25 23 22 24 14 10 190
Page 61
RECORDING ARTS: ORCHESTRAL INSTRUMENTS


Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Small Ensemble 950 • 531–532 2 1 1 2
55 55
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
43 43
RECORDING ARTS
Internship 550 • 419 4 4 4
56 56
GENERAL STUDIES
28 28
ELECTIVES
3 3
TOTAL
185 19 20 19 20 23 21 19 20 14 10 185
VARIATIONS: +2
— for Strings and Percussion: 187 credits
Small Ensemble 950 • 531–532 [2]
— for Violin & Viola: 185 credits
Junior Recital 115, 113 • 309
[Replaces 309 jury] [2]
— for Flute: 185 credits
Piccolo Class 530 • 463–464
[Taken as a required elective]
Page 62
RECORDING ARTS: ORGAN

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Large Ensemble [Chorus] 910 • xxx 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 12
Piano Minor 010 • 100 2 1 1 2
Voice Minor 010 • 100 2 1 1 2
61 61
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Keyboard Skills/ Piano Majors I–II 710 • 211–212 4 2 2 4
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
Sight Reading 530 • 111–112 4 2 2 4
Resources /Church Organist 530 • 425–426 6 3 3 6
Continuo I: Figured Bass 530.315 2 2 2
Organ Literature 530 • 423–424 6 3 3 6
57 57
RECORDING ARTS
Internship 550 • 419 4 4 4
56 56
GENERAL STUDIES
28 28
ELECTIVES
3 3
TOTAL
205 20 21 21 22 30 26 19 22 14 10 205
Page 63
RECORDING ARTS: PIANO

Major Lesson 100 • 100 32 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 32
Recital 190 • 495 2 2 2
Small Ensemble 950 • 531–532 4 1 1 1 1 4
49 49
Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 8 2 2 2 2 8
Keyboard Skills for Piano Majors I–IV 710 • 211–212–311–312 8 2 2 2 2 8
Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 15 3 3 3 3 3 15
Sight Reading 530 • 111–112 4 2 2 4
Accompanying 530 • 213–214 2 1 1 2
58 58
RECORDING ARTS
Internship 550 • 419 4 4 4
56 56
GENERAL STUDIES
28 28
ELECTIVES
3 3
TOTAL
194 17 18 20 21 28 26 20 20 14 10 194
Page 64
NOTES
1
Mellasenah Y. Morris became dean of the Conservatory and deputy director of the Institute in 2008 following the retirement of Wolfgang Justen, who had
served as dean since 2004. Katsura Kurita became associate dean for student affairs following the retirement of Emily Frank. Paul Mathews became interim
associate dean for academic affairs following the departure of Eileen Soskin. Andrea Trisciuzzi was appointed the Associate Dean for Development and
Alumni Relations in March 2009 following the departure of Joyce Ritchie, the Associate Dean for External Relations. Robert Sirota was Director of the
Institute from 1995 to 2005; Peter Landgren was interim Director in 2005-2006; Jeffrey Sharkey was appointed Director of the Institute in 2006.
2
"The Periodic Review Report ordinarily is submitted five years after an institution’s self-study and evaluation team visit … The preparation of a PRR, like
that of a self-study document, provides opportunities for constructive discussion among the institution’s several constituencies, bringing various points of
view to the consideration of recent institutional developments and current institutional issues." Handbook for Periodic Review Reports, 11th ed.
(Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2008), 1.
3
For a history of the credit hour and the attending problems, see Jessica M. Shedd. "The History of the Student Credit Hour." New Directions for Higher
Education 122 (2003): 5-12. ERIC ED EJ676440.
4
Maryland. Office of the Secretary of State, Division of State Documents. Code of Maryland Regulations, 13B.02.02.03.B.1 [Webpage]
http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar. Hereafter "COMAR" with the title, subtitle and chapter.
5
13B.02.02.16.D
6
National Association of Schools of Music, Handbook 2007-2008, 2nd ed (Reston, VA: National Association of Schools of Music, 2007), 61-2. Hereafter
"NASM."
7
Evert Bisschop Boele, Handbook: Implementation and use of Credit Points in Higher Music Education (AEC Publications, 2007)
http://www.aecinfo.org/GenericComponents/DownloadView.aspx?ses=15911 (29 March 2009).
8
The Peabody Institute, "Vision and Mission Statement," http://www.peabody.jhu.edu/1701 (29 March 2009).
9
ibid.
10
The Peabody Institute, "Educational Philosophy," http://www.peabody.jhu.edu/513 (29 March 2009).
11
Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education 12th ed. (Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on
Higher Education, 2006), 1. Hereafter "CEHE."
12
The Johns Hopkins University, "Mission Statement,"
http://webapps.jhu.edu/jhuniverse/information_about_hopkins/about_jhu/mission_statement/index.cfm (29 March 2009).
13
The Johns Hopkins University, "Middle States Commission on Higher Education Self-Study Report for the [2004] Accreditation Site Visit. Selected
Topic Report: The Challenge of Improving Undergraduate Education in a Research Intensive Environment," January 2004, 107-108. Hereafter, "JHU
MSCHE Self-Report."
14
Middle States Commission on Higher Education, "Report to the Faculty, Administration, Trustees, Students of The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Maryland 21218 by An Evaluation Team Representing the Middle States Commission on Higher Education Prepared After Study of the Institution’s Self-
Study Report and a Visit to the Campus on March 21-24, 2004," (Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2004), 23. Hereafter,
"MSCHE 2004 Report."
15
NASM, 46-7.
16
13B.02.02.14
17
2003 Self-Report, 5.
18
The Peabody Conservatory, Faculty Constitution, September 2002, Article V.1.
19
National Association of Schools of Music. Instructions for Preparing Curricular Tables in the NASM Format. 2008 ed. Virginia: National Association of
Schools of Music, 2008. [Online.] http://nasm.arts-accredit.org/site/docs/MEMBERSHIP%20PROCEDURES/CurricularTables-NASM2008.pdf (28 March
2009).
20
Regrettably, not all of the student comments have been preserved. What remains of the survey can be found in the 2003 Self-Report, 132-137.
21
The differences are also quite interesting to consider, with more faculty than students estimating a work load beyond three hours.
22
Details of the sample found at The National Survey of Student Engagement, "Promoting Engagement for All Students: The Imperative to Look Within—
2008 Results." [Online.] http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2008_Results/docs/withhold/NSSE2008_Results_revised_11-14-2008.pdf, 31 (28 March 2009).NSSE
2008, 31. Hereafter "NSSE 2008."
23
NSSE 2008, 34.
24
Joseph Polisi, The Artist as Citizen (New York: Hal Leonard Corporation, 2005), 32-3.
25
Approved by the UGCC on 9 April 2009.
26
"Institutions shall not impose new or revised degree or program requirements on continuing students. Enrolled students shall have the option to complete
the degree or program requirements in effect at the time of their admission into a degree or program." NASM, 63.
27
Approved by the UGCC on 26 March 2009.
28
The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, "[Catalog:] Academic Year 2007-8," (Baltimore: The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins
University, 2007), 23. Hereafter "Catalog 2007-8."
Page 65
29
The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, "[Catalog:] Academic Year 2008-9," (Baltimore: The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins
University, 2007), 23. Hereafter "Catalog."
30
Juilliard does not calculate GPA. However, given their guidelines for satisfactory academic progress, which requires students to "get a B- in lessons and a
C- in classes," a Juilliard undergraduate could get a term GPA of 1.95 and remain in compliance.
31
The Johns Hopkins University, "Undergraduate Student Handbook: Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Whiting School of Engineering, 2008-2009,"
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2008), 21. Hereafter, "ASEN."
32
33
ASEN, 16.
34
Consider: the expression "for the second attempt of the course" is not followed by other ordinal adjectives (third, fourth, etc.) and the change of grade is
only described with the terms "new grade" and "old grade."
35
36
The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, "The 2008-2009 Student Handbook," (Baltimore: The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins
University, 2008), 11. Hereafter, "Student Handbook."
37
Marian Hahn, Gary Louie, Eileen Soskin and Carolee Stewart, "Report of the Undergraduate Curriculum Review Committee," The Peabody Conservatory
Council of Chairs, 15 December 1998, 36. Hereafter, "1998 Report."
38
JHU MSCHE Self-Report, 113.
39
MSCHE 2004 Report, 24.
40
These charts compare the percentage of respondents answering the question who selected that answer. Because the respondents selected multiple answers,
the total integers and percentages exceed the number of responses at the top of the column.
41
Johns Hopkins University Commission on Undergraduate Education, "Final Report," January 2004 http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/reports/cue/, 28.
Hereafter, "Cue."
42
43
Cf. the bottom of the Benchmark Comparison Tables in Appendix A for an accounting of relative weights in the curricula for orchestral instruments,
piano, and voice at Peabody and among peer institutions.
44
45
Manhattan School of Music, 2008-2009 Course Catalog (New York: Manhattan School of Music, 2008), 33. Hereafter MSM.
46
Julliard Faculty Handbook, XV. Appendix B.
47
Catalog, 34-5.
48
49
http://www.cte.uiuc.edu/assessment/plans/music08.pdf
50
http://www.uga.edu/effectiveness/assess/Plans/musiccompplan.pdf
51
MSM, 65.
52
Julliard Faculty Handbook, XV. Appendix B.
53
54
http://www.peabody.jhu.edu/513
55
Catalog, 36.
56
The external review was conducted by: Gretchen Breese, New England Conservatory; Roger Brunyate, Peabody Conservatory; Jo Sarzotti, The Juilliard
School; Peter Stambler, The University of the Arts; and Ron Walters, Johns Hopkins University.
57
NASM, 82-85.
58
CEHE, 42.
59
CEHE, 47.
60
COMAR, 13B.02.02.16.
61
CEHE, 48; our emphasis.
62
NASM, 83.
63
NASM, 86.
64
CEHE, 48.
65
COMAR, 13B.02.02.16.
66
NASM, 63.
Page 66
67
Humanities External, 6.
68
NASM, 82-3.
69
Julliard, 95
70
MSM, 60.
71
Mannes, 3.
72
CEHE, 47-8.
73
CEHE, 48.
74
13B.02.02.16 §E( (b)
75
MICA, "Interdisciplinary Sculpture" http://www.mica.edu/Programs_of_Study/BFA_Degree_Programs/Interdisciplinary_Sculpture/Curriculum.html (6
April 2009).
76
Catalog, 136.
77
78
Michael Formanek, Julian Gray, Eileen Soskin, and Stephen Stone. "Response to the Report of the External Review Committee on the Liberal Arts
Curriculum at the Peabody Conservatory of Music of the Johns Hopkins University, Prepared by the Subcommittee Appointed 13 December 2004 by the
Academic Council." The same subcommittee made the same recommendation in a 7 February 2005 memo to the Academic Council.
79
NASM, 86-7.
80
Nelly Furman, David Goldberg, and Natalia Lusin. "Enrollments in Languages Other Than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall
2006." Modern Language Association Web publication, 13 November 2007,
http://www.mla.org/enroll_survey06_fin (6 April 2009), 2.
81
ibid, 7.
82
Unanimously approved by the UGCC on 26 March 2009.
83
"All students are required to earn a minimum number of credits in academic areas outside their majors. The academic areas in the Hopkins curriculum are
humanities (H), natural sciences (N), social and behavioral sciences (S), quantitative and mathematical sciences (Q), and engineering (E). Students earn at
least 30 credits in courses from areas outside their major area." ASEN, 1.
84
For the purposes of this recommendation, information was pulled for Peabody students who are not in the double degree program. Students in the
Bachelors of Recording Arts degree are included in the sample, but are largely represented in the engineering classes.
85
86
Fred Schock, Nancy Roldan, Tom Benjamin, Lucy Chang, Eileen Soskin, Bruno Amato, Pam Poulin have retired. Paul Mathews, Ken Johansen, Kip
Wile, Mark Janello, Courtney Orlando, Steve Stone, Ildar Khannanov and David Smooke were hired. Note that as of this writing, Paul Mathews is not
teaching, but serving as interim Associate Dean for academic affairs.
87
2003 Self-Report, 5.
88
Kip Wile <wile@peabody.jhu.edu>, "UG Curriculum." Personal Email (22 March 2009).
89
90
Kip Wile <wile@peabody.jhu.edu>, "UG Curriculum." Personal Email (22 March 2009).
91
Kip Wile <wile@peabody.jhu.edu>, "Naming Adjustment." Personal Email (3 April 2009).
92
Andrew Talle, "Writing Ability and Knowledge of Music History: A Comparison of Peabody-Trained vs. Non-Peabody Trained MM Students" The
Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, 2009.
93
Peabody alumni scored an average of 3.94 out of 7 (56%) while alumni of other schools scored an average of 4.48 out of 7 (64%). Talle, 1.
94
NASM, 69.
95
96
NASM, 70
97
NASM, 84.
98
NASM, 62.
99
NASM, 78.
100
101
1998 Report, 2.
102
Peabody NASM Self-Report, 9.
Page 67
103
NASM, 84.
104
NASM, 63.
105
NASM, 74-5.
106
NASM, 85.
107
As of April 2009: Business of Music, PY.360.421 has 51 students: 31 M.M. or G.P.D. students, 19 B.M. students and 1 double-degree student. Arts
Administration, PY.360.416 has 26 students: 1 D.M.A. student (!), 6 M.M. or G.P.D. students and 19 B.M. students. Anatomy for Musicians, PY.360.422,
is the most balanced class with 17 students: 8 M.M. or G.P.D. students and 9 B.M. students.
108
NASM, 62.
109
110
Catalog, 37.
111
Catalog. 75.
112
NASM, 80-1.
113
114
115
2002 Faculty Handbook, Appendix B, 3.
116
Ibid, 5.
117
Ibid, 5.
118
119
The word concentration can be used to mean either minor or major, and NSAM provides for both definitions of the word (NASM 2007-8, 73). Here the
word reflects the fact that colleges typically do not award degrees for work done at other colleges, even if they are part of the same university. That is
certainly the case at Homewood, and is noted in their Manual: "Official recognition with notation on the academic record is not given for completion of
majors or minors at other divisions of the university or at other colleges." ASEN, 19.
120
Catalog, 69. The Engineering Concentration is not materially different from the Liberal Arts Concentration.
121
NASM, 73.
122
CIM, 19.
123
CCM, 23.
124
MSM, 65.
125
NEC, 67.
126
Peabody allows for shared core requirements in the double-degree program with the ASEN schools. Peabody also allows for shared core requirements in
such dual graduate degrees as the M.M. in Music Theory Pedagogy and the M.M. in Musicology. Cleveland offers a similarly generous sharing of core
requirements in its minors taken with Case Western Reserve University (CIM, 19).
127
CEHE, 47-48.
128
NASM, 84.
129
CEHE, 48.
130
NASM, 85.
131
CEHE, 42.
132
"Response from the Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University to the NASM Commission Action Report of June 30, 2006." Peabody
Conservatory, 1 October 2006, 1.
133
Humanities External Review, 10.
134
135
NASM, 82.
136
COMAR 13B.02.02.16 §E(1)
137
CEHE, 48.
138
Details of the sample found at NSSE 2008, 31.
139
NSSE 2008, 21.
140
NSSE has made its actual questions and answers available at: www.nsse.iub.edu/pdf/Writing_Questions_2008.pdf.
Page 68
141
NSSE 2008, 21.
142
ASEN, 2.
143
Catalog, 37.
144
In a supplemental recommendation not presented for service by the Academic Council, a short description about the writing center should appear in the
Peabody Catalog. Mannes has a blurb about the Mannes Writing Center, in their catalog, 18.
145
146
NASM, 63.
147
NASM, 86.
148
NASM, 93.
Page 69
ABBREVIATIONS
Association Européenne des Conservatoires, Académies de Musique et Musikhochschulen: a European cultural and educational network
AEC representing the interests of institutions that are concerned with training for the music profession. There are 266 member institutions in 55
countries.
The joint administration of KSAS and WSE. The Homewood campus generally administers these two colleges of the University with a
ASEN
single administration for admissions, advising, registration, and other services.
B.M. The Bachelor of Music degree
CCM Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music
CIM The Cleveland Institute of Music
Consortium for the Liberal Education of Artists, an organization with the mission "to strengthen the liberal education of college students
CLEA
enrolled in institutions dedicated to the training of performance artists." http://www.clearts.org
COMAR Code of Maryland Regulations. Title 13b establishes the regulations for higher education in the State of Maryland.
CUE The JHU Commission on Higher Education, which issued its final report in January 2004
ETCS European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System
FSSE National Survey of Faculty Engagement
GP Global Perspectives, one of the three study areas implemented in the 2006-2007 Humanities curriculum.
Grade point average. For Peabody, the GPA is the average of quality points: the products of grades (on a four point scale) multiplied by
GPA
credits, for all classes that are applied to degree requirements.
HE Humanities Elective, a course approved by Humanities and a designation implemented in the 2006-2007 Humanities curriculum.
HP Historical/Philosophical Studies, one of the three study areas implemented in the 2006-2007 Humanities curriculum.
Interdivisional Registration: Requests for Registration between the nine divisions of JHU. Most Peabody IDR requests involve KSAS or
IDR
WSE.
ISIS Integrated Student Information System, a university-wide, web-based student information system.
IU Indiana University
KSAS The Zanvyl Krieger School of Arts and Sciences of the Johns Hopkins University
LL Language and Literature, one of the three study areas implemented in the 2006-2007 Humanities curriculum.
MHEC Maryland Higher Education Commission
MSCHE The Middle States Committee on Higher Education
MSM The Manhattan School of Music
NASM National Association of Schools of Music
NEC The New England Conservatory of Music
NSSE National Survey of Student Engagement
Organization Advocating Student InterestS: a volunteer student group officially recognized by the Peabody administration as an alternative
OASIS
to a traditional student government.
PCO Peabody Concert Orchestra
PJO Peabody Jazz Orchestra
PRR Periodic Review Report: the five year interim report between decennial reviews of the Middle States Committee on Higher Education.
PSO Peabody Symphony Orchestra
PWE Peabody Wind Ensemble
Satisfactory Academic Progress: the benchmarks by which students may remain in good academic standing at the institution. SAP is an
SAP
important measure for financial aid and visa status.
UGCC The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
WSE The Whiting School of Engineering of the Johns Hopkins University
Page 70
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Accreditation Documents
Johns Hopkins University. "Middle States Commission on Higher Education Periodic Review Report." Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University, 1999. Photocopied.
--------. "Middle States Commission on Higher Education Self-Study Report for the [2004] Accreditation Site Visit. Selected
Topic Report: The Challenge of Improving Undergraduate Education in a Research Intensive Environment." January
2004. http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/reports/self-study/.
Johns Hopkins University Homewood Arts Task Force. "Final Report." 24 May 2005.
http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/reports/arts/arts.pdf.
Johns Hopkins University Commission on Undergraduate Education. "Final Report." January 2004.
http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/reports/cue/.
Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Assessing Student Learning and Institutional Effectiveness: Understanding
Middle States Expectations. Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2005. Online.
http://www.msche.org/publications/Assessment_Expectations051222081842.pdf.
--------. Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education 12th ed. Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher
Education, 2006. Online. http://www.msche.org/publications/CHX06_Aug08080728132708.pdf.
--------. "Report to the Faculty, Administration, Trustees, Students of The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
21218 by An Evaluation Team Representing the Middle States Commission on Higher Education Prepared After
Study of the Institution’s Self-Study Report and a Visit to the Campus on March 21-24, 2004." Philadelphia: Middle
States Commission on Higher Education, 2004. Photocopied.
--------. Student Learning Assessment Options and Resources 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher
Education, 2007. Online. http://www.msche.org/publications/SLA_Book_0808080728085320.pdf.
National Association of Schools of Music. Addendum to the Handbook 2007-2008. [Online.] http://nasm.arts-
accredit.org/site/docs/Handbook/Addendum-NASMHandbook2008-2nd.pdf, 28 March 2009.
--------. Handbook 2007-2008, 2nd ed. Reston, VA: National Association of Schools of Music, 2007.
--------. Instructions for Preparing Curricular Tables in the NASM Format. [Online.] http://nasm.arts-
accredit.org/site/docs/MEMBERSHIP%20PROCEDURES/CurricularTables-NASM2008.pdf, 28 March 2009.
The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University. "NASM Self Study Document." Baltimore: The Peabody Institute of
the Johns Hopkins University, 2004. Photocopied.
Official Peabody Documents
Johns Hopkins University. "Undergraduate Student Handbook: Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Whiting School of
Engineering, 2008-2009." Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2008.
The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University. "[Catalog:] Academic Year 2007-8." Baltimore: The Peabody
Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, 2007.
The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University. "[Catalog:] Academic Year 2008-9." Baltimore: The Peabody
Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, 2008
The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University. "The 2008-2009 Student Handbook." Baltimore: The Peabody
Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, 2008
Page 71
Peer Institution Catalogs
University of Rochester Eastman School of Music. "Undergraduate Academic Policy & Curriculum."
http://www.esm.rochester.edu/registrar/policy/ugrad.php, (28 March 2009).
Cleveland Institute of Music. "2008-2009." Cleveland: Cleveland Institute of Music, 2008.
The Curtis Institute of Music. "Catalog 2008–09." Philadelphia: The Curtis Institute of Music, 2008.
Indiana University Jacobs School of Music. "Bulletin 2007-9." Bloomington: Indiana University Bulletin Series, 2007.
The Juilliard School. "Catalog 2008-9." New York: The Juilliard School, 2008.
Manhattan School of Music. "2008-2009 Course Catalog." New York: Manhattan School of Music, 2008.
Mannes College The New School for Music. "Catalog 2008-9." New York: The New School, 2008.
The New England Conservatory. "Bachelor of Music." http://www.newenglandconservatory.edu/degrees/bachelor.html (28

