Week 12--Evaluating Bryn Mawr's requirements

One simple question about the mission statement-- do you think it turns people off that the last time it was updated was 1998, or makes people feel confident that it's been the same for over a decade? It's superficial, but the '90s seem outdated to me. On the other hand, the content of the statement still holds pretty true, and I also like it that Bryn Mawr has an "Approved by the Board of Trustees December 1998" sign at all. It feels very right that an important board 'approved' the mission statement. Someone mentioned in class last week that website layout (and the theme of a school's advertisements in general) can have a big impact on how highly people regard the school. The mission page is a little boring-seeming. But other that that, I think the mission itself has some striking/individualized qualities that are true, such as  "a community... democratic in practice." I like the following sentence, but think it's too long: "Bryn Mawr teaches and values critical, creative and independent habits of thought and expression in an undergraduate liberal arts curriculum for women and in coeducational graduate programs in arts and sciences and social work and social research. "

Oops, sorry I posted without logging in.. So here' my take

I like that classes can be classified under two divisions under the new proposal. This allows the classes to be categorized as they truly are. With this and the new five requirements, I believe that the new curriculum will be much more flexible than the current curriculum, suiting students who are looking to explore new areas.

However, it also raises a concern--this proposal may backfire on the central mission of "exposing students to a variety of approaches to inquiry and promoting that liberal education must be more than a strong training in one discipline." For incoming freshmen, it is easy to take classes in what interested them in high school. The flexibility of the new curriculum may allow students to take classes around only a single discipline (especially with classes being classified under two labels). From my experience, the current curriculum, which has more solid requirements, gave me a stronger drive to take courses in humanities, a discipline that I am not really into. When I was in the process of choosing classes for second semester, I tried to avoid intense literature classes because I didn't find them very interesting. However, I had to fulfill the humanities requirement (Div III). So I was searching for classes and I almost chose a literature class on Physics. But I happened to come across Ethics (Philosophy) and Literature and Politics of South African Apartheid in my search, so I ended up registering for those! I think current curriculum gives a stronger push to explore different disciplines to freshmen, who would tend to choose their favorite subjects because of their awful high school classes. (In high school, most people's favorite classes depend on how much they like their teachers)

However, I agree with Hilary on foreign language requirement.

 Though the lack of language requirement for me does stick out.  I think it is very important for peoples to know, or at least be acquainted with at least ONE language other than their native one.  I feel like the US in general lags behind in the language department~ and this is extremely frustrating.  Vexing, I should say.  Foreign language introduces in it of itself new perspectives, new nuances and social ideas and practices by its structure alone, and I think all persons should be able to experience that.  

That said... it would be nice to be in a classroom where everyone involved actually wants to be there.  Persons who are just filling their language requirement have a tendency, I think, to parlent en anglais, which does discourage and somewhat annoy those of us who wish to actively speak and practice our français.  I understand that they have to fill the requirement, and can understand an entirely lacking interest in all things french and francophone.  BUT it does tend to turn a college atmosphere into a high school one, which I think these new requirements mean to avoid.  I think freeing up that option is a good idea, and will lend itself to more engaged and satisfied students everywhere.  I think the worry is that students will choose not to pursue language on their own, thereby lessening the degree to which our worldly mission statement applies to us.  So it is a tradeoff, between trusting the student body to become of its own mission statement, or of the school to enforce what mission it should like us to represent.

Bryn Mawr's current language requirement, while it attempts to prepare students for the "increasingly interdependent world" mentioned in the mission statement, is useless if it makes students hate languages and/or prevents them from exploring other areas of interest, as Dean Tidmarsh suggested it does. I agree that language study is very valuable as a method of understanding "alternative models of perceiving and processing human experience," but the new proposed requirement of a class that focuses on "cross-cultural analysis" might serve the same purpose alongside a reduced language requirement. The "fundamental social importance" that the current requirements ascribe to proficiency in multiple languages might be better attached to an understanding of multiple cultures, or any of the other listed benefits of language study, which can (probably) be achieved through other areas of study.

The proposed new divisions of knowledge seem to draw out the relevant qualities of the current three divisions and bring them forward. If the point of language study is to "learn to see the world from the perspective of a culture other than one's own," for example, then the new requirements would point students more directly toward that goal, rather than requiring them to make a specific type of attempt at reaching it. These requirements assume that learning "a variety of approaches to inquiry" is the best way towards "preparation for life and work," rather than assuming that exposure to a variety of disciplines will teach a variety of approaches to inquiry. The difference between the approaches of the two sets of requirements does not seem that great-- the proposed requirements simply aim more directly at the ideas in the mission statement.

I think that our requirement respond well with our mission statement. I think that Bryn Mawr does “teaches and values critical, creative and independent habits of thought.” By taken classes in a range of fields, we are encouraging those kinds of thought. The division requirements allow us to develop the “critical, creative and independent” thought that we need in “preparation for life and work.” I agree with some of the people here with the fact that requirements are something that should remain. Even though I have a major in mind, I am still open to new possibility. I know that if Bryn Mawr does not have requirement, I would not take classes that I did not need. I also would not take classes in the subject that I’m weak in. The fact that Bryn Mawr forces me to step out of my comfort zone is something that I appreciate. The requirement would help me to be more rounded.

