Reply to comment

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.