|
The following editorial appeared in the March
9 issue of The Sophian, the college's student newspaper.
by
Sara Barz '06
In some respects, it is truly an honor to attend
this college. I can't imagine that other liberal arts colleges have staffs and administrations
that interact so willingly with the student body -- or read their student newspapers.
I am delighted that our opinions count while we are here and that the administration
is actively including our voices in the Strategic Planning Process. Thus, a very
heartfelt "thank you" goes to all those college officials and staff who
are not required to take student perspectives into account, but do nonetheless. The
extra effort is truly appreciated.
That said, it is not our place to shy away from touchy
subjects. Especially in an era of Strategic Planning, we have the responsibility
to transform our Smith experiences into constructive criticism for the college. Considering
who we are, I doubt that will be difficult.
One topic that has buzzed around in at least two Strategic
Planning conversations is the need for academic reform. Of course the primary issue
meant by the euphemism "academic reform" is the quantitative skills requirement,
which I happen to think is a good idea and necessary in the changing work environment;
but I don't think we should stop there. We need to reevaluate one of the keystones
of the Smith academic experience: the open curriculum.
As a first year, and even as a sophomore and junior,
I was absolutely enamored with the open curriculum because I had the freedom to take
whatever I wanted to take and I zealously did just that. But because of the lack
of external limitations as well as my own immaturity about my education, my transcript
became riddled with an "interesting" hodgepodge of classes instead of a
firm basis in one discipline or another. Instead of finding one major or one umbrella
category -- i.e. arts or humanities -- with which I fell in love, I basically chose
the major with the least amount of requirements that suited as many as possible of
my random classes. Unfortunately, that leaves me now with a transcript filled with
introductory and stand-alone classes and a major that, while it was fun while it
lasted, I do not intend to use it professionally.
I doubt that I am alone. I know of other students who
came in undeclared, enticed by the sense of experimentation that the open curriculum
provides, and after a few years feel more confused and under-prepared than ever.
Yet, we don't know what to make of ourselves because we should be self-directed strong
women that can make the most out of an open curriculum, right? After all, our education
is right where we want it, in our own "able" hands.
Frankly, a little structure goes a long way. Of course
meaningless structure should go down the drain, but meaningful structure, geared
towards each student's educational needs, would create a firm intellectual basis
from which a confused student could explore. As one student put it at the March 1
SGA town hall meeting on the curriculum, some kind of core curriculum could provide
the cohesion that a liberal arts education needs to be effective.
However, on the flip side, I know some brilliant classmates
who probably would not have been able to complete their double majors in French and
Biology or Theatre and Economics if they had to worry about fulfilling requirements.
There are those students who are so self-directed and self-aware at the tender age
of 18 that they know not to be drawn off into the tempting world of randomly selected
classes. They have the discipline to voluntarily sit through Voltaire and Rousseau,
with the understanding that after the Enlightenment, they'll move on to pop art or
the history of rock and roll. And they do not deserve to be punished for knowing
just what they want to do.
So what do we do? The CDO tells me that there are more
students like me at this school than not, but then there are those who truly make
best use of Smith's open curriculum. How can Smith effectively serve both camps of
students?
I suggest that the faculty create a core curriculum
which consists of central categories like western and eastern philosophies, life
sciences, or world literature, but then make the program optional -- much like Latin
Honors but without the turn-off of the GPA minimum. However, this program would be
academically rigorous and heavily emphasized for undeclared first-years, who may
need the guidance of a core structure to gradually move into the academic world.
In addition to the structure set by the faculty, more meetings with program advisors
and peer program participants could help shape the core curriculum for each student's
education.
Also, one of the requirements of the program could
be to complete a senior capstone project of some kind. If the student was truly fortunate
enough to fall in love with a major during her time at Smith, that project could
double as an honors thesis. Otherwise, she would have the opportunity to take on
self-directed study which may reflect some tenets of her major, but include interdisciplinary
aspects as well. Or, the project could be completely outside the major with practical
or service applications, which could provide a bridge to life after Smith.
The point is, the open curriculum, as it is designed
today, is failing a large population of bright but confused students. We need to
change how we define the curriculum to serve students who may be unbelievably brilliant
but too immature to direct their education or students who, in their quest for a
major, get turned on not just by one subject, but by two or three or four and want
to combine them in a hands-on culminating project. We need to ask ourselves, is it
enough to allow students to direct their entire education themselves? Or, should
the college and faculty step in and offer structured guidance? Of course, the answer
is "yes" to both questions, but it all depends on the educational needs
of the student. Unfortunately for many students, the college is focusing far more
on the former question than the latter. |
|
Essential
Information
Questions
to Consider
Organization &
Structure
Process & Timeline
Assumptions
About
the Planning Process
Planning Updates
NEASC
Reaccreditation
Join
the Planning
Process
|