However, I feel that with our current curriculum, there are too many requirements. Sometimes it feels as though the students are just trying to fulfill the requirement and are dreading their way through. I feel that there should be requirements but we should cut down on those requirements.

Like Alicia said, at first I thought that the new proposal would change this.  However, it only cut down one more class and put the subject even more specific. I feel that this would restrict the students’ freedom even more. With the divisional requirement, the classes that one could take are in a board range. In the new proposal, it is more specific and narrowed.

Just like how Dean Tidmarsh talked about our language requirement, I think it would be the same for the divisional requirement. I feel that when you take a class in one field, you would have a sense of what that field is about and see if is right for you. With fewer requirements, you are still being forced to step out of your comfort zone, but not to the point where you would dread the process.

 The Bryn Mawr mission statement is to  "provide a rigorous education and to encourage the pursuit of knowledge as preparation for life and work, to teach and value critical, creative and independent habits of thought and expression...and to sustain a community diverse in nature and democratic in practice". I think that one way the current requirements contribute to this is simply by making everyone take a wide variety of classes - I think by making people take all sorts of classes, it really 'encourages the pursuit of knowledge' because it may expose people to different things they might not even have known they liked. Also, making people take classes in areas they may not like (maybe because it is a "weak" subject for them) forces them to work and improve their weaker areas.

 Bryn Mawr's mission statement is "to provide a rigorous education and to encourage the pursuit of knowledge as preparation for life and work."  I will agree that the load of requirements put on our plates provides that "rigorous education" that many students were attracted to in choosing to come to BMC. The requirements do, in a sense,  support Bryn Mawr's mission statement. I, however, feel that maybe there just are too many requirements to be able to fulfill the desires of exploration, which is what a liberal arts college promotes.  I feel that my first semester of college is a carbon copy of my senior year in high school.

When Dean Tidmarsh came to class on Tuesday and mentioned that students find that the requirements are what cause the similarities in what our schedules look like then and now; I found myself agreeing with her. Before hearing the changes, I was sure that the new proposal fixed the problem of too many requirements. I was so wrong. The requirements were only, as Anne stated, "fiddled with."  I read the new proposal over and over again in attempts of finding some major differences. The new proposal has a grand total of one less class to fulfill a requirement. Instead of 6 classes, there are only 5. I don't see much of a change really. The one change I did notice was that the "Approaches" were a lot more specific and restrictive than the divisional requirements we have now. 

The other day I was in the Carpenter Library and spotted this study abroad "4 year plan." In order to be able to study abroad by your junior year, the majority if not all of your requirements have to be out of the way by the end of the first semester of your sophomore year. How do all of these requirements allow one to explore their potential majors before studying abroad? I'm not suggesting to get rid of the requirements, but to at least cut them down. I know that BMC wants its students to be knowledgeable in all aspects. However, Bryn Mawr's mission statement doesn't explicitly mention the importance of being well-rounded individuals. Bryn Mawr "values" the liberal arts curriculum, but when does the exploration and "liberal arts" begin? The second semester of sophomore year, when majors are supposed to be declared? 

I think that the women who chose to attend a liberal arts college like Bryn Mawr do so because either they have no idea what to do with their lives (like me), OR they are set on an idea but are open to other influences that could change their initial plans. And if this is the case, being certain about a major or path, I think that it is important to be a well rounded individual. These requirements, though I definitely think that they can be annoying at times, really make sure that this well rounded path actually happens. I think that by "considering many perspectives", one gets a beneficial balance that is invaluable. Also, by forcing us to experience different areas of study, I really think that we are getting our money's worth at Bryn Mawr. Or at least some of it.

And to be honest, at a college where you can mix and match with 35 majors and 39 minors (not to mention 7 concentrations), I am extremely grateful for these requirements! Maybe I'm leaning back towards our previous idea of limiting choices, but i know for a fact that having a curriculum that "leads the way" will definitely help me figure out what I really love to study.

The only real flaw that I can find is- yes here it comes- that darn language requirement! I definitely feel that what Dean Tidmarsh was saying about limiting this requirement for future classes is a great idea. I know that there is more than one girl in my Spanish class who is completely miserable- and its not just because we are conjugating verbs at 9 in the morning. I really think that having a classroom full of women who truly enjoy learning a certain language will create a better environment for everyone- students and professors alike. It's hard enough getting an unenthusiastic student to enjoy a class in English, let alone intensive Chinese or Russian.

Besides the language issue, I personally am fine with the requirements in place and don't think that they should be too watered down.

 Bryn Mawr's website states that "The mission of Bryn Mawr College is to provide a rigorous education and to encourage the pursuit of knowledge as preparation for life and work".  The divisional requirements broaden a student's educational horizon rather than constraining it, and allows students to explore other areas that they may not know they are interested in.  These requirements are true to Bryn Mawr's mission, creating a well-balanced education that is demanding and prepares students for work after college.  Taking classes in different areas also gives a student a broader view of the world, which prepares them for working with people of different backgrounds.  The physical education requirement goes even further to prepare students how to balance both work and staying healthy. A healthy body is crucial to a healthy mind, and Bryn Mawr strives to educate students about both so that they can make wise decisions for the future. 

