Reply to comment

In my opinion, a mission statement isn't crucial to the betterment of a school's/college's students. When I tried to relate Bryn Mawr's mission statement to one from my high school, there were differences. In my experience, mission statements can be directly taken from one educational institution and apply to another. For instance, how does, "Together we seek to...foster the courage to live and think as distinct individuals who embrace their responsibilities in the larger world," differ from, "encourage students to be responsible citizens who provide service to and leadership for an increasingly interdependent world," ? To me, mission statements are pretty superfluous, and a way for schools/colleges to try and find variation although variation may not be necessary.

Getting to the heart of the matter, what matters is the curriculum. I'm in agreement with most people's ideas so far. Do we need to change the curriculum if there aren't any major issues with it? As a student who actively searched for a college with a suitable curriculum for my purposes, do I feel like Bryn Mawr is trying to be something I didn't agree  to? When reading through the articles, I understood in the past how graduates were so concentrated in their skills that they weren't able to effectively meld into the world. But doesn't Bryn Mawr's current curriculum give me the interdisciplinary skills I need? For instance, I am not a language person. I've taken Spanish for six years, and I have no idea how I'd get by if I went to Spain and encountered only Spanish speakers. But Bryn Mawr has a language requirement. Instead of seeing this as an obstacle, I'm taking Hebrew.

I'm actually grateful Bryn Mawr's making me do something I'm uncomfortable with. In the future, after declaring my major, most of my classes will be in one field. Having this variety in my freshman year is liberating. I certainly don't want an open curriculum. Thank god Bryn Mawr isn't even considering that. And as far as the "Water Program" the NYTimes article mentioned, I'm just completely baffled. What does this even mean? I feel offended that we are assumed that we can't handle classes with their actual title. Why can't the Water Program be an interdisciplinary course instead of a mish-mosh curriculum that seems like it's doom to fail. If there's a curriculum around "knowledge" and "water" wouldn't students be even more trapped? Let's say I want to major in Math. Why would a water program suit me? Sure the first year it would be exciting taking classes that fall under no clear heading, but without classes that have their own identity, what would I be geared for in the real world? 

Anyways, Bryn Mawr's newly proposed curriculum doesn't seem startlingly different to me. Then again, I feel we should have to try some field that's uncomfortable. I mean, I'm doomed in languages, but that's why I chose Bryn Mawr: they're making me do it anyways, but I have the support that I need if I actually struggle.

Is it the curriculum that matters, or the hand-on help and guidance that matters to a college? I propose that the curriculum comes second and that professor-student interactions should be critiqued more than what classes are mandatory. Does it matter what classes we're taking or what we take away from them?