March 2009).
The University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music. Bulletin 2008-9. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, 2008.
Peabody Internal Documents
Breese Gretchen, Roger Brunyate, Jo Sarzotti, Peter Stambler and Ron Walters. "Report of the External Review Committee:
Peabody Liberal Arts Curriculum." Peabody Academic Council of the Johns Hopkins University. 9 December
2004. Photocopied.
Hahn, Marian, Gary Louie, Eileen Soskin and Carolee Stewart. Report of the Undergraduate Curriculum Review Committee.
The Peabody Conservatory Council of Chairs. 15 December 1998. Photocopied.
Formanek, Michael, Julian Gray, Eileen Soskin and Stephen Stone. "Response to the Report of the External Review
Committee on the Liberal Arts Curriculum at the Peabody Conservatory of Music of the Johns Hopkins University."
Peabody Academic Council of the Johns Hopkins University. 13 December 2004. Photocopied.
Peabody Academic Council of the Johns Hopkins University. "Minutes: 2005-2009." Photocopied.
Consulting Organizations and Think Tanks
Adelman, Clifford. The Bologna Club: What U.S. Higher Education Can Learn from a Decade of European Reconstruction.
[Online.] http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/TheBolognaClub.pdf, 28 March 2009.
--------. Learning Accountability from Bologna: A Higher Education Policy Primer. [Online.]
http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/learningaccountabilityfrombologna.pdf, 28 March 2009.
Association of American Colleges & Universities and the Council For Higher Education Accreditation. "New Leadership
Student Learning Accountability for and Aa Statement Of Principles, Commitments To Action." [Online.]
http://www.chea.org/pdf/2008.01.30_New_Leadership_Statement.pdf, 28 March 2009.
Association Européenne des Conservatoires and the National Association of Schools of Music. "AEC – NASM Statement on
the Characteristics for Quality Assurance in the Field of Music. for the 2005 Bergen Meeting for European Ministers
of Education in the framework of the Bologna Process." [Online.]
http://aecsite.cramgo.nl/DownloadView.aspx?ses=4907, 28 March 2009.
Page 72
Association Européenne des Conservatoires "Mundus Musicalis" Working Group." Final Report. Higher Music Education: A
Global Perspective, Eng. ed. [Online.] http://aecsite.cramgo.nl/DownloadView.aspx?ses=11830, 28 March 2009.
--------."Handbook: The International Recognition of Studies and Qualifications in Higher Music Education. [Online.]
http://aecsite.cramgo.nl/DownloadView.aspx?ses=11774, 28 March 2009.
The Consortium for the Liberal Education of Artists. "2004 Survey of CLEA Schools." [Online.]
http://www.clearts.org/III_(a)_Data%26Info.html, 28 March 2009.
Nelly Furman, David Goldberg, and Natalia Lusin. "Enrollments in Languages Other Than English in United States
Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2006." Modern Language Association Web Publication. 13 November 2007.
http://www.mla.org/enroll_survey06_fin.
Huber, Mary Taylor. "Fostering Integrative Learning through the Curriculum." The Integrative Learning Project, The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Association of American Colleges and Universities,
2006. [Online.] http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/integrativelearning (March 29, 2009).
The National Survey of Student Engagement. "Promoting Engagement for All Students: The Imperative to Look Within—
2008 Results." [Online.] http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2008_Results/docs/withhold/NSSE2008_Results_revised_11-14-
2008.pdf, 28 March 2009.
--------. "Experiences That Matter: Enhancing Student Learning and Success." [Online.]
http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2007_Annual_Report/docs/withhold/NSSE_2007_Annual_Report.pdf, 28 March 2009.
Other Sources
The Peabody Institute of the City of Baltimore. The Founder's Letters and the Papers Relating To Its Dedication and Its
History. Baltimore: Steam Press of W. K . Boyle, 1868.
Page 73
APPENDIX A: BENCHMARK COMPARISIONS
Peabody*
Mannes*
Oberlin*
Eastman
Juilliard
Indiana
CCM†
CIM*
MSM
Rice*
NEC
Ā
Lessons 32 30 30 32 48 40 28 32 32 32 24 32.7
MAJOR AREA
Jury/Exam 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5
Recital 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.3
Large ensemble 16 8 8 16 16 16 8 16 8 8 16 12.4
Small ensemble 4 8 6 4 4 16 6 8 2 6 6 6.4
Dept. seminar 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1
MAJOR AREA 60 46 44 52 68 73 42 56 42 46 46 52.3
Repertoire/Lit. 0 6 3 4 0 8 8 8 0 0 1 3.5
Theory 18 12 14 13.5 15 28 16 28 21 12 15 17.5

Theory electives 0 0 3 3 3 0 4 0 0 3 3 1.7
Ear-training 8 8 8 6.5 4 8 8 16 0 4 10 7.3
Eurhythmics/&c. 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.5
Keyboard studies 8 4 4 8 8 4 4 4 0 4 3 4.6
Music history 8 8 6 9 8 13 8 8 2 7 12 8.1
Music history/lit. electives 0 0 3 0 0 0 6 0 8 3 0 1.8
Colloqium/Concerts 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0.6
Conducting 1 0.5 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0.6
Music electives 6 5.5 4 0 4 0 0 0 6 3 0 2.6
Orchestration 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2
Pedagogy 0 4.0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6
SUPPORTIVE MUSIC 51 50.5 52 45 44 62 58 66 37 36 46 49.8
Foreign language 6 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3
GENERAL
Liberal arts prescribed 20 0 0 0 6 12 12 21.5 5 0 36 10.2

Writing 0 6 3 3 3 0 12 1.5 0 0 3 2.9
Liberal arts electives 6 24 21 21 3 12 0 0 17 24 0 11.6
GENERAL STUDIES 32 30 24 24 20 24 24 23 22 24 39 26.0
E ELECTIVES 4 3 0 3 4 0 0 3 17 18 0 4.7
TOTALCREDITS 147 130 120 124 136 159 124 148 118 124 131 133
Performance 41% 36% 37% 42% 50% 46% 34% 38% 36% 37% 35% 39%
NASM % Actual %
Major Area 35% 39% 43% 36% 32% 39% 47% 45% 31% 29% 35% 37%
General Studies 22% 23% 20% 19% 15% 15% 19% 16% 19% 19% 30% 20%
Electives 3% 2% 0% 2% 3% 0% 0% 2% 14% 15% 0% 4%
Performance 50% 38% 37% 43% 57% 61% 35% 47% 35% 38% 38% 44%
Major Area 43% 42% 43% 38% 37% 52% 48% 55% 31% 30% 38% 41%
General Studies 27% 25% 20% 20% 17% 20% 20% 19% 18% 20% 33% 22%
Electives 3% 3% 0% 3% 3% 0% 0% 3% 14% 15% 0% 4%
* String curriculum only; winds, brass, and percussion have slightly different requirements
† Originally quarter hours; converted to semester hours for comparison.
Page 74
PIANO
Eastman
Peabody
Juilliard
Mannes
Oberlin
Indiana
CCM†
MSM
NEC
CIM
Rice
Ā
Applied major 32 32 28 32 48 40 18 32 40 32 24 32.5

Jury/Exam 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5
MAJOR AREA
Recital 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.3
Large ensemble/Chorus 8 4 0 2 8 8 0 4 6 0 16 5.1
Small ensemble 4 4 0 2 0 0 4 4 1 4 2 2.3
Ensemble 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7
Dept. Seminar 0 0 5 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 1.4
MAJOR AREA 52 40 41 36 56 59 22 40 47 36 42 42.8
Accompanying 2 4 0 10 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 2.2
Pedagogy 4 4 4 4 2 0 4 3 0 0 0 2.3
Piano Tech. & History 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1
Intro to Organ 0 0.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

Repertoire/Lit. 8 4 3 9 0 12 4 0 0 2 0 3.8
Piano sight-reading 4 0 1 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1.2
Keyboard skills 8 0 0 0 0 8 6 6 5 4 0 3.4
Theory 18 12 14 13.5 15 28 16 28 21 12 15 17.5
Ear-training 8 8 8 6.5 4 8 8 16 0 4 10 7.3
Score-reading 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0.2
Eurhythmics/&c. 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.5
Music history 8 8 8 9 8 13 8 8 2 0 12 7.6
Music history/lit. electives 0 0 3 0 0 0 6 0 8 10 0 2.5
Colloqium/Concerts 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0.6
Conducting 1 0.5 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0.6
Music electives 4 9.5 5 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 2.8
SUPPORTIVE MUSIC 67 52 55 57 42 70 62 67 42 42 42 54.4
GENERAL

Writing 0 6 3 3 2 0 0 1.5 0 0 3 1.7
GENERAL STUDIES 32 30 24 24 29 24 36 23 22 24 39 27.9
E ELECTIVES 4 6 0 3 6 0 2 3 7 20 0 4.6
TOTAL CREDITS 155 128 120 120 133 153 122 133 118 122 123 129.7
Performance 34% 31% 34% 30% 42% 39% 18% 30% 40% 30% 34% 32.8%
NASM % Actual %
Major Area 43% 41% 46% 48% 32% 46% 51% 50% 36% 34% 34% 41.8%
General Studies 21% 23% 20% 20% 22% 16% 30% 17% 19% 20% 32% 21.7%
Electives 3% 5% 0% 3% 5% 0% 2% 2% 6% 16% 0% 3.7%
Performance 43% 33% 34% 30% 47% 49% 18% 33% 39% 30% 35% 35.7%
Major Area 56% 43% 46% 48% 35% 58% 52% 56% 35% 35% 35% 45.3%
General Studies 27% 25% 20% 20% 24% 20% 30% 19% 18% 20% 33% 23.3%
Electives 3% 5% 0% 3% 5% 0% 2% 3% 6% 17% 0% 3.9%
Page 75
VOICE
Eastman
Juilliard
Peabody
Mannes
Oberlin
Indiana
CCM†
MSM
NEC
CIM
Rice
Ā
Applied major 32 30 28 24 32 40 28 32 24 28 24 29.3

Jury/Exam 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5
MAJOR
Recital 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.3
Large ensemble/Chorus 12 6 6 16 12 0 2 4 8 8 16 8.2
Small ensemble/Opera 3 0 12 0 6 10 6 0 0 0 8 4.1
Dept. Seminar 1 0 1 0 0 4 1 8 0 0 0 1.4
MAJOR AREA 56 36 47 40 50 55 37 44 32 36 48 43.7
Singing/Languages 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6
Phonetics 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0.4
Diction 0 4 4 4 6 16 8 8 8 5 4 6.1
Pedagogy 0 4 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 1.3
Vocal coaching 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0.7
Intro to Performing 0 5.33 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.7
SUPPORTING COURSES IN MUSIC
Acting 1 0 3 0 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 1.1
Modern Dance 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3
Stage Movement 1 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 0 0 0 0.8
Oratorio 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4
Misc. vocal studies 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0.2
Repertoire/Lit. 4 4 3 6 4 12 6 0 8 3 4 4.9
Theory 18 12 11 15 13.5 22 16 23 21 12 15 16.2
Ear-training 8 8 8 4 6.5 12 8 16 0 4 10 7.7
Eurhythmics/&c. 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.4
Keyboard studies 8 4 4 8 8 4 4 4 2 8 3 5.2
Thursday Noon 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2
Music history 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 8 2 0 12 7.3
History/Lit. elective 0 0 3 0 0 1 6 0 8 10 0 2.5
Freshman colloqium 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0.5
Music electives 6 6 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 6 0 2.4
Conducting 1 0.67 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2
SUPPORTING MUSIC 79 60 55 51 57 85 63 65 57 51 55 61.6
GENERAL

Writing 0 6 3 3 2 0 0 1.5 2 0 3 1.9
GENERAL STUDIES 32 36 33 36 35 24 26 33 23 19 57 32.2
ELECTIVES 6 1.33 0 9 2 0 0 3 6 18 0 4.1
TOTAL CREDITS 173 133 135 136 144 164 126 145 118 124 160 141.7
Major Area 32% 27% 35% 29% 35% 34% 29% 30% 27% 29% 30% 30.7%
NASM % Actual %
Supporting Music 46% 45% 41% 38% 40% 52% 50% 45% 48% 41% 34% 43.5%
General Studies 18% 27% 24% 26% 24% 15% 21% 23% 19% 15% 36% 22.7%
Electives 3% 1% 0% 7% 1% 0% 0% 2% 5% 15% 0% 3.1%
Major Area 47% 30% 39% 33% 42% 46% 31% 37% 27% 30% 40% 36.4%
Supporting Music 66% 50% 46% 43% 48% 71% 53% 54% 48% 43% 46% 51.4%
General Studies 27% 30% 28% 30% 29% 20% 22% 28% 19% 16% 48% 26.8%
Electives 5% 1% 0% 8% 2% 0% 0% 3% 5% 15% 0% 3.4%

Page 76
A 30-Year Review of the Curriculum for Orchestral Instruments at the Peabody Conservatory
1978–1979
1984–1985
1985–1986
1991–1993
1995–1997
2005–2007
2008–2009
Applied major 16 16 24 32 32 32 32
Jury/Dept. exam 12 12 6 6 6 6 6
Recital 4 4 2 2 2 2 2
Large ensemble 0 0 16 16 16 16 16
Chamber music 0 0 6 4 4 4 4
MAJOR AREA 32 32 54 60 60 60 60
Major instrument rep./lit. 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
Theory 24 24 18 18 18 18 18
Ear-training 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Keyboard studies 4 4 4 4 8 8 8
Thursday Noon 0 0 3 3 3 2 2
Music history 8 8 8 8 10 8 8
Orchestration 0 0 6 6 0 0 0
Conducting 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
Dept. seminar 0 0 6 2 0 0 0
Music electives 6 6 0 0 6 6 6
SUPPORTIVE MUSIC 54 54 55 51 55 51 51
Foreign language 12 12 12 12 12 12 6
Writing skills 6 6 2 4 4 2 0
Liberal arts prescribed 0 0 12 10 10 10 20
Liberal arts electives 18 18 6 6 6 6 6
GENERAL STUDIES 36 36 32 32 32 30 32
ELECTIVES 0 0 6 6 4 4 4
TOTAL CREDITS 122 122 147 149 151 145 147
Major Area 26% 26% 37% 40% 40% 41% 41%
Supportive Music 26% 26% 37% 40% 40% 41% 41%
General Studies 30% 30% 22% 21% 21% 21% 22%
Electives 0% 0% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3%
Page 77
APPENDIX B: THE UGCC SURVEY
Undergraduate Curriculum Survey

STUDENT RESULTS Conducted by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
18 November 2008 — 2 February 2009
1. What is your current status?
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Fifth Year Other Total

11 22 40 34 3 1 111
9.9% 19.8% 36.0% 30.6% 2.7% 0.9% 100.0%
The student indicated as "other" is a first year M.M. student who completed his or her B.M. at Peabody last year.
2. What is your major?
Brass 2 Composition 5 Computer Music 3 Guitar 5

