The effect of a general versus narrow undergraduate curriculum on graduate specialization: The case of a Dutch liberal arts college

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Whether a broad undergraduate curriculum prepares students well for academic and professional specialization is a much-debated question. This discussion is particularly relevant in the context of European liberal arts bachelor's programmes, which recently re-emerged as an exception to the continental norm of specialized undergraduate curricula. While liberal arts proponents contend that the broad foundation of knowledge and generic skills provided by this educational model facilitate specialization rather than hindering it, critics point to the relative lack of disciplinary depth. To investigate this problem, the paper looks at three specialized master's programmes at Maastricht University—in international business, psychology, and neuroscience. It compares the academic performance of two groups of students in these programmes: graduates from University College Maastricht, a liberal arts institution, and their peers with discipline-focused bachelor's degrees in a matching field. Results from probit and OLS regression models show that there are no major differences between the two groups in terms of dropout rates, GPA, and master's thesis grades. Despite having less subject-specific knowledge, university college graduates proved to be prepared equally well for specialized master's studies as their counterparts with a matching disciplinary background. These findings suggest that an undergraduate curriculum that offers more breadth and flexibility does not represent an obstacle to further specialization.