Reply to comment

After I finished reading the revised curriculum system, I really can’t find anything “revised” or “improved”. It is basically the same thing we are having now, but under fancier titles, for example, “Cross-Cultural Analysis” and “”Trans-Temporal Analysis”. A sophomore who had a glimpse on the paper joked that the biggest difference is that we only have to take five classes, one for each, to fulfill the divisional requirements rather than six, which she thinks is a big improvement.  However, I still appreciate that our faculty are striving hard to provide us a better education. The education I have received in China taught me that it was students’ responsibility to select the most useful combination of courses from the resource available. Thus, no matter whether you become a “winner” or a “sucker” in the future is determined or controlled by yourself, but has nothing to do with schools’ education success or failure. Here in the United States, colleges are more aware of their responsibility to educate and prepare their students to career challenges or further academic challenges.  I feel myself a little off topic now. Let me get back. To some degree, I appreciate the divisional requirements in Bryn Mawr. It “forces” students to go out of their comfortable zones and explore the fields they might never explore unless forced to. Moreover, it also helps the students to form a broader scale of knowledge and solid skills of reading, writing and critical thinking, which is definitely helpful in their later life. Overall, I appreciate the efforts that our curriculum committee and our faculty are making to make Bryn Mawr a better institution for education.