1.8% 4.5% 2.7% 4.5%
Jazz 3 Music Education 7 Organ 1 Percussion 7
2.7% 6.3% 0.9% 6.3%
Performance 57 Piano 4 Recording Arts 2 Strings 8
51.4% 3.6% 1.8% 7.2%
Voice 5 Winds 1 No Response 1
4.5% 0.9% 0.9%
One Jazz student also specified Percussion.
3. When you arrived at Peabody, did any of the following apply to you? (Circle all that apply)
Placed in Music Theory Fundamentals • Transferred credits from another school • Transferred AP credits •
Advanced placement in (choose) Theory, Keyboard, Ear-training
27 answered advanced placement in Ear-training

34 answered advanced placement in Keyboard Studies
19 answered advanced placement in Music Theory
Of these 7 students had placement in all three; 7 had placement in Ear-training and Keyboard; 8 had placement in
Keyboard and Theory; 1 had placement in Ear-training and Theory
25answered AP credits
22 answered transferred credits from another school
7 answered had AP and transfers
46 answered placed in Music Theory Fundamentals
Only 13 students had no advanced placement or review work.
Page 78
MUSIC THEORY
4. In general, how have your grades been in music theory?
Mostly A's 52 Mostly A's, A–/B 2 A–/B 34 A–/B, B 2

46.8% 1.8% 30.6% 1.8%
B 15 B, B–/C 2 B–/C 3 Less than C 1

13.5% 1.8% 2.7% 0.9%
5. On average, how many hours per week are spent studying music theory or completing music theory assignments?
Mostly A's A–/B B B-/C Less than C

Less than 1 hour per week 12 10.8% 6 3 3
1–2 hours 35 31.5% 15 12 5 3
1–2 hours, 2–3 hours 2 1.8% 1 1
2–3 hours 32 28.8% 14 14 2 1
3–4 hours 21 18.9% 12 5 4
4–5 hours 4 3.6% 1 1 2
More than 5 hours per week 5 4.5% 3 1 1
6. On a scale of 1 to 10, please rate your experience in the following classes:
Theory I : || 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 || • Better in the (choose) fall or spring semester • Have not completed this class
Number Number
Number of Percentage of
Rating preferring preferring
Students 96 Ratings
(710.111) (710.112)
1 6 6.3% 2
2 4 4.2% 1
3 10 10.4% 2
4 3 3.1% 2
5 5 5.2%
"5-8" 2 2.1% 1
6 4 3.6% 1
"6-7" 1 1.0%
7 9 9.4% 2 1
8 18 18.8% 2
9 19 19.8% 2
10 15 15.6% 1
No Rating 4 — 1 3
No Answer 11 —
Total: 7 14
For 96 ratings, the mean rating is 6.5 with a standard deviation of 2.86; the median rating is 8.
Page 79
Theory II: || 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 || • Better in the (choose) fall or spring semester • Have not completed this class
Number Number
Students 91 Ratings
(710.211) (710.212)
1 1 1.1%
2 2 2.2%
"2-10" 1 1.1%
3 5 5.5%
4 2 2.2%
5 11 12.1% 1 2
6 4 4.4% 1
7 12 13.2% 1 1
8 16 17.6% 2
9 28 30.8% 3 4
10 7 7.7%
No Rating 2 — 2
No Answer 18 —
Total: 5 12
Theory III: || 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 || • Better in the (choose) fall or spring semester • Have not completed this class
Number Number
Students 63 Ratings
(710.311) (710.312)
1 2 3.2%
2 2 3.2%
3 0 0%
4 1 1.6%
5 4 6.3%
6 7 11.1% 1
7 7 11.1%
8 14 22.2%
9 16 25.4% 2 1
10 10 15.9%
No Answer 48 —
Total: 3 1
7. Regarding Ear-training, please circle the statements with which you agree:
There should be more Ear-training Less Ear-training More rhythm in Ear-training Keep it the way it is
32 5 17 57
28.8% 4.5% 15.3% 51.4%
8. How do you feel about the number of courses required in Music Theory?
Fewer courses More courses Just right No response

15 8 87 1
13.5% 7.2% 78.4% 0.9%
Page 80
9. How do you feel about the content and teaching of the current Music Theory courses?
Should be more uniform and consistent across courses 59 53.2%

Has a good balance of consistency and variety of approach 33 29.8%
Should be more varied and diverse from one course to the next 5 4.5%
No basis for comparison 10 9%
No Response 3 2.7%
10. What should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Music Theory curriculum?
See Student Comments (below, p. 101).
HUMANITIES
11. In general, how have your grades been in Humanities classes?
Mostly A's 34 Mostly A's, A–/B 1 A–/B 43 B 17

30.6% 0.9% 38.7% 15.3%
B, B–/C 2 B–/C 17 Less than C 0 No Humanities / 7

1.8% 15.3% No Answer 6.3%
12. On average, how many hours per week are spent studying Humanities or completing Humanities assignments?
Mostly A's A–/B B B-/C Less than C

Less than 1 hour per week 12 10.8% 5 3 3
1–2 hours 30 27.0% 13 10 5 2
2–3 hours 22 19.8% 3 14 4 1
3–4 hours 20 18.0% 7 9 4 1
4–5 hours 9 8.1% 3 3 1 2
More than 5 hours per week 10 9.0% 3 4 2 1
No Answer 8 7.2%
Answers between scores rounded up; one student without a completed

Humanities class reported studying less than one hour a week.
Page 81
13. On a scale of 1 to 10, please rate your experience in the Humanities Seminar:
Rating
Students 71 Ratings
1 15 21.1%
2 8 11.3%
3 5 7.0%
3/4 1 1.4%
4 11 15.5%
5 11 15.5%
6 4 5.6%
7 4 5.6%
8 7 9.9%
9 4 5.6%
10 1 1.4%
N/A 40 —
71 students rated the Humanities Seminar. One student rating "5" and one
student rating "6" acknowledged that they had not completed the course.
Of the 71 responses, the mean is 4.27 with a standard deviation of 2.63. The median rating is 4.
14. Have you had a chance to take a class on the Homewood campus?
Yes No No Response
48 56 7
46.1% of 104 responses 53.8% of 104 responses 6.3% of 111 surveys
15. What would make you more likely to take classes on the Homewood campus? (Circle all that apply)
Easier cross-registration • Better selection of classes • More time in the schedule to take such classes
A requirement to take classes at Homewood • I would rather not take a class at Homewood
Multiple Answers allowed. 9 students did not respond.
Considering the complete answers of 102 responses:
22 (21.6%) answered Easier cross-registration; More time in the schedule to take such classes
20 (19.6%) answered only "More time in the schedule to take such classes"
10 (9.8%) answered Easier cross-registration; Better selection of classes; More time in the schedule to take
such classes
9 (8.8%) answered I would rather not take a class at Homewood
6 (5.9%) answered Easier cross-registration; More time in the schedule to take such classes; A requirement
to take classes at Homewood
6 (5.9%) answered only "Easier cross-registration"
31 other responses combine different elements with written responses; no more than two are alike.
Considering the individual elements of answers:
78 (76.4%) indicated More time in the schedule to take such classes

66 (63.4%) indicated Easier cross-registration
19 (18.6%) indicated Better selection of classes
6 (5.9%) indicated A requirement to take classes at Homewood
Page 82
Additional responses:
• "Times they are offered; evening classes at Homewood would be great"

• "Very difficult to enroll in Homewood classes! Unless limit is 80+ people!!"
• "Compatible schedules"
• "Don't put us through last"
• "It's far too inconvenient"
16. How do you feel about the number of courses required in Humanities? Fewer courses • More courses • Just right

78 3 23 7
75% of 104 2.9% of 104 22.1% of 104 6.3% of 111
responses responses responses surveys
17. How do you feel about the content and teaching of the current Humanities courses?
12 (12.1%) of 99 responses answered Should be more uniform and consistent across courses
27 (27.3%) of 99 responses answered Has a good balance of consistency and variety of approach
24 (24.2%) of 99 responses answered Should be more varied and diverse from one course to the next
36 (36.7%) of 99 responses answered No basis for comparison
12 (10.8%) of 111 surveys No Answer
18. What should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Humanities curriculum?
MUSICOLOGY
19. In general, how have your grades been in Musicology classes?
24 students (21.6% of 111 surveys) did not answer or answered "Have not completed a Musicology class."
Mostly A's 44 "Mostly A's, A–/B" 2 A–/B 23 "A–/B, B" 1

50.6% 2.3% 26.4% 1.1%
B 11 B, B–/C 1 B–/C 5 Less than C 0

12.6% 1.1% 5.7% 0
20. On average, how many hours per week are spent studying Musicology or completing Musicology assignments?
89 responses Mostly A's A–/B B B-/C No Grade Yet

Less than 1 hour per week 12 13.5% 6 3 1 1
1–2 hours 24 27.0% 12 8 2 1 1
2–3 hours 29 32.6% 15 9 6
3–4 hours 8 9.0% 5 2 1
4–5 hours 6 6.7% 4 2
More than 5 hours per week 10 11.2% 4 2 1 3
No Answer 19 —
Page 83
21. On a scale of 1 to 10, please rate your experience in the following classes:
[NB: Because of the consistent staffing of Musicology Classes, the scores

for each individual class were adumbrated into a departmental total.]
Music History 1-4; Music & Culture: || 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 || Have not completed this class
Rating
Students 209 Ratings
1 11 5.3%
2 10 4.8%
3 16 7.7%
4 4 1.9%
5 19 9.1%
6 21 10.0%
7 25 12.0%
8 36 17.2%
9 41 19.6%
10 66 31.6%
N/A 309 —
For 209 ratings, the mean rating is 7.2 with a standard deviation of 2.7; the median is 8.
22. How do you feel about the fact that the undergraduate Musicology curriculum consists only of survey classes (that is,
courses which cover at least one entire century of music history)?
25 students did not answer (22.5% of surveys). Of the 86 students who did respond:
47 (54.7%) answered Survey courses serve my needs

23 (26.7%) answered Survey courses should be balanced with courses on specific topics (e. g. Beethoven quartets)
9 (10.5%) answered Undergraduates should only be required to take courses on specific topics.
4 (4.7%) mixed answers
3 (3.5%) wrote answers
Mixed Answers
• Survey courses serve my needs; Survey courses should be balanced with courses on specific topics (e. g. Beethoven quartets)
• Survey courses serve my needs; Undergraduates can still take other courses anyway
• Survey courses serve my needs; Undergraduates should only be required to take courses on specific topics
• Survey courses serve my needs; Undergraduates should only be required to take courses on specific topics; Graduate courses are
significantly better than undergraduate classes.
Written Answers
• “I could care less. I only took the classes for the credit.”
• “It would be nice to have one course that is focused on one topic, but I think all the music histories should be required. They are
important.”
• “There should be more choices, specific vs. broad.”
23. How do you feel about the number of courses required in Musicology? Fewer courses • More courses • Just right

15 68 14 13
15.5% of 97 70.1% of 97 14.4% of 97 11.7% of 111
responses responses responses surveys
Page 84
24. How do you feel about the content and teaching of the current Musicology survey courses?
17 (18.3%) of 93 responses answered Should be more uniform and consistent across courses
45 (48.4%) of 93 responses answered Has a good balance of consistency and variety of approach
5 (5.4%) of 93 responses answered Should be more varied and diverse from one course to the next
26 (28%) of 93 responses answered No basis for comparison
18 (16.2%) of 111 surveys No Answer
25. In general, what should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Musicology curriculum?
GENERAL
26. Have you taken a class that counts as an elective?
Yes No No Response
90 10 11
90% of 100 responses 10% of 100 responses 10% of 111 surveys
27. Respond to the amount of electives required by your degree:
Too many electives required Just enough electives Not enough electives No Response
39 55 3 14
40.2% of 97 responses 56.7% of 97 responses 3.1% of 97 responses 12.6% of 111 surveys
28. What kinds of classes would you like to take as an elective? (Circle all that apply)
Repertoire classes • Additional theory/musicology classes • Profession-oriented classes (music business)

Music technology classes • Classes that have nothing to do with music • Classes at Homewood • Languages
Multiple Answers allowed. 14 students did not respond.
7 (7.2%) answered Repertoire classes

3 (3%) answered Additional theory/musicology classes
6 (6.1%) answered Profession-oriented classes (music business)
3 (3%) answered Languages
78 other responses combine different elements with written responses; no more than four are alike.
Page 85
55 or (56.7%) indicated Profession-oriented classes (music business)

48 or (49.5%) indicated Repertoire classes
44 or (45.4%) indicated Classes that have nothing to do with music
42 or (43.3%) indicated Classes at Homewood
38 or (39.2%) indicated Languages
35 or (36.1%) indicated Additional theory/musicology classes
25 or (25.8%) indicated Music technology classes
1 or (1.0%) indicated Acting
1 or (1.0%) indicated Directing
1 or (1.0%) indicated Performance instruction
1 or (1.0%) indicated chamber music (since only one credit is needed to complete the
undergraduate requirement for winds)
29. Would you like to see more options for advanced courses in your major area of study?
Yes No No Response
90 7 9
30. Should advanced courses in a major area of study be electives or requirements?
Electives Requirements No Response

68 29 14
31. Is it important to take conducting?
Yes No No Response
81 18 12
32. Do you like the Thursday Noon Series?
Multiple answered allowed. 8 students (7.2% of 111 surveys) did not answer. Of the 103 responses:
36 (35%) answered Yes

7 (6.8%) answered No
19 (18.4%) answered I like the idea, not the programming
18 (17.5%) answered I don’t like the attendance policy
3 (2.9%) answered Yes. I like the idea, but not the programming
8 (7.8%) answered Yes. I don't like the attendance policy
2 (1.9%) answered No. I like the idea, but not the programming
6 (5.8%) answered No. I don't like the attendance policy
4 (3.9%)answered I like the idea, but not the programming. I don't like the attendance policy
• 47 (45.6%) students had an overall favorable view of Thursday Noon; 8 (7.8%) did not.
• 28 (27.2%) did not like the programming; 36 (35%) did not like the attendance policy.
Page 86
33. Would you like to see the Thursday Noon replaced with the "alternate project" for both years?
Yes No No Response
60 41 10
59.4% of 101 responses 36.9% of 101 responses 9% of 111 surveys
34. Do classroom studies influence your major studies?
Definitely Probably Maybe Probably Not Definitely Not No Response

45 31 17 9 0 9
44.1% of 30.4% of 16.7% of 8.8% of 8.1% of 111
—
102 responses 102 responses 102 responses 102 responses surveys
35. Do classroom studies hinder your major studies?

33 28 17 19 6 8
32% of 27.2% of 16.5% of 18.4% of 5.8% of 7.2% of 111
103 responses 103 responses 103 responses 103 responses 103 responses surveys
36. How do you find the answers to questions about the curriculum and schedule?
I read the catalog and manage • I ask my major teacher • I ask other teachers • I ask my friends
I ask the Registrar or Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Multiple Answers allowed. 9 students (8.1% of 111 surveys) did not respond.
22 (21.6%) answered I read the catalog and manage

3 (2.9%) answered I ask my major teacher
1 (1%) answered I ask other teachers
9 (8.8%) answered I ask my friends
8 (7.8%) answered I ask the Registrar or Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
7 (6.9%) answered I read the catalog and manage; I ask my friends
8 (7.8%) answered I read the catalog and manage; I ask the Registrar or Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
9 (8.8%) answered I read the catalog and manage; I ask my friends; I ask the Registrar or Associate Dean for Academic
Affairs
35 other responses combine different elements; no more than four are alike.
80 (78.4%) indicated I ask my friends

69 (67.6%) indicated I read the catalog and manage
22 (21.6%) indicated I ask the Registrar or Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
8 (7.8%) indicated I ask other teachers
7 (6.9%) indicated I ask my major teacher
Page 87
37. How should Peabody approach the issue of advising?
It should come from the major teacher • It should come from the registrar/dean • It should come from specially trained students
There should be a staff person who does nothing but advising • Students should be assigned to other teachers for advising
22 (24.2%) answered There should be a staff person who does nothing but advising
15 (15.2%) answered It should come from the major teacher
8 (8.1%) answered Students should be assigned to other teachers for advising
8 (8.1%) answered It should come from the registrar/dean
8 (8.1%) answered It should come from specially-trained students
7 (7.1%) answered It should come from the major teacher; There should be a staff person who does nothing but advising
6 (6.5%) answered It should come from the registrar/dean; There should be a staff person who does nothing but advising
5 (5.1%) answered There should be a staff person who does nothing but advising; Students should be assigned to other
teachers for advising
17 other responses combine different elements; no more than four are alike.
54 (54.5%) indicated There should be a staff person who does nothing but advising
30 (30.3%) indicated It should come from the major teacher
25 (25.3%) indicated It should come from the registrar/dean
19 (19.2%) indicated It should come from specially trained students
15 (15.2%) indicated Students should be assigned to other teachers for advising
38. Did you apply for the double-degree program?
Yes, and I was accepted Yes, but I was not accepted No No Response
2 8 92 9
2% of 102 responses 7.8% of 102 responses 90.2% of 102 responses 8.1% of 111 surveys
39. Does the double-degree program interest you?
Yes No No Response
38 64 9
40. Do you know about the Liberal Arts Concentrations offered?
Yes No No Response
23 80 8
41. Does the idea of getting a concentration or minor in a music area interest you?
Yes No No Response
72 27 12
Page 88
42. If so, what sorts of music concentrations or minors do interest you? Select all that apply.
Chamber Music • Composition • Conducting • Early Music • Jazz • Musicology • Music Theory • Music Technology
10 (13.2%) answered Chamber Music

3 (3.9%) answered Conducting
4 (5.2%) answered Musicology
41 other responses combine different elements; no more than three are alike.
41 (53.2%) indicated Chamber Music

28 (36.4%) indicated Conducting
26 (33.8%) indicated Musicology
19 (24.7%) indicated Jazz
18 (23.4%) indicated Composition
16 (20.8%) indicated Music Theory
12 (15.6%) indicated Early Music
10 (13.0%) indicated Music Technology
2 (2.6%) indicated "Voice" or "vocal"
Other Answers:
• "Music Business or Law"

• "Pedagogy”
43. Final suggestions?
Page 89

FACULTY RESULTS Conducted by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
SOME INFORMATION FOR CONTEXT
1. Are you full time or part time?
Full time Part time No Response