The new curriculum is very similar, and doesn't really represent a "changed path" towards the mission statement.  The requirements are stated in ambiguous terms, and are not as straight-forward as the current stated requirements for the college.  For example, the "Trans-Temporal Analysis" requirement.  Wouldn't these just be history courses?  Would this mean new classes would have to be created to fit these requirements? How exactly is the new curriculum going to be an improvement? At the moment, it looks very similar to the requirements we have now.  I think that the curriculum committee should listen to how the students would want to change the school and the curriculum.  If students are pleased with the current system, why change it?

The mission statement of the college seems to be a goal of directing students to obtain a broad perspective on a variety of topics while enriching ourselves in a diverse and democratic campus and perparing ourselves for "the real world". The divisions strive toward this goal in requiring each of us to take two courses in every division. Thus, we have, at the very least, to be subjected to a diversity of perspectives. The language requirement, as pertaining to the mission statement, does serve to broaden perspective and will be useful in a work environment sthat often expands over different languages. During parents weekend (Saturday, I believe), there were alumnae speakers who talked about their experiences in the workplace and how they related their Bryn Mawr education to their work. almost all the alumnae stated something like "I was a scientist who could write." or "I was a writer who could perform complicated math." Their experiences emphasized the usefulness of their diverse education in the workplace. In this sense (taking into account that the alumnae had a different curriculm, but our current one seemse to have a similar purpose. The "character of Bryn Mawr" that was mentioned in class the other day?), our requirements will theorectically give us the breadth of knowledge we need to succeed as "responsible citizens who provide service to and leadership for an increasingly interdependent world."

With the new approach, more individual freedom of classes is given. Experimentation with different subjects is more encouraged in this set of curriculum. Most importantly, the requirements do not take around 2 years to complete. This is a much more liberal approach while still maintaining the core goal of preparing us for our future work by introducing us to a broad range of thought.

Even though the new requirements are quite similar to the old ones, by calling the new requirements "approaches to inquiry", we frame our curriculum a different way (and we are all well aware of the various consequences that a different frame on the same situation can produce). Students are prompted to think about thier curriculum as learning different important thought processes rather than taking two science courses and 2 years of a language. Our curriculm is inclusive. The departments are even less seperated than before by labels such as "Social Sciences" and "Humanities". Different perspectives are what McIntosh argues are needed in Curriculums in order to achieve the kind of success that will shape us into "responsible citizens who provide service to and leadership for an increasingly interdependent world." With the "Approaches to Inquiry", we find ourselves working toward the same goal as previous Mawrtyrs, but with a different "frame", and thus a different mindset for a changing world. 

 I feel that the mission statement and the academic requirements fit together perfectly as they are now. The academic requirements, while seemingly restrictive, actually exemplify a portion of Bryn Mawr’s mission statement (“we believe that only through considering many perspectives do we gain a deeper understanding of each other and the world”).  I also believe that having academic requirements in such structured areas as “Quantitative Studies”, “Social Sciences”, “Humanities”, etc. coalesces with Bryn Mawr’s rigorous academic schedule, but also demonstrates the school’s interest in creativity by allowing for the definitions of these requirements to be stretched to include classes not typically thought of belonging to those subjects (e.g. “The Stuff of Art” is an art history class viewed through the lens of chemistry—technically it belongs in the Natural Science division, but it also involves art history elements).  By allowing students to pick their own classes, I think that people become academically myopic, but having too much structure reduces their happiness and intellectual exploration. I think Bryn Mawr has the right idea of having requirements for general fields of study, but also allowing for creativity and a mercurial nature to the academic atmosphere of the classes offered.

As for the new requirements handed out on Tuesday, November 17, I don’t think they add anything different or innovative to the current curriculum.  In fact, I felt more confused than enlightened by them.  I felt that the terms used to describe the requirements were vague, and I also felt a little patronized by them.  Perhaps it was just the wording, but I couldn’t shake the sense that the college was beginning to cater more to making students happy with simplicity and a lessened workload. I think eliminating the two-class requirement for the Divisional Requirements dishonors Bryn Mawr’s mission statement concerning a “rigorous education”, and I also believe that it does a disservice to preparing students for life and work.  I believe having to take two courses in the flexible academic requirements creates students into well-rounded people with a thorough grasp on areas of study. While dispensing with the two-course requirement might foster independence, an element of Bryn Mawr’s mission statement, it could also do the complete opposite. By making students specialized in a certain area, the new requirements would make students unable to be independent due to their lack of knowledge on an area of study outside of their specialty.  The Divisional Requirements assure that all students have a firm base of knowledge in every general area to allow students to be independent and self-sufficient.

To wrap this up, I came to Bryn Mawr because of its current curriculum. Changing the curriculum would be a big disappointment to me, even though the requirements would still apply to me for the remaining three years. Still, I feel that the requirements are one of the top aspects of Bryn Mawr that makes it stand out as an individual among a dozen cookie-cutter liberal arts colleges.