Reply to comment

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.