24 19 2
52.3% of 45 surveys 42.2% of 45 surveys 4.4% of 45 surveys
2. Do you teach at another school?
Yes No No Response
8 36 1
17.8% of 45 surveys 80% of 45 surveys 2.2% of 45 surveys
3. Do you serve on any of the standing committees?
Yes No No Response
14 30 1
31.1% of 45 surveys 66.7% of 45 surveys 2.2% of 45 surveys
4. What do you do at Peabody?
1 faculty member (2.2% of 45 surveys) did not respond.
7 (15.9%) of 44 responses Studio teaching

23 (52.3%) of 44 responses Classroom teaching
1 (2.3%) of 44 responses Ensembles
9 (20.5%) of 44 responses Studio teaching and classroom teaching
4 (9.1%) of 44 responses Studio teaching and Ensembles
5. If you are a classroom teacher, approximately how If you are a studio or ensembles teacher, approximately
many hours do you think students spend on how many hours do you think your students spend
assignments or studying for your courses outside of practicing each week? (Elaborate at the end, if necessary.)
class each week? (Elaborate at the end, if necessary.)
Hours Of 27 Responses 3-20 5 (estimate)

1 4 (14.8%)
4-5 8
1.5 2 (7.4%)
1-2 6 (22.2%) 5-20 10
2 2 (7.4%) 8-12 14+/-
2-3 5 (18.5%) 10-25 15+
3 3 (11.1%) 15-20 20
3-4 3 (11.1%)
4 1 (3.7%) studio = 15-20 20
4-5 1 (3.7%) 15-25 21
6 1 (3.7%) 21-35 21+
No response 16 (35.5%) Varies not nearly enough
Four faculty members identifying themselves as classroom Every studio and ensemble teacher answered. Answers are
faculty did not provide a number of hours; one responded "?" sufficiently varied as to include them all.
and one responded "varies."
Page 90
6. If you are a classroom teacher, approximately how If you are a studio or ensembles teacher, approximately
many hours should students spend on assignments or how many hours should students spend practicing each
studying for your courses outside of class each week? week? (Elaborate at the end, if necessary.)
(Elaborate at the end, if necessary.)
Hours Of 29 Responses 5-8 20+

1 1 (3.7%))
7+ 20-28
1-2 3 (11.1%))
1.5-3 1 (3.7%)) 12 20-30
4 1 (3.7%)) 14 21-28+
6 1 (3.7%)) 14 24
7 1 (3.7%)) 15 25+
2 2 (7.4%)
2-3 3 (11.1%) 15-20 25-30
2-4 1 (3.7%) 15-25 25-30
2-5 1 (3.7%) 20
2-6 1 (3.7%)
3 5 (18.5%)
3-4 3 (11.1%) All but one of the studio and ensemble faculty answered.
6-8 1 (3.7%) Answers are sufficiently varied as to include them all.
Two faculty members (7.4%) answered "2 hours per credit

hour."
Three faculty members identifying themselves as classroom

faculty did not answer. One studio faculty member answered
"3-5" hours.
Of the 27 classroom faculty who answered questions five and

six:
• 13 (48%) replied their students spent as much time outside

of class as they should.
• 3 (11%) replied that students should increase their time
spent on studying and assignments by approximately 50%,
which was the difference of approximately 1 extra hour
each week.
• 11(40.7%) replied that their students should double the
amount of time spent on studying and assignments, which
is the difference of 1-2 hours each week; one extreme
outlier suggested an increase from 4 hours each week to 6-
8 hours each week.
Page 91
MUSIC THEORY
7. On average, how many hours per week do your undergraduate students spend studying music theory and/or completing
music theory assignments?
Less than 1 hour per week 1 (4.2%) of 24 responses

1–2 hours 4 (16.7%) of 24 responses
More than 5 hours per week 3 (12.5%) of 24 responses
No Answer 21 (46.7% of 45 surveys)
• 13 of 16 (81.2%) respondents who answered between "less than 1 hour" to "2-3 hours" indicated some kind of
classroom teaching.
• 4 of 5 (80%) respondents who answered between "4-5 hours" and "more than 5 hours" were studio faculty; the fifth
respondent did not identify his or her teaching responsibilities.
8. Regarding Ear-training, please circle the statements with which you agree:
There should be more Ear-training 3 (11.5%) of 26 responses

There should be more Ear-training; More rhythm in Ear-training 5 (19.2%) of 26 responses
More rhythm in Ear-training 8 (30.8%) of 26 responses
Keep it the way it is 10 (38.5%) of 26 responses
Less Ear-training 0 of 26 responses
11 of 13 (84.6%) respondents responding "more rhythm" indicated some degree of studio teaching.
9. How do you feel about the number of courses required in Music Theory?

5 2 17 21
20.8% of 24 responses 8.3 % of 24 responses 70.8% of 24 responses 46.7% of 45 surveys
• 8 of 17 (47.1%) respondents answering "more courses" or "just right" indicated ensembles or studio teaching.
• 4 of 5 (80%) respondents answering "fewer courses" were studio teachers; the fifth respondent did not identify his or her
teaching responsibilities.
• The respondents not answering were almost equally divided between studio and classroom.
10. How do you feel about the content and teaching of the current Music Theory courses?
Should be more uniform and consistent across courses 9 (31%) of 29 responses

Has a good balance of consistency and variety of approach 6 (20.7%) of 29 responses
Should be more varied and diverse from one course to the next 0 of 29 responses
No basis for comparison 14 (48.3%) of 29 responses
11. What should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Music Theory curriculum?
See Faculty Comments (below, p. 111).
Page 92
HUMANITES
12. On average, how many hours per week do your undergraduate students spend studying Humanities and/or completing
Humanities assignments?
Less than 1 hour per week 1 (5.6%) of 18 responses

No Answer 27 (60% of 45 surveys)
• 7 of 7 responses indicating three or more hours a week were from studio or ensembles faculty.
• 10 of 11 responses indicating three or less responses were from faculty indicating classroom instruction.
13. How do you feel about the number of courses required in Humanities? Fewer courses • More courses • Just right

8 6 10 21
33.3% of 24 responses 25 % of 24 responses 41.7% of 24 responses 46.7% of 45 surveys
• 6 of 7 responses indicating "more courses" were from classroom faculty; the seventh respondent did not identify his or
her teaching responsibilities.
• 3 of the 8 responses indicating "fewer courses" were exclusively studio faculty; the remaining five were classroom
faculty or some mix of classroom and studio/ensembles faculty.
14. How do you feel about the content and teaching of the current Humanities courses?
Should be more uniform and consistent across courses 2 (7.7%) of 26 responses

Has a good balance of consistency and variety of approach 5 (19.2%) of 26 responses
Should be more varied and diverse from one course to the next 1 (3.8%) of 26 responses
15. What should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Humanities curriculum?
MUSICOLOGY
16. On average, how many hours per week do your undergraduate students spend studying Musicology or completing
Musicology assignments?
Less than 1 hour per week 0

• 4 of 6 responses indicating three or more hours a week were from studio or ensembles faculty; one respondent did not
identify his or her teaching responsibilities, and one respondent has a mix of classroom and studio teaching.
• 9 of 11 responses indicating three or less hours a week indicated some degree of classroom teaching.
Page 93
17. How do you feel about the fact that the undergraduate Musicology curriculum consists only of survey classes (that is,
courses which cover at least one entire century of music history)?
Survey courses serve students' needs 7 (31.8%) of 22 responses

Survey courses should be balanced with courses on specific topics 15 (68.2%) of 22 responses
(e. g. Beethoven quartets)
Undergraduates should only be required to take courses on specific topics. 0
• 10 of 15 responses indicating survey courses balanced with topics courses were from faculty indicating classroom teaching; 7 of
15 indicated only classroom teaching.
18. How do you feel about the number of courses required in Musicology? Fewer courses • More courses • Just right

6 6 9 24
28.6% of 21 responses 28.6% of 21 responses 42.9% of 21 responses 53.3% of 45 surveys
19. How do you feel about the content and teaching of the current Musicology survey courses?
Should be more uniform and consistent across courses 6 (26.1%) of 23 responses

Has a good balance of consistency and variety of approach 3 (13%) of 23 responses
Should be more varied and diverse from one course to the next 0
20. In general, what should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Musicology curriculum?
See Faculty Comments (below, 105).
GENERAL
21. Respond to the amount of electives required by undergraduate degrees:
Too many electives required 6 (22.2%) of 27 responses

Just enough electives 11 (40.7%) of 27 responses
Not enough electives 10 (37%) of 27 responses
No Answer 18 (40% of 45 surveys)
• 5 of 6 responses indicating "too many electives" were from studio and ensembles faculty.
• 9 of 10 responses indicating "not enough electives" were from faculty indicating some degree of classroom teaching
• 10 of 11 responses indicating "just enough electives" were from faculty indicating some degree of classroom teaching
Page 94
22. What kinds of classes should undergraduate students take as an elective? (Circle all that apply)
Multiple Answers allowed. 36 responses. The only significant total of the complete answers was 6 people circling all six choices.
Repertoire classes 19 (52.8%) of 36 responses

Additional theory/musicology classes 14 (38.9%) of 36 responses
Profession-oriented classes (music business) 22 (61.1%) of 36 responses
Music technology classes 19 (52.8%) of 36 responses
Classes that have nothing to do with music 19 (52.8%) of 36 responses
Classes at Homewood 16 (44.4%) of 36 responses
Languages 10 (27.8%) of 36 responses
23. Would you like to see more options for advanced courses in major areas of study?
Yes No No Response
30 6 9
83.3% of 36 responses 16.7% of 36 responses 20% of 45 surveys
24. Should advanced courses in a major area of study be electives or requirements?
Electives Requirements No Response

29 8 8
25. Is it important to take conducting?
Yes No No Response
18 16 11
26. Do you like the Thursday Noon Series?
Yes 25 (78.1%) of 32 responses

No 0
I like the idea, not the programming 2 (6.3%) of 32 responses
I don't like the attendance policy 2 (6.3%) of 32 responses
Yes, I don't like the attendance policy 2 (6.3%) of 32 responses
No, I like the idea, not the programming, I don't like the attendance policy 1 (3.1%) of 32 responses
No answer 13 (28.9% of 45 surveys)
• Overall, 30 of 32 (94%) responses are favorable to the idea of Thursday Noon.
27. Would you like to see the Thursday Noon replaced with the "alternate project" for both years?
Yes No No Response
2 26 17
Page 95
28. Do classroom studies influence your undergraduate students' major studies?

21 10 6 1 1 6
53.8% of 25.6% of 15.4% of 2.6% of 2.6% of 13.3% of 45
29. Do classroom studies hinder your undergraduate students' major studies?

5 5 5 9 12 9
13.9% of 13.9% of 13.9% of 25% of 33.3% of 20% of 45
30. How do your undergraduate students find the answers to questions about the curriculum and schedule?
35 Total Faculty 20 Studio Faculty

Responses Responses
They ask their friends 21 (60%) 10 (50.0%)
They read the catalog and manage on their own 17 (48.6%) 8 (40.0%)
They ask the Registrar or Associate Dean for Academic Affairs 16 (45.7%) 9 (45.0%)
They ask other teachers 10 (28.6%) 4 (20.0%)
They ask their major teachers 21 (60%) 12 (60.0%)
31. Who should advise the undergraduate students?
40 Total Faculty 19 Studio Faculty

Responses Responses
New staff person 9 (22.5%) 3 (15.79%)
The major teacher 25 (62.5%) 10 (52.63%)
The registrar or dean 20 (50.0%) 14 (73.68%)
Specially trained undergraduate students 1 (2.5%) 2 (10.53%)
Other teachers 6 (15.0%) 1 (5.26%)
32. Do you know about the Liberal Arts Concentrations offered?
Yes No No Response
9 34 2
33. Would getting a concentration or minor in a music area be appropriate for your undergraduate students? Yes • No
Yes No No Response
29 8 8
Page 96
34. If so, what sorts of music concentrations or minors would be appropriate? Select all that apply.
Multiple Answers allowed. 26 responses. The only significant total of the complete answers was 11 people circling all seven choices.
Chamber Music 19 (73.1%) of 26 responses

Composition 17 (65.4%) of 26 responses
Conducting 17 (65.4%) of 26 responses
Early Music 18 (69.2%) of 26 responses
Musicology 17 (65.4%) of 26 responses
Music Theory 19 (73.1%) of 26 responses
Music Technology 16 (61.5%) of 26 responses
35. Is there anything from your own education that you found particularly effective, which might be somehow adapted for the
undergraduate students?
36. Is there anything that you, as an individual faculty member, do in your own teaching, which you think might be worth
adapting on a large scale for the undergraduate students?
37. Final suggestions?
Page 97

STUDENT COMMENTS Conducted by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
Answer to Question 10: What should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Music Theory curriculum?
[…] is a great guy, but his course material is so far from what we were taught in Theory I and II that it's like a different subject completely. I feel like I'm
► missing out on my last year of Theory. I've never seen a more convoluted approach to teaching...
► Too much different information between professors. Students are not leaving classes with the same, or high enough ability.
They need to include the study of guitar concertos (with orchestra), especially in late Romantic-20th century music. I am sick of feeling lost in all the
► violin/oboe strictly orchestral scores.
► There should be more consistency between teachers of the same course.
There are many humanities courses for piano major. Piano major have to take key board literature 1234, Humanities(32credit) and music history 1234. It is too
► much. We don't have time to practice.
► Theory is fine...it's humanities that's the problem!
► Theory I should be more standardized. Perhaps 2 years of survey courses and 1 year of electives?
The teachers seem to have different curriculum for teaching theory. This is okay if you can stay with the same teacher to complete all three music theory
► classes, but that isn't always possible.
The teacher's need to COMMUNICATE!!! Each teacher has such a personal and almost biased way of thinking. It seems almost every teacher thinks only his
or her way works, which is not the way for the student! We all learn different methods and go at different paces, but are expected to all know the same thing
► when going on to piano and eartraining. These three departments are so interlinked it is amazing that the teachers never really know who is teaching what and
how fast. My last school piano and eartraining were called "theory lab" I like the way Peabody had the hours and credits set up for Piano and eartraining, but
it should have a more uniform approach with the theory department
► The quality and the experience of teachers as teachers not music theory majors. [sic]
The ET/SS courses can move a lot faster, as far as I can tell, having completed 3 semesters with […]. Or they could be harder. Its very hard to go to a 25 min.
class everyday to learn hardly anything. The rhythm book, by Hall(?), is pointless. By reading rhythms on "ta" I'm not improving my inner pulse and its not
► helping me read rhythms easier when I'm actually playing music. I don't know ANYONE who has difficulty in this class or spends any outside time studying
or practicing.
► The curriculum is fine, but I think the teachers themselves should be evaluated because I am not doing well because of my teacher.
-Teaching abilities/competency
► -consistent curriculum
► teach towards the homework and tests. not so random
students should be able to test out of the curriculum, or those sections which are demonstrably remedial, at various times throughout the academic year.
Further, being stuck in a subject that is painfully remedial denies the student access to advancement on the basis of that student's individual aptitude. If the
student's work demonstrates that the student is intellectually and academically sound in the material, it is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion, to be graded
► on arbitrary mechanics such as attendance. Should not the grade reflect the competency in the material? Isn't that the assumption permitted to a letter grading
system? In theory II, I easily aced assignments and exams with little effort, only to be docked for attendance. Does not the work speak for itself? Why come
to class when the professor deliberately took me aside and counseled me to count to 20 before answering? If that's happening, I'm doing nothing more than
making the room look crowded.
► Sometimes there is too much composition. I think will be useful for musician to have more analysis.
Some of the teachers currently teaching music theory should definitely be reconsidered. Some are very unorganized, biased, and not good at presenting the
► information.
► Screening the teacher better. Some teachers are very inconsistent in subject matter. Push it back a half hour in the morning sessions.
Really need consistency. Theory one was awful (the teacher was fired.) For Theory two I had a completely different approach to music than I had ever heard
► of ([…].) Its hard to make heads or tales of the information
Page 98
Re: Ear-Training
In addition to more Ear Training, I believe that there should be more rhythm in Ear-training.
During my freshman year, I tested out of Ear Training 1 and was placed in Ear Training 2. Since the course did not fit into my schedule consisting of mostly
required classes, I took the year off from ear training and entered Ear Training 2 with other sophomores in my sophomore year. These students were far ahead
of me since they had kept up with the program while I had no exposure to it since my senior year of high school. I would have liked to continue my studies in
ear training to have more years under my belt and strengthen my skills, but only one course is offered (and does not fit my schedule). To add, I can't seem to
understand the easy-going attitude of the ear training faculty. People who have essentially dedicated their lives to music should be able to pick out
progressions by ear and learn how to count... consistently... In the classes that I've been in, with […], the students who could identify different harmonic
progressions by ear were praised, and those who lacked the skill, while they were never penalized, were never trained enough to obtain it.
► In my freshman year, I was placed in a Theory Fundamentals Course, which came as quite a surprise after completing the semester. While the first semester
(and a large part of the second semester) of Theory I was a review of the information I had learned as a musician throughout middle school and high school,
Theory Fundamentals were reminiscent of the very first years of my musical education... in 2nd or 3rd (in Moscow). I am certainly not trying to insult those
who did not have a background similar to mine by the time they entered Peabody; I am a bit confused as to which part of the placement exam determined that
the skills that had been ingrained in me for more than 10 years were non-existent or poor. While I read all of the material, attended class regularly, and
completed all of the assignments -- with flying colors -- I gained nothing from the experience (except for the interaction with a wonderful graduate student of
Music Theory Pedagogy -- […]).
[…] is the greatest addition to Peabody that I've witnessed and has one of the most engaging classes I've ever been in (Theory III). It would we wise to refer to
his style of teaching should a more curriculum be necessary to compose.
Providing a more consistent outline for the class. I am taking Theory 3 right now, and my colleagues who are in the same class but with other professors have
► a completely different set of requirements.
► Please fire […].
► Perhaps a standard text, more collaboration among theory professors as to important points in curriculum.
► NO WebCT AT ALL! The Theory 1 class is not consistent with the fundamentals class. Also there should be a way to place out of theory fundamentals.
► No uniform method of teaching or perception of music theory.
My experience w/UG music theory was very positive. In my experience, the faculty are among the most knowledgeable at Peabody, in addition to consistently
► being among the best teachers. The Committee should not change the curriculum as it is.
Music theory should not be restricted to one theory. Music theory should equip students with many different strategies for thinking about music, which will
hopefully inform their performance. For any genre or style or era of music, there are many different ways to approach a piece and the courses at Peabody
► should encourage and facilitate this.
Courses that are required (Theory I-III) should not be taught using one specific and restricted method. […] 's unique brand of theory is very interesting and
insightful. But it should be left to the elective level, for students who opt for this type of training.
► More varied times in the day wen theory is offered.
► More uniform curriculum between teachers in the same course
► More oversight of teachers' syllabi
More music should be covered in some classes (less compared to others)

► Certain pieces should be required in class to be analyzed.
► more ear training synthesis.
► More consistent courses on each level.
► Many Theory I teachers are not good.
Make sure that, especially in Theory I, the teachers are teaching the same things. Some teachers didn't get as far as others and left their students unprepared
► for Theory II.
Let's say "He does his own thing" is not very nice to hear from a Music Theory III teacher about your Music Theory II teacher and have to relearn the
► notational system for analysis over again.
It is good to have some diversity amongst Theory III teachers, but there needs to be much more consistency amongst the Theory I teachers in order to provide
► a solid backbone for the Theory II and III. Many students felt that their Theory I teachers insufficiently prepared them for Theory II or III, thus putting them
behind other students.
Page 99
► In my experience, the theory department is in great shape. No complaints.
I'm not sure what I was SUPPOSED to learn in Theory. I know I did learn a lot. But the learning objectives could have been more clearly defined and
communicated, and then the various classes/teachers would have been more coherent. Actually I feel this way about many of my Peabody courses. I don't
► always feel like concepts are clearly defined and communicated. I have had a lot of group discussion, critical thinking, paper writing...etc, but I want to feel
like I have actually learned something valuable.
I wish more time could be spent actually analyzing works...Its nice to analyze snippets of works or even complete movements every now and then but what is
really pertinent to me, as a performer, is my ability to analyze chamber works and works for my instrument. As a cellist, the ability to analyze the 6 bach suites
is fundamental to my ability to explore them as thoroughly as I'd like. Although its helpful to understand fugues and sonata form in the keyboard literature,
why not explore the 5th Cello Suite Fugue? or perhaps one of the strange sonatas like the two movement C major Beethoven Cello sonata.
► One of my biggest problems has been learning to reason with things that lie outside the box. I don't feel like I have the proper tools to make educated
judgements about repertoire that doesn't always necessarily follow the rules!
The exploration of the development of form over time has been interesting to learn about but I feel that, perhaps due to time constraints, our ability to tread
away from the straight and narrow (also centered) path has been very limited. Of course, all the greats broke the rules we learn today, I want to better
understand how they did it and why it works
► I was only in Theory I/II and III, and they were both great! […] and […] are wonderful teachers, and spread out the content perfectly.
I was lucky to be able to have one of my favorite teachers at Peabody (Steve Stone) for two years. However, I've heard some horror stories of simply
► inconsistent teachers being chosen. I would suggest to take not of Dr. Stone, and try to follow his example.
I think the Committee should consider combining Ear training with Keyboard studies as a class that works through both subjects. I think piano in addition to
► theory helps make each individual subject more concrete.
► I think that the general conservatory population would benefit from maybe a semester of Jazz Music Theory.
I think that the biggest factor in my dissatisfaction with my theory experience at Peabody is the randomness of course content going from one professor to
► another. Theory I-II was wonderful and then I had no idea what I was doing when I took theory III with another professor. Not only did I not know what I
was doing, but I was severely dissapointed that I wasn't building on the great foundation I recieved in theory I-II as a transfer student.
► I had professor […] for Theory I, and he was great! Keep him around!
I find it strange that there are 3 years of Music Theory required yet only 2 years of ear training required. Ear Training seems to be a much more universally
► important class, and music theory seems more based on personal interest in the subject. After learning the basic knowledge in Theory I(which is indeed
important), and Theory II's application of that knowledge it doesn't really seem necessary to require a 3rd year of Theory.
Have more separate sections of Theory I based on prior knowledge of theory before coming to school. I find my class moves way to slow and I haven't
► actually done anything I didn't already know all semester.
► Have a Theory Review, at least one credit, for seniors to help them with their Grad School placement exams
From what I have noticed in comparing my theory classes with those of my peers is that the classes have enormous differences in what material is covered and
what order it is covered in. I feel like my experience in the second semester of Theory 1 was dramatically different than people studying with other
professors. Theory 2 was an absolute mess. My professor did not teach from the syllabus he created, nor was it consistent with other Theory 2 classes.
Theory 3 is wonderful. For the first time in my three years here, my fellow classmates and I are finally studying the same pieces and learning the same
material.
I guess the biggest problem is that we all cover different material depending on which professors we end up with. In the end some students have a wonderful
theory education while most students are left with a patch-work and incomplete understanding.
►
Here are a few of the my biggest reasons for being disappointed in my studies.
1. I learned "form" on my own time because i did not learn about it in my Theory 2 class (which was supposed to be on the curriculum...or at least was listed
on the syllabus)
2. I never learned counterpoint. I was told to buy the book, and although I did read it, my second year teacher never went over it in class
3. My peers in other classes spent an entire semester on counterpoint and writing a fugue. My class spent one week on fugues.
4. Generally, I felt that material was not thoroughly examined. Half of the people in my class eventually stopped showing up because we simply were not
being taught anything.
► Every teachers teach course so differently, they could have some kind of unified plan.
Cover more advanced theory which may apply in contemporary pieces,

► also to give student more practice with common musical terms such as musical forms.
► Conduct more careful ear-training exams. A lot of placements are obviously inaccurate.
► Basic theory is often very poorly taught, which seriously slows the progress of higher-level courses.
Page 100
All the teachers should use the same books.

► We should not have to purchase a $120 book just for one semester (thr2) and not even use it. It was pointless, the stuff was taught in class anyways
After doing fairly well (almost all A's) in Peabody Theory Classes, I am still heavily unprepared for Graduate Placement Exams at other schools. I would say
► the Theory curriculum needs much more improvement, and that there should be much uniformity between courses.
► A more traditional, straightforward approach towards Music Theory. […] is a truly fantastic teacher. I wish I could of had him for all three theory courses.
1. Do not admit anyone who can't describe a "I" chord.

2. Cover music in greater depth; we're not stupid.
► 3. Less talking, more music.
4. Less handouts, more music.
5. […] should be teaching at a middle school, not a Conservatory! If you have any integrity, you will get rid of him.
(1) Some teachers focus only on chord progressions, while others mostly teach "big picture" stuff (line, shape, style). While both are important, all faculty
should remember that students may choose a teacher with the opposite approach next year.
►
(2) Keyboard skills would be more useful if we learned how to actually play piano, instead of reviewing theory fundamentals in keyboard 2. I took two years
of keyboard and do not possess the skills to accompany students playing Suzuki book 1 pieces.
Answer to Question 18: What should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Humanities curriculum?
► (1) Language: German is taught well & goes at a good pace. However, language classes should be divided into singers and everyone else (or AT LEAST
G/UG). Every language class I've been in has been dominated by singers who already knew the language. They answer everything, and teachers think we all
know the material and move on, even though the rest of us are still confused.
(2) Liberal Arts: […] has a good balance between learning & outside work. However […] and especially […] have too high expectations. I have no problem
with reading or writing papers, but I take exception to being held to the same standards as Hopkins. We may be as intelligent, but practicing takes precedence
over papers any day.
(3) We should have more cross-listed courses (musicology, business).
► have interesting, engaging classes, have some that are associated with music.
► Allow more classes to fit into the Humanities category, allowing us to take classes based on REAL interest rather than simply trying to get a credit
► As entering Peabody as an international student, I was placed in "intro to libral arts" class. To me, there were 2 issues that could be planned out better: first,
both students who's been to high school in the states and students who came straight from their country were placed in this class, created huge gap of speaking,
listening, and writing ability, which led the experienced students feel the class is too easy, and the non-experienced students feel struggling sometimes. Also,
the class did not finish advanced enough to prepare students into other libral arts classes, where they have to be in the same class with native students.
► Consistency with the Humanities curriculum at Homewood or other schools - not just the cross-registration process, but way Peabody Humanities classes are
categorized, expectations with regards to assignments and discussion, etc.
I would love for the Peabody Humanities program to be on par with the classes up at Homewood, for Homewood students to come to Peabody, for
Homewood teachers to teach at Peabody (which is happening slowly).
One problem with the Humanities classes is that they are usually over-crowded. Lowering the requirement will solve this, and make the class experience more
beneficial - more focused discussion, more peer learning, more interaction with the teachers.
► Consistency, more broad topics such as American or French Literature.
► CUT DOWN THE HOMEWORK! It's too much!!
► […] offers very engaging courses that are also challenging. Other courses seem to be a bit mundane and have the same laid-back attitude about them as do the
students who take humanities courses simply to fulfill a requirement -- and not to gain something out of the experience.
Towards the end of the last semester, I discovered the Liberal Arts concentration. I had no idea what this was, which is a shame because I would have loved to
have applied for the program (it is now too late for me to do so since I am a junior). I understand that it is my responsibility to research various academic
programs, but I would have definitely appreciated more awareness and guidance from an advisor.
► Easier cross-registration. So students can enjoy classes of their selection.
► Fewer requirements – 8 semesters, not 10. Also, I don't like the distribution requirements because I would rather take classes that I want to take. I understand
the goal of the different categories is so that we will be more well rounded, but a class where 75% of the people haven't done the reading isn't going to achieve
that.
Page 101
► Humanities at Peabody is a classic case of "trying to be everything to everybody."
1. A conservatory is not responsible for teaching the liberal arts. A conservatory is responsible for players who can shape the world with their music. It is
perfectly okay for Peabody to graduate a student who can't write a cohesive essay. I repeat, it is okay. Peabody can't be responsible for well rounded students.
Peabody's responsibility is to produce world-class musicians. Nowhere in the definition of "musician" does it say "can write 5 paragraph essay."
2. NASM shouldn't be deciding our curriculum, we should. NASM is a joke, and costs $1000's of dollars to be members of.
3. The students are genuinely uncommitted to Humanities and the faculty is second-rate.
► humanities needs to be less time consuming. we are music majors, not majoring in humanities....also, the curriculum expected for international students is
ridiculous. It is way too hard for a new international student to write essays when they don't even understand/speak a word of English. ESL classes need to be
better!
► I completed everything but the humanities seminar at other universities
► I don't think students should ever have to take more than one humanities class at one time. With the humanities requirements as they are, this is a necessity.
► I feel I wasted too much time on humanities, so I didn't have much time to practice. I was not improve much, maybe they should think about music is our
MAJOR, not books.
► I feel Peabody place too much importance on humanities. The teachers here expect a lot. It's almost as if we are expected to be English majors. They expect us
to write well. They grade harshly. But, I don't really care at all for humanities. I am performance major. I don't think Curtis kids worry about all these
humanities requirements.
► I find it 100% unacceptable for Peabody to require me to take classes that; (a) aren't even offered at this campus (U.S. History), and (b) don't fit into my
schedule because of other mandatory courses. For my obscene amount of money that I borrow to go here, there should be more variety and options ON
campus. Liberal arts at this institution is outrageous. The classes that are offered here are unappealing, and have no practical use in the real world for the most
part. Perhaps if humanities faculty would teach in the afternoons and evenings like everyone else, there would be better options for students.
► I hate the Humanities courses at this school. It is ridiculous the amount of work we need to do. We are not here to write essays we need to PRACTICE. I
wouldn't even complain if they were GOOD teachers and INTERESTING classes to take.
► I love the courses here and I like the teachers. However, the workload is often too much, and I think it's better to do 1-2 hour of humanity class per week. The
humanities does somehow improve my playing, but I've been sacrificing my practice time to complete the assignments (reading/essays).
It's be great for us not to have any humanities reading or essay assignments. I think what will be nice is to read and discuss in class.
Moreover, there's too many required credits for us to fulfill that we don't have chances to take music-related courses.
► I prefer less humanities credits required to graduate.
► I think it should be made clearer what courses fill what criteria like Globbal perspectives, language, etc. There should also be less requirements if the
scheduling stays as it is because it is almost impossible to schedule them in with the peabody schedule.
► I think most of the Humanities courses' homework takes too much time from my schedule, and it doesn't worthy for spending a huge amount of time for
papers and revise them over and over again. It limits them practicing time, too.
► I think texts can be chosen with more care and attention to real significance. Its a waste of time to read 25 pages in a reader in order to glean just a few
(relevant) lines that could've been extracted and deposited into a meaningful lecture. Instead, lets focus on bigger problems and try to anticipate the problems
of philosophy so that we can see a larger historical dialogue about these important issues...lets not try to solve these problems all by ourselves, in other words.
Lets gather as much evidence as possible from many sources and then try to forge new paths. Lines of reasoning need to be more challenging.
► I think that it is good to place emphasis on Humanities in order to give students a more well-rounded education. I believe, however, that there should be fewer
requirements & that there should not be so many categories (i.e. HP, & LL, GP, HE). Being someone who has taken most of my humanities classes up at
Hopkins, I feel having so many requirements & such strict division of categories makes it a very stressful thing for me. Even if there were not all these
requirements, I would still have voluntarily taken all of the classes I am taking, because I plan on pursuing a second degree later after Peabody. I think that
there should be less requirements & more freedom in the categories so that students do not feel so pressured. If a student is more interested in a more
academically oriented education, then he/she will take it themselves without being forced/required to. At the same time, if a student is only here for their
musical students, he/she shouldn't feel pressed to take all these classes to fulfill their requirements. Personally, I fell very pressured because all of my classes
are Hopkins classes (some are even upper level/division courses), which means that my workload & the difficulty level of the courses are already much more
than a student who fullfills all of his/her humanities requirements with Peabody courses. To make it more fair, I think that there should just be less
requirements. The amount of humanities that's taken should be left up to the individual. Also, I feel that there should be a way to make the grading system for
humanities seminar more fair, or more specifically, more consistent between the different classes/teachers. This is because some teachers grade harder &
require more of their students than others.
► I would very much like to see more time allowed in the schedule to take courses at Hopkins. I tried to take a course there last semester, and although it was
fascinating, between the time being in class and the travel to and from Homewood, it took six hours out of my week, and that didn't include the homework,
which added many more hours. With the rest of the Peabody curriculum as it is, there was just not enough time for me to be able to do the class, so I dropped
it. I would really really like to take other classes at Hopkins though, especially upper level language classes which are very useful to music students but not
offered at Peabody, and it would be great if there was more time in which to take them. Also, from my experience in trying to register for the Hopkins class
and then dropping it, I have found it is difficult and very annoying to register for these classes, and if it was made easier that would be a great help to Peabody
Page 102
students that want to cross register.
► Improving the writing skills class. It was an insult to my intelligence.
► Is there a way to have a high-intensity writing composition course?
► It is simply too much! It is very difficult to practice, study for theory and music history, and have to worry about humanities. I find humanities classes to be a
strain and a burden on my MUSIC education! Additionally I find the classes to be irrelevant and insignificant.
► I've said it before and I'll say it again-- […] is one of the best things to have ever happened to he Humanities dept. Not only does […] demand a certain level
of work and progress from […] students, […] makes it clear WHY these classes are important--not just for musicians, but for people in general. Not all
teachers and courses make this clear.
► Just too many credits required. They took away all of my practice time freshman and sophomore year.
► Less classes!
► Less humanities classes. And the ones that we have should be interesting maybe related to music and serious not something that we think that we are wasting
time and we could be practicing instead.
► Less humanities more time to practice. Better transportation would make me more likely to take classes on the Homewood campus.
► LESS HUMANITIES.. WASTE OF TIME and ENERGY
► Less requirements, other than a few random facts. I have NOTHING from any of these classes. They are NON making me more rounded--its distracting time
that I can not spend on music, which is (hopefully) my career. I simply view humanities as showing for the credit, and as a distraction from my education.
This needs to change NOW.
► More class variety.
► More flexibility and variety.
► More flexibility.
► Most of the courses offered have very narrow or very esoteric topics that they cover and do not really seem to fit into general arts education. Hartt school
offers history of Western Art, that is a good broad topic that will appeal to many students who are interested in what influenced the music that they played.
The Hopkins class offered on this topic doesn't schedule well with some basic required courses at Peabody and might be too intense (I took one) in terms of
reading and studying (Hopkins students don't need to practice that much).
There are good courses, but this could be an improvement.
► My extended interaction with the homewood faculty of various disciplines has been extremely pleasant.
► no comment
► Offer more at night time when other classes don't conflict with them. I am a Music E.d major and all of the humanities courses next semester including all of
the Hopkins humanities conflict w/music ed. classes for next spring.
► Offer more options.
► Require students to take a class at Hopkins. It has a plentiful amount of selections, including a class taught by John Astin. Peabody kids need to get out, and
Hopkins kids need to meet Peabody kids. I'm surprised this has not happened yet.
► Should be less requirements. I'm here to play and I feel that takes away from my practice.
► Students of Peabody are still technically students of Hopkins and therefore should, by the end of an undergraduate degree, be able to express themselves
clearly and effectively in writing. While papers and essays are valuable tools there should be classes offered in music criticism, grant writing, and other
practical writing styles geared toward musicians.
► That Peabody is a music school. It might be more important to have more free time as a freshman where time is needed to establish a working basis with your
personal instructor
► The curriculum committee should seriously consider lowering course requirements in the humanities department. As the curriculum stands now, many
students, past and present, are forced to take on large course loads every semester just to fulfill their humanities requirements. This heavy course load results
in more homework and less practice time. The only other alternative is to enroll in summer courses at another school to fulfill the requirements. What is the
point of spending $45,000 a year at Peabody only to go to another institution in order to get the credits necessary to graduate? I decided to study at a
conservatory so that I could spend more time developing as a musician as opposed to doing homework for classes that have nothing to do with my career
Page 103
aspirations. If I wanted to take philosophy, aesthetics, or poetry classes, I would've gone to a university where I could really focus on those things, rather than
making half-ass attempts at understanding something that has nothing to do with my growth as a musician. While trying to make students more rounded as
musicians as well as individuals is a great goal, doing so, to the point of reducing practice time, completely negates the purpose of attending a conservatory.
► The curriculum itself, I think, is very good and well-balanced. I think the Committee needs to address the QUALITY of teacher and administration of the
curriculum, particularly the poor selection of non-Seminar courses. The Committee should also determine whether EACH humanities course offered serves
the students, as defined by Peabody's mission statement.
► The humanities course requirements are simply too much. Students should have more of an option of how many humanities credits to take. It is far too much
to have the amount of humanities credits we have to complete in addition to the Music History courses. To my knowledge Peabody has one of the most if not
the most rigorous humanities requirements of all conservatories. I feel that this time spent in class takes away from valuable practice time, and more
importantly small ensemble and chamber music rehearsal time. I would consider making the Humanities curriculum less intense.
► The humanities courses are terrible and provide very little use to performers. At Peabody, we have a much steeper, more demanding and time consuming
humanities than ANY other conservatory in the nation. No wonder our musicians don't stand up to the kids at Curtis and Juilliard...
I never skip class and I take my school work very seriously, but I honestly wish I could practice instead of writing papers for bogus humanities courses. I
write enough papers in my theory class already! At least the theory papers have to do with music, and consider concepts that apply to me as a musician and
performer. The humanities program, on the other hand, is a contrived excuse for the school to be able to pass us off as "well-rounded individuals" rather than
"world-class performers."
It's a disappointment, really, that somebody higher up thinks that we should be more prepared to discuss textual analysis than win an audition once we
graduate. The way the humanities requirement is, that might just be what Peabody students are going to get.
► The Humanities seminar is a waste of everyone's time. In theory, it's a really nice idea...but it just doesn't work. I was more challenged in my high school
courses than I ever was in Humanities Seminar.
The regular Humanities courses are MUCH better than the seminar. I have absolutely no problem with the number of Humanities courses we are required to
complete. I do, however, strongly dislike the classification system of "global perspectives" "language literature" etc. This system is flawed because often
times there will be 4 GP classes and 1 LL class, but somehow 120 students MUST complete both of these types of classes...it's impossible!!! Plus the classes
that are offered are simply uninteresting and do not really further my education or understanding of the world in any way.
As far as Homewood classes go, I would love to take one! However, the voice majors at Peabody are absolutely swamped with credits...I am in 28 credits
right now. There is just no way for me to make the time in my schedule it takes to get up Homewood!
► The Humanities Seminar is erratic and not very beneficial. Needs more structure.
► The Humanities Seminar was sometimes an interesting class and I appreciated that it was still tailored to music but sometimes it got in the way of my
composing/practicing time to be honest.
► The large seminar class is not productive. More levels of smaller classes will be good.
► The seminar should not be as long - it would be better if the classes were shorter.
► There are far, far too many humanities credits.
► There could be a lot more variety of subjects taught!
► There is no selections. The humanities department has two to three courses that the student has to choose from and most of the time, only one class fits into the
schedule.
► There should be less humanities requirements!!! Also, all teachers should be re-evaluated for their teaching skills and content.
► there should be less of them. we are at a conservatory, not a university. we are here to study music, not waste our time with half-baked humanities courses
(which they are. the humanities courses here are not intense enough to actually teach much. they are just right to be a non-educational nuisance). despite what i
just said about there short-fallings, i don't think that's the problem. the problem is the requirement; i am 100% in favor of lessening the humanities
requirement.
► There should be less requirements for Humanity classes. Some classes are unneccessary, such as Freshman Seminar. Also, for languages, it shouldn't be
required for everyone. Maybe singers & vocal accompanists, so they can have smaller but better quality class.
► There should be me English based humanities courses at Peabody, such as one where the goal of the course is to read and explore classic literature. It seems
like most of the topics covered in humanities are so varied and random that it is less effective and meaninful than if we were to just study some time-tested
works of art.
► There should be way less.
► There should either be more options (Homewood maybe) or less requirements
Page 104
► They should consider immediately lowering the credit requirement. The majority of the papers and assignments required for us to do typically comes from
humanities. It's agravating when I spend more time planning a project or paper for a class that I am not even going to think about at the end of the semester. I
would rather take a few specific classes unrelated to music that I can specialize in and feel more well rounded from knowledge gained outside of music, rather
than feel rushed through a bunch of random credits just so I can graduate.
► Too many requirements. This limits the opportunity to take classes at the Homewood campus. Also, some classes require a lot of time, which leads to less
practicing time.
► Too much to handle for piano majors. Unlike other majors, we have to complete 2 yrs of kybd skills and four kybd literatures and humanities, history, theory,
ensemble requirements. (humanities courses definitely affected my major study and jury when my major teacher decided to challenge me w/more difficult
repertoire.)
► When Humanities courses are keeping us from practicing and spending time on our main focus, our instrument, there is something seriously wrong. There
have been semesters where I have hardly had anytime to practice because I'm spending time doing excessive amounts of papers. How does this help me win a
job after school?
Answer to Question 25: In general, what should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Musicology curriculum?
► […], should be reevaluated. Origation [sic] skills are poor.
► 1. No homework should be assigned in music history classes. We don't have time! In 30 hours, a good teacher can teach the material without needing students
to learn outside the classroom. No homework.
2. Make surveys a remedial class, like music theory fundamentals. I know Beethoven wrote in 3 time periods. I know that Steve Reich wrote minimalist
music. Give me DETAILS!!! No more surveying, it's useless (to me, at least)
► Although I have not taken any musicology courses, I like the idea of the survey course, with the option of then taking electives in what interests me the most.
► Although you don't accept transfer [illegible] from Musicology, there should be placement tests, and maybe [illegible] courses (I studied Music History in my
home country for four years).
► Besides the core Musicology classes, Undergraduates should have the option of taking courses dealing with specific topics (similar to graduate classes).
► Courses offered on specific subjects would be very interesting, provided there are diverse topics and enough interest to make the classes worthwhile. Also, I
think the History of Electroacoustic Music class should count as a Music History requirement.
► Despite many complaints from other students, the two most intensive courses (I and IV) covered their topics the best. Main problem is that the teacher
sometimes was either bored or not that interested in the historical/factual information that he/she was teaching.
► […] should be a model for the other teachers. […] history […] class was one of the best i have taken. he knows how to teach history.
► Have […] teach as many of them as possible. When it comes down to it, it's the teacher. We need more teachers like […]. Also, I think there should only be 2
required semesters for students instead of 4 semesters. It's time consuming and just awful if it's with a bad teacher.
► I have always wanted to take a class about modern popular music since 1950. […] taught such a class at homewood, it would be great to see it taught here.
► I have been taking graduate courses in Musicology to gain more knowledge and background before I go out into the real world and hopefully have the
opportunity to work with young people. I simply don't trust myself with the amount and depth of information that I gain in the undergraduate courses at
Peabody (the same may be said of liberal arts courses) to call myself a well-rounded musician who received an education in one of the best music
conservatories in the world.
The graduate courses are absolutely astonishing as are the professors who teach them. It is quite unfortunate that the only contact many undergradutes may
have with […] and […] are through one-semester history courses. These people are gems and it is a privilege to attend the institution where they have chosen
to share their knowledge, and I think that more effort may be made to expose all undergraduates to these gems.
► I have only completed one musicology course, and that was Theory II with Professor […]. But it was great! I learned a lot and enjoyed it.
► i love […]! music history […] is my favorite class!!! :)
► I think is perfect. […] and […] are amazing first class teachers.
► I think it is great how it is now, History IV is fantastic. It would be cool to have instrument or composer specific classes, however, I understand that that is not
always possible becuase of the sheer amount of musical styles and pieces that all deserve to be studied.
► I think they are great. There should be more topics to choose from for extra humanitiy courses.
► I think we can spend less time on each course so that in the end we've studied all the major time periods and the remainder of our requirement can be spent
taking courses with more specific aims. A bit more history can be incorporated into theory classes (as it inevitably must be included), and we can spend less
Page 105
time studying 14th century motets and move the course along to cover the early baroque by the end. second year history can end with schubert and the early
romantics. Third ends with contemporary music. After wagner a lot of things happened, but lets be honest, by adjusting definitions of music and the general
aesthetic values, we're just a hop skip and a jump away from spectral music.
Then for those who need their opera fix or lyre fix, they can take a specialized course
► I would love to focus more on my musicology classes but unfortunately humanities classes interfere with that. I feel the musicology classes are more
important than the humanities classes.
► I've been very happy w/musicology overall--[…] and […] have turned my tastes around from disinterest w/the past to absolute infatuation. My only
disappointment w/the dept. was with […] --while […] wonderful […] with a LOT of knowledge, […] was very disorganized with […] teaching and made
studying very difficult and stressful.
► Jazz History should be considered a Music History course. If you have an entire department of the school that grants degrees in Jazz, why would it not appear
as an option for a music history course.
► Less in quantity more in quality.
► Make […] an elective or procure a much better instructor. A somewhat standardized text would be wonderful. Lectures are good, but for most of the
students, these courses are providing a fundamental base of knowledge, and the foundation currently being laid is weak because it is anybody's guess what is
to be taught. All the teachers are scholars but are specialized in something other than say a broad subject such as 'music in the 19th century.' While a lot of
this information is interesting, it does not provide the student with a solid base whatsoever. It does inspire independent study for the ambitious but I am
spending quite a bit of money to be taught; if I knew better I'd just lock myself in a library and create my own core curriculum.
► more attention to specific repetoire study -- especially in History […].
► Music History […] is a joke. There's too large of a time period covered, the teaching is all over the map. I got better grades using Wikipedia to study--[…]
WebCT is useless. […] history […] is the best planned (and taught in the school). If all the musicology teachers followed […] lead, we'd have a strong
department. History […] forgets that it's a music class. I understand the need to know about the period, but too much time -- and too much of the test grade --
is devoted to non-music.
► Music History as a survey course benefits students because we have a general understanding of important works, composers, political atmosphere, etc. I think
it would be nice but completely unnecessary to offer more specific courses.
► Music History […] (2 credits) should be a 2-credit course! The professor requires WAY too much work outside of class. Professor is "scattered" an needs to
take some "Ed" courses.
► Music History […] has in general been one of the most poorly taught classes at Peabody. The teacher has always had an excellent amount of information and
knowledge, but not a very good means of relaying it to the students. I can honestly say that I got very little out of the class. History […] has been well taught
by […]. […] has done an outstanding job with History […].
► Music history […] had a very scattered approach to it. It would have been better had it been taught in a more chronological order.
► Music History […] was likely the most boring and uninteresting course I've taken here. The instructer [sic] is wise, but is about as compelling as this sheet of
paper. Music history […], however, was a joy to take. […] is a fantastic instructer with a wealth of knowledge. Give him a raise.
► Musicology at Peabody is generally great.
► Musicology is much more important to me than Music Theory in terms of understanding a piece. I believe it is more important to understand the background
of the piece, the time it was written and any political influences, along with what was going on in the composers life at the time. Having completed all four
survey classes of music history already after last semester, I am hoping to take some graduate musicology courses that focus on specific topics.
► Needs to be deeper and more varied. Some teachers only want to hear what they think about the subject, and do not care about other opinions. Pick students
they like and do not pay attention to other students. One music history course was designed not considering abilities of iternational students with requirments
which were hardly duable for native speakers. I have taken classes at Homewood, but that one particular music history class was unresonably hard and was
requiring as many hours of doing homework for it as practising for you major. In the end I have learned the least out of music history classes. I enjoyed the
rest of music history classes and I have learned a lot from them.
► no comment
► nothing
► Peabody has a great musicology faculty--I would love to have more choice of musicology classes that would count toward Humanities History credit, after all
it is history and it would be useful to us as musicians.
► Perhaps more even balance of difficulty from class to class. History […] was very difficult. However, […] taught exceptionally well in History […].
Page 106
► […] is a brilliant […], but a terrible lecturer and teacher. The students all know that […] is a wealth of information, but […] does not get that across in […]
Music History […] class, and […] class is viewed as a joke by most students. I don't say this to be rude, only to be honest.
► Specific topics are interesting, but survey courses are a necessity for UG curricula.
► […]'s music history one was extremely difficult because […] did not teach the material effectively in class. Instead […] relied on us to do outside reading and
there was really no point in coming to class. I tried many times to take notes but […] teaching style is so scatterbrained that my notes ended up looking like a
bunch of circles with arrows pointing to names of composers with more arrows pointing to dates. Very poorly taught.
► The level of focus on commitment of time expected of UGs in the Music History […] course I am presently taking seems excessive. It seems to me that for
performance majors Musicology would better serve them if it required less writing and grappling with primary sources and more clear lecturing and
"textbook-like" reading present by the proffesor [sic].
► The only experience I have had with a musicology class thus far is Music History […]. This was really my worst experience in class at Peabody thus far. I
felt that the class was run very poorly and the workload FAR exceeded what I thought was fair to ask of kids not pursuing Musicology as a major. I would
consider making these courses more participation and discussion intensive as opposed to paper and written work driven. I feel that this would make the class
more enjoyable and it would play much more greatly into how most students at a conservatory learn.
► The teachers usually leave out some composers or don't go in depth with very important composers. This is subjective, but I feel Mahler could have been
covered better and in more depth.
► The times for musicology courses make it very hard to schedule classes at the right time.
► There should be a wider variety of classes offered.
► There were too many quiz that we have, almost like 2 weeks and 1 quiz. it too horrible, almost study all day, not good...
► These classes are useful, but the workload should be lighter.
► They need to seriously revise and change some courses, especially History […]. There is just too much work in that class. I probably spent hours and hours a
day trying to get a decent grade. However, some classes were amazing and incredibly engaging like History[…].
► Use extra musicology classes for some liberal arts credits.
► We seriously have to make some changes in how we use technology at Peabody. I feel like we would learn more if professors had better acces and
understanding of equipment and technology.
► While I cannot speak for […], Music History […] and […] were very well-taught and thorough, especially as survey courses. Music History […], however,
was not helpful. The teaching was unfocused and scattered. Too much out-of-class work was wasted on irrelevant topics (19th and 20th centuries for example)
and writing assignments were given only to justify the use of technology (WebCT and turnitin.com). I would strongly urge the Committee and the appropriate
Deans to request from the professor copies of the syllabus and online materials for this course. Past course evaluations might also speak to this
disorganization. The Committee should consider whether this course, as it is currently taught, effectively meets the needs of students, and whether this
requirement could be altered to fulfill students' needs in a more direct manner (for example, a "writing about music" course, UG music bibliography, or special
topics/seminars).
Answer to Question 43: Final suggestions?
► I would suggest that the opera literature course be required earlier on in the voice degree. I took it earlier than required, and I felt so much more well-informed
and prepared for opera than I would have had I waited to take it.
► There should be a music history major/min that is offered at Peabody.
► The amount of Humanities classes is just too much and mostly all the classes are not good. I had a terrible experience with Humanities Seminar.
I think we should less humanities classes.
► [Large Ensemble] is HORRIBLE. It makes me sick to think that I am paying to have six hours of my week sucked out of my schedule and dedicated to
performing with an ensemble that is completely unmotivated and demoralized by […]. Also, they need to be more organized and ahead of scheudle with
placements and orchestra schedules so that students can plan and have a chance to make the most use of their semester. We should know at the begining what
pieces we are in and what ensembles we wiil be in for the semester. Some students have to work and Orchestra makes that almost completely impossible as
well as interferes with Homewood classes. I think they should cut back on the concerts and schedule in general, having QUALITY concerts once or twice a
semster. We are all very proficient musicians, we don't need to take a month to rehearse a piece for performance. If we do, we shouldn't be here. A morning
orchestra schedule would be great.
► Almost any changes you make will improve the current state of affairs.
► Advising is very important, maybe meetings with Dobson would be a good idea... also, I think that all voice majors should be required to take an acting class
at hopkins.
Page 107
► It would be really good to have more advising. While my major teacher can talk to me about things, and is really helpful, it sometimes takes time away from
the lesson, or my lesson ends up running late, because she wants to give me enough time of actual instruction, and that isn't always fair to her. Also, it's not
possible for her to know everything that goes on at Peabody. A lot of what I hear about options offered and how to go about doing things (such as registering
for classes at Hopkins) comes from my peers, or I get shuffled around from person to person and no one seems to really know the answer. This is really
confusing. As a music education student, I am lucky to have […], who knows me personally and whom I can go to in order to ask questions. But most people
here don't have that. It would be nice to have someone designated for advising, to have a one-stop place to go to for questions about classes, majors, preparing
for grad school and options for study in general. I have also considered transferring at times, and an adviser would be good to have to consult about things
like that in order to help students make the right decision about whether Peabody is right for them.
► I love my vocal classes. The diction, language, and advanced electives are wonderful. Yes, we have a lot of credits...but we NEED them! Please don't
change anything about the voice specific requirements. I know people complain about having a lot of classes, but if we are prioritizing then please please
please fix Humanities and Theory. They are absolutely awful.
I used to be very active here at Peabody, but I feel that my efforts were wasted. I was involved with students life, always attended the Town Hall meetings,
was in direct contact with deans, etc. Ultimately, I stopped my activities because of a lack of response from the administration. I feel like although a lot of
discussion goes on, nothing is ever done. We appreciate that administration listens and I understand that there are many things that we are unaware of, but
please...do something for us. Our problems have been falling on deaf ears for too long.
► I think if more humanities classes were offered in the evenings instead of morning which conflict with theory, ear training, piano, and music ed, than I could
finish within four years. But now I have to $1,000 just to take a summer course or 2 to graduate on time without paying $17,000 a year to be here for a fifth
year.
► Peabody should make the Business of Music Class mandatory for all students, regardless of status. It is the most valuable class offered at the school. There
should also be mandatory improvisation classes, as many jobs today require the ability to improvise. There should be classes (and maybe even ensembles) that
focus on popular music and highlight that there is worth possibly lucrative jobs in that field. In general Peabody should turn out musicians that are capable of
surviving in the modern music industry, technically and intellectually, with a desire to enhance and preserve it.
► More Study Abroad options!!!
► There is not enough time to practice after all is said and done.
► less humanities, more ear training, and blind auditions.
► Scheduling is always very stressful, especially for Freshman who are doing it for the first time. It seems way too difficult to get the answers students need,
except from maybe the registar. Still, having the major teachers as advisors doesn't seem to really work as many teachers know little about classes outside of
the major requirements.
► Expand jazz classes.
► I hope Peabody can base their tuition per credit hour. This school is wonderful, but I cannot simply afford to attend anymore. It has put more of a burden on
my future rather than support it.
► I understand that it is a challenge to add more in-depth courses in liberal arts and musicology to a busy performer's requirements. Perhaps the integration of
such information in performing ensembles may be part of the solution, as well as less
► One thing I really regret is that I couldn't get a minor study with my degree. It would be nice to show with my degree something that makes me a little
different than others that graduated with my degree. My transcripts still tell that story, BUT having a minor would have been more profitable.
► I think that the number of humanities credits required should be reduced. I have been in many classes where the students just drag along without really being
interested just because it is a requirement.
► (1) Humanities courses helped me improve in writing and comprehension, and broaden my knowledge of arts, sciences, and other areas. However, the
requirements are too much for the students to handle; they should be reduced and organized better so the students can learn as much but don't have to take 32
credits of humanities. Also, more variety of courses should be offered for students who wish to study more.
(2) What is the reason for requiring 6 elective credits? (2 humanities, 2 music, & 2 any electives--I'm taking a class that I'm not even interested in just to fulfill
this requirement)
► The biggest problem I see is the amount of humanities credits that are required. I fell it should decrease.
► I feel that if Peabody's goal is to be the best conservatory pushing out the best musicians, there should be more emphasis on our major and less emphasis on
elective and humanities courses. Our orchestras are simply not on the level of some other conservatories that we could be very competitive with. I think it
would serve most performance majors very well to have fewer requirements and a chance to explore more freely being the best they possibly can be at their
instrument.
► Less Humanities, or at least more choices.

More musicology choices. Such as: for music history, maybe a possibility of taking something specific such as operas in verdi rather than music history 1
Humanities seminar is a waste of time -- did not learn anything.
Page 108
Theory teachers need to be uniform in their material.
► A music history course for each instrument would be really cool. I would love a guitar history class that studies a specific repertoire or composer.
The humanities/credit requirements needs to change. I'm sick of feeling like I'm wasting my time and education.
The music business class is outstanding and should be a requirement. […] and […] should get more recognition and teach more. They are great. I wish they
had more classes like it, or a music bus. minor.
► I really believe Peabody needs to begin turning to the world of commercial music. We've entered a period of time where classical music as we know it is
drastically changing, thanks to everything from the economy from the pop music ring in young composers ears. The music business class is a great start, but I
would like to see more--classes and ensembles with a focus in studio work, music technology/composition courses with an emphasis on commercial/functional
music, using DAWs and MIDI to compose commercial music, perhaps classes in musicology to talk about how pop music came to overtake the common
listener. I do believe that not only will this prepare musicians for what would actually be a much more realistic career, but will also help composers better
understand what popular (not necessarily pop) music has become, and how to better assimilate it--or reject it completely.
► This is a conservatory! Let's make it one. Some teachers need to be cognizant that the work load can be intrusive.
► Best of luck to you, there are a lot of politics involved when it comes to designing a better curriculum. I ask that you think of the students first. We and the
faculty both know that there's not a whole lot of money to be made in music so when a faculty member is outraged that so and so class just became an elective
or worse, dropped, remind them of the Institute's purpose, and that is to teach us. If they don't believe in this, then they don't belong in academia. The
conservatory's not playing like a team, and no business, organization, sports team, society or nation for that matter is successful with out being on the same
page, to offer us the best education possible.
► Peabody needs much improvement as far as how the Humanities Courses are delivered. They are often managed in a way that isn't very helpful to students in
pursuing their major concentration. History […] needs to be improved. In general, more time is needed for students to practice - this is something I didn't
really have at Peabody, and something that ultimately greatly hindered my instrumental studies here.
► It'll be great for PSO to have 2 three-hour rehearsals per week, just like PCO. With 3 rehearsals I find it hard to find time to practice. If PSO can rehearse on
Monday and Wednesday only, I'll be able to practice on Friday afternoon. Moreover, school will be able to schedule special activities (masterclass--etc.)
occassionally on Friday.
► Re-work the entire undergrad composition program.

At least two years of harmony, ctp, advanced keyboard skills for composers that stress score reading. There must be a way to make a required class for
composers/conductors that would cover this kind of thing. Right now Peabody's approach is too adhoc. This could be in addition to theory. Oh, and please
give composers 4 years of at least a 1/2 minor lesson. Paying for 3 years of hour-long piano lessons (to ensure that I get a degree AND have some musical
skill) is a joke.
► The orchestra takes too much time out of our practicing time, and I didn't learn much from rehearsals.
► I feel that each student should be assign to either a staff member or a faculty member who is very involved in the academic studies as advisor. Because most
major teachers are busy concentrating on making sure their student learns well and improve enough in the major instrument. Most major instrument faculty
member do not have the knowledge about academic study courses.
► PLEASE make there be less requirements in the institute. There is NOT enough time for students to practice and learn their major. It is ridiculous that in
these precious years that we have to try and master our art as much as we can, we must sit here and write essays about stupid, irrelevant subjects that have
nothing to do with us. I do not mind taking classes that will help me become a better musician like ear-training and keyboard skills, etc. I hope the
administration realizes why the overall performing level cannot compare to superior schools, because we do not have enough time to really polish.
► Our first priority is our major--that is, practicing for most of us. Just as English majors spend many hours a night reading and writing, we spend many hours
practicing. All teachers--theory, musicology, and humanities--should remember that when they decide on their workload.
► I am still waiting to hear back regarding my acceptance into the double-degree program.
► Could more basis classes (i.e. intro to economics) be offered at a more convenient time for Peabody students?
► There definantly needs to be an on-campus advisor, who knows the system inside-out. I don't think any teacher really knows what requirements we need, nor
to they really care! The catalog is confusing, especially with classes offered bi-anually. NO REQUIRED class for graduation should be offered bi-annually
PERIOD! It makes scheduling very difficult and confusing. It also makes early graduation very difficult. Bi-annual scheduling also makes for HUGE class
sizes because courses such as German Lieder and Opera Lit are offered to grad students, but required for undergraduates.
► Chamber music should be [illegible] much more credits. As member of percussion group I spend every week more than 10h on rehearsals, some practicing
chamber music parts takes also time. Orchestra rehearsals take 6 hours every week, but I also have to practice for my lessons. When I want to memorize all of
these requirements, and keep up with classroom assignments, I have to sleep about 5 hours a day. Curriculum is too big. One more thing -- If I audition for
job, nobody will care about how good Humanities papers I can write. I feel like I have to fight against classes when I want to practice that much time I need.K
► Advising should NOT come from major teacher!!!
Students who are trying to get a minor through Homewood should be able to sign-up for classes more easily.
Page 109
Pianists and voice UGs have too many credit requirements that it hinders performance preparation. It should be more flexible and more around music relatied
courses for performance majors.
Transfer students should be able to sign-up for classes more easily. We are in isis as "transfer fresh, or sophomore" automatically even when we are
junior/seniors. And this hinders greatly to sign-up for required classes!! And professors almost never let you in late after classes are full the first sign-up day.
And more summer courses should be offered for Peabody required courses.
► It would be nice to have a jazz (improvisation) course for non-majors.
► Too much humanities, and orchestra rehearsal too much time, we still to study. We don't have time to practice, so everyone level are low. should change, it.
► I have had so many frustrating interactions with people in this institution's administration that it makes me absolutely furious. The odds of me, as a future
educator, recommending Peabody to anyone are slim. Nobody in the upper-level administration seems to care about anything except money and making
Peabody look good. The scheduling for education majors is a nightmare that I wouldn't wish on anyone. The fact that I've been paying $40 thousand dollars a
year and can't take the classes here that Peabody themselves say I have to take is unbelievable. The entire system needs a huge overhaul. The faculty is good
for the most part, but everything else is not in good shape.
► The more humanities credits are required, the worse we sound. I'm not paying $40,000 per year to write 20 page papers on topics I don't care about simply
because it's part of my required humanities distribution. Peabody is lucky that I want to pay that much to lock myself in a practice room by myself for 4 hours
a day. LET ME DO THAT.
► Cut down the homework, it's too much for us. We need more time to practice our major instruments.
► The amount of humanities courses needs to be cut. There are too many. This is the one music conservatory that requires the most humanities credits. I come to
study music not music with a minor/concentration in humanities. Some humanities courses seem pointless and I will never apply what I learned from the
courses to my every day life as a musician.
► The only issues are with the humanities requirements, mostly for singers. We already have to take so many other courses I wish we could have less humanities
requirements or requirements that are more applicable to our major. The offering of the humanities department is actually very low and very inappropriate.
My other concern is with chorus. As a singer, I have to use my voice in average 4 hours a day. And chorus singing is very strenuous on my vocal chords [sic]
and requires the most outside work of all my classes. I wish the chorus requirement would be lowered to 2 years instead of 3 or that opera chorus be
considered an ensemble credit. As for a lot of us chorus is not what we are leading our careers towards. And as you go along in the years of undergrad your
implication with the opera department increase. And it is just too much singing--I wish it could be one or the other--
► There are way too many humanities and liberal arts requirements for the performance major. Most of these classes require an unrealistic amount of reading
and writing. This kind of work takes up a lot of time that needs to be better spend practicing. Also with the great number of required credits the student has to
start immediately and sufficiently planning their courses for all 4 years to make sure he can fit it all in. This really screws over any transfer students, making it
almost impossible to graduate on time. And if Peabody is going to require so many humanities, there should at least be SOME interesting classes offered here.
Most of my humanities classes I've taken at Hopkins because I don't want to settle for something very boring or random, like "[…] " or "[…]." Also the
classes here tend to basically be writing improvement classes, with a focus on something lame. The Hopkins classes are more interesting but they are also a lot
tougher and require more time, plus the time taken waiting for the shuttle both ways and the 15 minute shuttle ride both ways.
I don't think cramming in Humanities down our throats is going to make me smarter, a better writer, or make my transcript look better. I really just really
would like more time to practice.
Page 110

FACULTY COMMENTS Conducted by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
Answer to Question 11: What should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Music Theory curriculum?
► A standard curriculum should be established and followed ACROSS THE BOARD. Theory teachers should teach at more or less the same pace and using the
same text/materials. Also, the counterpoint portion of Theory II ("Baroque Styles") should be shortened and incorporated into a longer curriculum which
continues the harmony portion of Theory I into the sophomore year.
► The curriculum is typical for independent conservatories in the U.S.

It is suited to the needs of performing musicians.
► I do not have enough detailed knowledge of the theory curriculum to make any specific recommendations.
► Don't know what's going on in some ET classes.
I feel there should be 5 semesters of core Theory plus an elective, rather than 6 core. The students could then take a specialized course that would really interest
them.
► Is the curriculum sequential? Theory I, II, and III should not all be the same course. Outcomes assessment--how well do students perform on a graduate level
entrance exam at the end of their third year of theory?
► reduce and compress the material into a five semester curriculum
► Combining keyboard and theory?
Seems different teachers require different things at the same level so the transition isn't always smooth.
► Some of the theory courses are VERY demanding and create huge stress for students. It seems, for example, important for a sophomore to understand fugue
structure & be able to create entrances. But compose a whole fugue? Write an entire suite? This is composition, not theory.
► More keyboard harmony skills needed, leading toward keyboard improvisation.
► Some of my students seem to be clueless about harmony, especially when someone is playing with them. Is this an ear-training issue, or a theory one?
► Allowing students to place out of intro classes in order to take more advanced classes.
► consult with music theory faculty
► Emphasis should be on Solfegio, counterpoint and harmony. It is time to consider a fixed do system for conservatory students. This is essential for performance
oriented students.
► Listen to individual departments requests.
► I am not in a knowledgeable position to judge.

One problem for contractual faculty is that we do not know very much about the rest of the student's courses.
► - integrate theory and ear-training

- minimum standards of admission
- rudiments as prerequisites
- exit exams (cf. our own GRT placement exam)
- incorporate Jazz theory into mainstream theory track
► Perhaps compressing it, but really it is pretty good.
► Do not make wholesale changes because of complaints or concerns about one or two people or classes.
► The theory dept. should work together with keyboard, ear-training, and perhaps musicology to eliminate redundancies, ensure a certain cohesiveness, and
concentrate on what is of practical value to performing and composing musicians. Consider making the 6th semester an elective course.
► My theory students tell me that most weeks they spend 1-2 hours but that when projects are due they spend 15-20 and that the average therefore is 3-4 hours per
Page 111
week.
The ear training program here is exceptionally good.
Answer to Question 15: What should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Humanities curriculum?
► This has been carefully thought out, and in any case it is largely mandated by Middle States and NASM.
► There seems to be a perennial shortage of humanities classes. Perhaps the curriculum committee could look into the possibility of making certain musicology
courses also count towards humanities credit. This might be more likely to happen if we were to move away from our current "survey-only" approach in the
undergraduate music history curriculum. A writing-intensive, discussion based undergraduate proseminar on a special topic in music history could certainly
fulfill the pedagogical aims of a humanities course.
► The Homewood connection is valuable. One non-native language should be required.
► The Freshman Seminar, which was implemented without full knowledge of the faculty, should be reevaluated.
► The freshman seminar should be shorter. There should be more options for the students to take other classes that will meet humanities requirements. Perhaps a
greater emphasis of taking courses at Homewood.
► more tie in with music courses so there is integration between humanities & music courses
e.g., perhpas literature & historical aspects of a period and the music that developed/evolved.
► Many of our students will not go on in careers in performance. Many will stay in the arts, and so abilities in writing and in understanding culture in general are
crucial.
► Many complaints about.
► I would favor more foreign language courses, and fewer reading/discussion/writing courses. My feeling is that most music students can and will read what
interests them, and pursue a general education on their own terms, in their own time.
► I have no experience w/the humanities curriculum.
► Encourage students to take Humanities courses on the Homewood campus. The 5 credit humanities course required of freshman should be looked at carefully.
If liberal arts electives are taught on the Peabody campus, they should be offered at times that do not conflict w/required courses in the major.
► Does the language requirement fall into this category? Think it should be eliminated, if so.
► Difficult for foreign students. Often too easy &/or boring for nationals.
► consult with humanities faculty; send more students to Homewood; work to co-ordinate Peabody's offerings with Homewood Humanities offerings
► Again, up to the departments would like fewer hours per class and more choices.
► A variety of good courses available to Peabody students every semester.
► The committee should look at other institutions including universities like Indiana to see possibilities and alternatives. Some of our students should take a class
or two at Hopkins.
Answer to Question 20: In general, what should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Musicology curriculum?
► There are some courses that are way too much work.
► The requirement should be reduced to 3 semesters. There should be more options for students wanting to study specific topics.
► Teaching level and amount of work seems VERY varied.
► Special topics classes (i.e., grad courses) should be open to interested upperclassmen. Maybe they already are...
Page 112
► Some goals of musicology and humanities overlap (general writing and persuasive abilities, research skills, historical thinking) and perhaps the departments
could be more coordinated. Cross-listing? Writing requirement met by either department?
► Should allow courses in specific areas to count as in the 3rd yr. Me and the department determine what is best for their students.
► Needs more emphasis on style.
► Most of our students don't know that much music, esp. outside of their major instrument, so survey courses are need to give a broad overview. Courses that are
specific to the major (piano, voice, etc.) should perhaps be allowed to replace general musicology surveys. Advanced courses for electives in more specific
topics are a good idea.
► If we are to continue with the four-course survey system, I think that we need to make an effort to achieve greater consistency across the four courses. As it is, I
am concerned that our students have some difficulty piecing together the "complete picture" after they finish their four-semester sequence. Personally, I would
like to see a required, Grout-based, two or three semester survey replace our current four-semester sequence. If two semesters, the course would need to meet
three times per week and be counted as a three credit course both semesters for a total of six credits. Students would then complete additional courses (probably
two additional two credit courses) in musicology by choosing from an array of courses on specific topics.
► I have no experience w/the musicology curriculum. I do believe, however, that survey courses should go hand in hand w/the theory curriculum to allow students
to make connections between historical and aesthetic/theoretical trends.
► I have heard that the level of difficulty varies quite a lot from teacher to teacher..but this is only hearsay.
► consult with musicology faculty; increase credit hours per course from 2 to 3; require 4 semester survey plus upper division elective
► Can the same content be taught in fewer semesters?
► At Peabody, UG musicology has always been a bare minimum construction: in recent years four two-credit courses. Given constraints, a survey of western
music is in order. Should students want to take more specific, "concentrated" courses, they can "elect" a graduate musicology seminar (as many do now).
► application to interpretation and performance
► Allowing students to place out of intro classes in order to take more advanced classes.
► Again, it seems pretty good.
► Again, I do not have any knowledge of this aspect of cirriculum.
► Teach courses that relate to the reality of performance. Emphasis should be spent on composers and important works.
Answer to Question 35: Is there anything from your own education that you found particularly effective, which might be
somehow adapted for the undergraduate students?
► The study of baroque music--I can't even get my students to play with harpsichord because it is made so difficult, and then can only even use on for degree
recitals. I think this is pathetic and short-sighted.
I was expected to practice huge amounts of time. I think nothing replaces time spent with one's instrument at a young age.
► Study habits! Accountability! Punctuality! Honesty! Responsibility!
► Principles of sensitive intonation/different theories of intonation (e.g. Kirnberger scale, Paganini scale, tempered intonation, etc.)
► No--all important
► more opportunities to write and reveiw concerts, i.e. a student newspaper (even an online version)
► More listening to performances of recordings
► More integrated approach to required music theory/musicology so it can be more easily applied to repertoire. Very few students bridge the
"academic"/"performance" gap--the should be seen as one and the same. Can they pass out of freshman theory?
► In the very quickly changing world of the music business, students MUST have at least two areas of expertise. For instance performance and music theory or
history, etc. ALL performance majors should be required to have a double major.
Page 113
► I would like to see more interdepartmental collaboration. I would also like to see students have more encouragement ad time in their schedules for students'
exploring areas outside their major including areas such as early music, technology, and jazz. Many schools in Britain and Europe now require all
instrumentalists to spend some time doing something in early music, usually involving an early version/relative of their major instrument. Students who are
versatile are much better prepared to decide what they want to do and are generally more successful at piecing together a career. In today's uncertain
economic climate we owe it to students to give them the best preparation possible for the real world, where only a handful of our graduates will become
soloists or land well-paid, full-time orchestral positions.
► I pursued a double major in performance and music theory; the resulting perspectives have been invaluable throughout my career.
► I had far more performance opportunities - and was not even at a Conservatory.
► I attended a top liberal arts college. I had excellent advising when I was there, so I would like to see a good advising system created at Peabody.
► Greater emphasis on specialized study and less on survey.
► Fixed Do*
Solfege (advanced)*
Counterpoint Harmony*
Classes from the old Curtis/New School curriculum*
Variety and choices (including Hopkins) of classes other than music to fill out curriculum
► Eurhythmics
► Better audio/visual equipment in classrooms. No projectors or other permanent A/V equipment is in classrooms. Having to request this from A/V service
makes for difficult planning.
► All of my music theory and history courses (those that I took as an undergraduate and those that I taught as a graduate student) met for THREE HOURS each
week. In some music history courses, the three hour schedule would take the format of two lectures each week followed by a weekly discussion section, led
either by the instructor or a graduate assistant. Moving to a format like this in our music history survey courses, especially if we were to reduce the survey
component of our curriculum to a two- or three-semester sequence, would be highly desirable. Two, one-hour class meetings per week can make things feel
very rushed.
► A strong emphasis on history and literature electives as well as a more integrated approach to counterpoint and harmony in the general theory curriculum.
► A great deal of my education was self-education, particularly in history, languages, and the humanities. We should keep in mind that ultimately it is the
students who educate themselves. We just provide opportunities to learn. The brightest, most motivated students need perhaps more freedom to choose what
they learn.
► 2 private lessons per week

ALL students should be required to take a writing class at Homewood
► 1. Orchestra at 4pm, so more time for earlier practice and classes.

2. Broad encouragement to attend masterclasses of all faculty and instruments.
3. Assigned time for practice rooms. Performance majors: 2 hrs/day. Others 1 hr/day. The person who did the scheduling was revered by all and it was
WORTH IT knowing you would have that room for 2 hours between classes.
► - required non-idiomatic improvisation

- required CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN rep.
► Partnerships with BSO and other professional organizations in the area.

I was a member of the Civic orchestra of the Chicago Symphony. It was very valuable.
Answer to Question 36: Is there anything that you, as an individual faculty member, do in your own teaching, which you think
might be worth adapting on a large scale for the undergraduate students?
► Takes too long to explain here.
► Advising -- due to the nature of my class I have the luxury of discussing the need to identify students ways of learning and being and the value of helping
students recognize their areas of strength OTHER than performing (writing, organizing, creating, speaking, etc). I always find the undergrads hungry for
feedback and support i this regard, as they realize they need to branch out and develop other skills but are not sure where to turn. I don't expect every applied
teacher to have the background to advise in these ways but do feel the students need someone who gets to know them in a broader way and can offer "career
counseling" earlier and guide them into electives/minors in areas in which they can excel.
► Some might benefit from taking Introduction to Music Education. It wouldn't hurt them to REALLY understand what music education in public schools really
is at all levels and how importantly it contributes to developing musicians' fundamental skill acquisition and, ultimately to academic building.
Page 114
► Provide on campus yoga instruction, Feldenkrais (if we do not still have it), access to body workers in various disciplines, other exercise clasees (Pilates? Tae
Kwon Do?) and possible nutrition/self care classes. Our bodies are our instruments and students have very little idea how to take care of themselves. They need
guidance and heightened awareness: for example, someone should speak on the serious health ramifications of ongoing sleep deprivation to all college-
conservatory students.
► Pedagogy
Talking about community concerts/workshop presentation
Communication skills
Baroque performance practice for modern players
► My students can get all the materials for class in electronic format. It is very useful for students who have obligations that prevent their getting to the library. It
is also cost effective. It is hoped that Peabody can maintain and broaden the use of internet technologies.
► Make EVERYTHING applicable.
► In my teaching I look for opportunities to help students think about the future: where they would like to go and how they might get there. I help them become
acquainted with sources of information and help here at Peabody. I want to help students present themselves professionally. This is why I work with them to
help them learn to speak clearly and effectively to an audience. I also believe that students will have to create their own careers, so I give students opportunities
to create activities and projects. My goal is to have active, not passive students.
► I work very hard to find performance opportunities for students outside of Peabody. This certainly would not work on too large a scale.
► I teach voice minor lessons. Many string and wind instrument teachers see the value in their students studying voice, but the cost for Peabody students to take
an elective minor instrument lesson is ridiculously expensive. The Hopkins students I teach pay far less. I know Peabody loses money providing minor lessons
for JHU students, but it a great PR service, very appreciated by them.
If more Conservatory students could take elective minor lessons at a less prohibitive cost, it would be great.
► I try as much as possible to connect what we are studying to the students' daily work of practicing their instrument.
► I set standards and hold the students to them.
► I really try to make students use their theory and musicology as tools to enhance their musicality and help them toward the point where they can teach
themselves.
► After the senior recital, I recommend that we address pedagogy (an NASM requirement--or it was). I this, I coach the student as a teacher.
Answer to Question 37: Final suggestions?
► The survey does not ask a question specifically about do we "require" TO many credits. That seems to be A big question about our UG program.
I'd like to see the survey courses be as efficient as possible, fewer required credits and a little more flexibility in electives.
► I'm really big on at least two areas of expertise, especially for performance majors. The performance field is shrinking and Peabody isn't doing any favors to our
performance majors unless we force them into a double major.
► Peabody academic curriculum seems very heavy compared to other institutions I have experienced. There are some great offerings--but too many required and
this definitely impacts practice time.
I'd like to see a more streamlined link with Hopkins. Our students can only register once JHU students have decided on courses. They often don't know their
schedules and this makes getting chamber music times scheduled at Peabody harder.
Are we preparing them to be versatile 21st century musicians. Europeans colleges put more emphasis on broader performance skills--community presentation,
improvisation, communication, contemporary music. Also PEDAGOGY--they will almost all teach at some point if they stay in performance. These
intstitutions don't have liberal arts requirements so have more curricular space.
► As long as we profess to be a conservatory, emphasis needs to be on the students ability to practice. Throughout the years we have talked about well
roundedness etc. Students need to poor their energies into their major intruments.
► I'm sad the Thursday Noon series is now done by department. I realize this makes scheduling easier but believe it should be a more interesting showcase of our
talent and bring in the local community.
► Orchestra/ensemble placement assignments should be made by the applied faculty of the instruments in question, not by the WE & PSO/PCO conductors. This
would assure more practicle [sic] and equitable rotation for the students for a well-rounded education/experience.
► Make sure students who are accepted who reveal themselves to have significant musical deficiencies, especially in rhythm and notation reading, have a program
Page 115
they can turn to which will address these.
► In order for our students to have more time with their major instrument, I would like to see reduction of outside classroom work.
► There is nothing here about music career/music business, not even lip service.
I'll talk around curriculum here without getting to it much. But these factors are always in place and should not be ignored.
To me, an overriding issue in undergraduate curriculum at Peabody is student overload. The students and the school are complicit in this.
The curriculum seems to be too much in all but perhaps the straight performance major. But it is hard to tell for sure, because most students often add as much
as they can of extra credit study, extra performance inside and outside the school. Many consider the addition musical activity a necessary and valuable part of
their training--part of getting their money's worth. Meanwhile, the advent of the cellular phone has allowed skillful schedulers to move closer to constant
playing.
For many, study and practice time are absorbed by money-earning work. If this is gigging, it can also add to fatigue. Conductors Orchestra anyone?
Also, at Peabody just about everyone delights in doing more than is necessary. Some of this may arise from fear of our peers nipping at our heels, but usually it
is simply the surging well of energy and enthusiasm in students and teachers.
While the extra activity can imperil a student's financial aid and academic standing, there is also danger of physical injury. Some students can play tired for a
long time (typically with a pale-gray sound), others cannot. Some arrive at Peabody already worn down and/or injured to some degree. Sometimes fatigue will
be heard collectively in a large ensemble of students--conductors also want to contribute 150%.
It must be remembered that some injury is irrevocable. Yes, some musicians can play with permanent injury, but probably not at their full capacity. While
prevention is always better than treatment, prevention is usually mentioned in passing, if at all.
To me, NASM is guilty of piling things on. All this makes curriculum writing a Neverland endeavor. If there is a sensible way to address it, I thank you for
finding it.
► Encourage students in performance to get a music ed degree too, so that they are not unemployable upon graduation.
► If there would be a way to condense classes--the amount of time in classes is frustrating particularly when the student is doing well and doesn't need to absorb
the info they already know. Fewer hours in class and more independent work.
► A variety of exchange programs would be nice.

re grad theory -- how useful is it to post course materials online in Russian?
► 1. Contracted faculty have very little knowledge of what goes on at Peabody, outside of their teaching and the requirements for lessons and recitals. a manual
and instruction/education on all of the requirements etc would be very helpful. This should be required and the faculty member's time spent paid for. We work
in a silo.
2. Studio faculty should have complete control over the ensemble placements and assignments. Too often the ensemble placements interfere with a fair and
constructive use of the ensembles for educating the students.
3.Finding and using accompanists for my studio is extremely difficult and frustrating. Pianists should be recruited and required to fulfill a minimum number of
hours accompanying. There should be incentives for doing more and consequences for doing less. The requirements set should meet the accompanying needs of
the school rather than something arbitrary. There needs to be a system of assigning accompanists to faculty and students. Far too often students and faculty face
an exhaustive search, which too often results in someone backing out after making a commitment.
4. Facilities, room assignments etc are very difficult for professional faculty who have busy and changing schedules. Sharing studios and having limited time to
count on in your studio is very difficult.
5. Not allowing students to have a key to my studio (as was the former policy) is counterproductive and should be reconsidered.
6. Contracted faculty member's studio facilities ie, acoustics, temperature, humidity etc are terrible! It is very difficult to achieve optimum consistent results
with students when there is either no heat , or too much heat, NO humidity, acoustics that are either too dead or too live. Sharing a studio with another faculty
member with perhaps different needs makes adjustments problematic.
7. There is no value of current contractual faculty members ideas or suggestions for hiring new faculty or NOT. This, along with the whole picture of how the
contractual faculty is left to fend for themselves, doesn't create a cohesive well organized collegial environment for faculty or students.
8. I have been an hourly contracted faculty member at Peabody since 1990 have a fairly large studio of eight students. I was unable to answer most of your
questions. I just don't have enough knowledge to answer them. Sad truth.
An hourly paid faculty member who is a busy professional cannot be expected to put in extra unpaid time , or behave as a full time faculty member. I spend so
many extra unpaid hours with department recitals etc as it is. I wish there was a more comprehensive educational process for faculty like me to become engaged
and more knowledgeable about policy and the full curriculum.It would have to be time that is compensated. It should be something that has value to Peabody
and if instituted it would have a strong unifying affect on our school.
► Why is there nothing here about ensemble requirements? I think this is a more serious issue than anything related to the academic courses.
► I hope this does not seem too stuffy, but it seems to me that a Conservatory of Music is best defined as an institution DEVOTED TO MUSIC: playing music,
Page 116
talking about music, thinking about music. Expressed in different words, the study of music's execution, music's construction and music's context is the heart of
a conservatory. This last was Mendelssohn's model in Leipzig and has served American Conservatories to this day. It follows that the dilution of any one of
these is the compromising of the original vision and the creation of something else. Perhaps the time has come for the creation of "something else." If so, then it
would be for the Curriculum Committee to convince the faculty at large that the standard vision of the Conservatory, one that in America has stood for 150
years, no longer works. Thus my suggestion: if it's going to be "fixed," make sure it is broken first.
► Peabody can't seem to decide--at least, its student can't--if it wants an academic side or not. Non-music related courses seem neither to be taken seriously nor
supported professionally. This is a major disappointment and source of frustration for me.
► If classroom studies hinder the major field efforts of our undergraduate students, it is only because we have accepted a model that produces hyper-specialized,
compartmentalized young people whose "major" leaves them incapable of--OH, never mind. One might well as whether their major "studies," in such an anti-
intellectual climate, are stunting their development as thinking musicians, making them participants in a cultural project they are poorly equipped to understand.
► (1) Departments should advise their students.
(2) The master schedule needs lots of work--to many conflicts for students as a result of rearranging classes for individual faculty members.
(3) Students should be encouraged to take liberal arts classes on the Homewood campus. We are not utilizing that resource.
(4) If theory or music history is reduced (fewer required credits) it will be important that the curriculum in the courses be revised so that the content remains but
is provided in fewer semesters of study.
► Please preserve our opportunity to contribute from many angles, perspectives, and specialties to helping to make our students into life-long learners about music
and music-making.
The UTILITY of what we offer to practical music-making is our strongest suit in the competitive marketplace.
Peabody curriculum is the product of slow evolution over a long period of time and the creative jostling of individuals & groups of individuals--all
entrepreneurs having something to offer our students. Most of this is positive; please be very alert to the possibility of unintended negative consequences of
committee action.
► Any changes should be gradual and approved by the faculty at large. Please share all stages of the process with us.
► Change a little, but don't lose sight of the need to continue to produce well-rounded educated musicians.
Some of the these questions apply to those teaching Music Theory and Humanities and are therefore left blank here. Perhaps there should have been a button
labeled NA?
► After reviewing the survey, I felt it best to write. I believe that the survey asks only a few questions that I can answer responsibly.
The several questions about hours spent studying cannot be answered without a reference to grades. There is a great difference between what it takes to excel in
our classes and what it takes to just get by. A consideration of hours spend studying should be correlated with a consideration of grade distributions.
In my opinion, your committee should take a careful look to assess whether grade inflation is a problem at Peabody. A's are not freely given out on the
campuses of prestigious schools and a curriculum is not designed so that more students can become "A students."
I'd think that your committee could come up with some worthwhile data if you tried to assess the patterns of study of our most successful A students. Is our
curriculum too burdensome for them? Or do some of these students feel that our curriculum is not challenging enough?
The committee should also consider how many of our students take loads of 25-credits/semester, or more. And how many of our students graduate in fewer than
eight semesters? Data that illuminates these questions will provide reliable information--and curricular discussion could be framed around questions of our
goals. Do we want to encourage more of our students to take heavier loads and/or graduate after only six or seven semesters of study?
Discussion of these things will be more informative than consideration of the faculty impressions derived from this survey. A survey rooted in faculty reaction
to data that your committee might assemble, about the above and other things, might also be of great value. But my opinions, as solicited by the questions on
this survey, cannot provide anything of much value to your discussions.
On the other hand, I hope that these comments are of help.
► No information has been requested regarding music education undergraduate students. They have the added requirement of taking courses mandated by the
State of Maryland in addition to meeting Peabody's requirements. Their course load, as a result, tends to be excessively heavy, especially in the junior year.
Music Ed students already often have to spend additional tuition in order to complete courses required by the state (e.g. American History and they often have
difficulty scheduling liberal arts courses due to scheduling conflicts; another circumstance which often forces them to pay tuition at other schools to take
summer courses or evening courses. Personally, I think putting students in a position to pay additional tuition (on top of $40,000/year) in order to meet the
requirements for their degree equates with educational malpractice.
► I cannot possibly answer these questions [about how much time students spend, or should spend, on their work]. You would have to ask the students how much
time they spend. There is such a variety among our students in terms of ability and motivation.
► This survey is not well constructed (how do I know what students and other faculty think?or how much time students spend on assignments in my or other
classes?), and seems to be biased towards making cuts in the academic offerings in the undergrad curriculum. If we are to take Jeff at his word, the impetus to
reform the undergrad curriculum seems to be motivated by budgetary concerns rather than pedagogical ones, and if so, this whole excercise is profoundly
Page 117
unethical. There are no questions about the vision of an ideal Peabody curriculum. There are no questions about how the academic faculty perceive the studio
requirements as hindering or undermining our students' academic education. Given that many, if not most, of our students will not have a full-time career in
music, what should they know/what skills should they have? How can we educate them so that whatever their profession, they will continue to make music a
meaningful part of their lives and contribute to the musical lives of their communities?
Page 118

PBY Ugcc Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PBY Ugcc Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNDERGRADUTE CURRICULUM COMMITTEE

FINAL REPORT • MAY 2009

Jenny Beck (Scribe) Academic Program Coordinator • Alumna

THE PEABODY CONSERVATORY

© 2009 The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University

• James Dobson, Conservatory Registrar

8. The Humanities curriculum should be condensed and restructured. (p. 16)

PART ONE • INTRODUCTION & CHARGE

A Short History of Recent Curricular Revision at Peabody

Curriculum: Time and Credit

1. Re-visit the Purpose/Mission of the Conservatory

The Mission of the Peabody Institute

Peabody Institute Vision Statement

Philosophy #1: Peabody believes in liberal arts for musicians.

Philosophy #2: Peabody does not promote cutthroat competition.

2. Conduct a thorough overview of each undergraduate curriculum currently offered

• The Cincinnati College Conservatory of Music

7. Engage in regular dialogue on findings with the Faculty Assembly

12. Begin implementation of new curricula in Fall 2009

Time for Study and Practice

Satisfied ◄—————————► Dissatisfied

Influence Definitely Probably Maybe Probably Not Definitely Not

Hindrance Definitely Probably Maybe Probably Not Definitely Not

Satisfied ◄—————————————► Dissatisfied

On average, how many hours per week do

Hours in Student Faculty Faculty Student

To which must be added ensembles…

2 Orchestra 3 UGCC estimates 2 hours [5]

And any departmental requirements …

0 Studio Class 1 [1]

PART TWO • FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

2007-2008 Catalog 2008-2009 Catalog

Undergraduate students who maintain a cumulative Undergraduate students who maintain a

2.5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 [>2] 1.67 1.67

GPA Calculation for the Typical Peabody Freshman

Total Quality Points ÷ Total Credits = GPA

Supplement to the Recommendation

Direct the Undergraduate Committee to consider a policy to allow students to repeat a

Supplement to the Recommendation

Peabody's official policy on advising is found in the Student Handbook:

How should Peabody approach the issue of advising?

Supplement to the Recommendation

Lesson Grade Student and faculty Associate Dean for Undergraduate

Assessment Assessment of Student Learning

Supplement to the Recommendation

Supplement to the Recommendation

Supplement to the Recommendation

Recommendation 8: The Humanities curriculum should be condensed and restructured.53

How do you feel about the number of courses required in Humanities?

Fewer courses More courses Just right

Content and Competencies as Defined by Peabody Accreditation Standards

1. The ability to think, speak, and write clearly and effectively.

(a) Communicate effectively in oral and written English;

(f) Recognize and appreciate cultural diversity;

Thus, the recommended Humanities curricula are as follows:

Humanities Curriculum Humanities Curriculum for Voice

Humanities Seminar 4 Humanities Seminar 4

Supplement to the Recommendation

Supplement to the Recommendation

Recognizing the recent streamlining of Inter-Divisional Registration (IDR) procedures,

Interdivisional Registration Instructions for ASEN Courses

Supplement to the Recommendation.