<p>D isn't sure whether she wants to register for a first year seminar or just take a "regular" class. The seminars that interest her most are "People and the Amer Ciry: Visual Display of Complex Info" (Flecher Blanchard - Psych) and Science and Politics of Food, Water and Energy (Leslie King and Paul Wetze - Sociology).</p>
<p>Any general advice re: first year seminars vs "regular" classes?</p>
<p>Any subj area or profs that get particularly "good" reviews from first years?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>My daughter took a class with Leslie King last year and absolutely loved it. It may have been this one unless it's new. I know the one she took had something to do with food and policy.</p>
<p>The advantage of the FYS is that everyone in your class will be a first year (unless there's extra space and an upperclassmen really wants to take it), so when you write your first college paper, it's everyone's first college paper, and when you take your first test, it's everyone's first test. The profs tend to do a little more hand holding then they would in a "normal" class. Of course, the disadvantage is that you won't get to meet so many upper classmen, you won't always get the benefit of their experience, or the challenge that you may find in a normal class (not that FYS aren't challenging, but they are meant to be intro classes). </p>
<p>I never took an FYS (I'm a rising junior now) and it never bothered me. I enjoyed mixing with upperclassmen right away, and I was confident enough (for better or worse) in my writing and preparation in the subjects I was taking to not feel like I needed the extra support of an FYS. That being said, if its a subject you've never taken before, or you want a small class where you'll have a little extra help and understanding than in your other classes (which can be good for your first semester), FYS are for you. Also, I've heard they're quite fun and rewarding and you probably won't get another chance to take a seminar until you are a junior. </p>
<p>So my very unhelpful answer is that it depends greatly on your daughter and what she wants to start with. </p>
<p>Keep in mind too that depending on when her registration time is, the FYS may be full so she should have plenty of normal class backups to take just in case. If she has to register in the afternoon (they randomly assign you times based on when your advisor can meet with you to register you), it's likely that there won't be room for her in the seminars.</p>
<p>I took Social Phobias and Fear of Public Speaking with Patty DiBartolo and really liked it. I definitely took a lot from the course and never found myself worried about something I said sounding stupid, which is something I would do in classes with upperclasswomen/larger classes in general. I think they are good ideas if you are interested in the subject, and they are a really good way to get on a name-name basis with professors you may (or may not) want to work with in the future.</p>
<p>My house little sister took Fletcher's class after being advised by her older sister to take a class with "Fletch" and she loved it, enjoyed him, and found it to be a low stress class, which was helpful during her first semester of college.</p>
<p>My d could not get into any of the FYS courses -- even those she didn't want -- because she was scheduled to be among the last to register. She ended up taking a writing intensive English course on a topic she was not interested in at all -- and it ended up being one of her best courses of her first year.</p>
<p>Registration is tough for first years, especially if they get an unlucky draw. They need to be more flexible with their courses than perhaps they'd like.</p>
<p>Thanks all.</p>
<p>hey, my dad used to be friends with leslie king when they were both grad students. I've heard she's a terrific professor. </p>
<p>Also if anyone is looking to take classes with Vanessa Adel or Ardith Spence, Ardith will definitely be leaving to take another position (she was my house fellow next year) and I've heard vanessa will not be at smith next year either. </p>
<p>ANYWAY, now that's all out of the way, I would definitely reccommend either re-enacting the past seminar or any class with randy bartlett. Re-enacting (at east with daniel gardner) involves 6 1-2 page persuasive essays, which aren't all that hard to write and must usually be posted on moodle the night before the class it must be delivered in (which is actually an unexpected bonus 'cause it forces you to not procrastinate). 9 AM into macro with randy was definitely worth it and my favourite class of the semester.</p>
<p>also, I was reaaaaally fortunate to get an 8:30 AM draw and get all 4 classes I wanted, but you should definitely definitely be super flexible with your class choices. Being a nerd, both semesters I've made an excel sheet which laid out all the potential classes I wanted to take and their sessions. It will make it easier for you to see what classes you can choose from while still having a sane schedule that doesn't conflict, because I've heard of quite a few people getting flustered when they need to make a second choice and ending up with schedules that are less than great or just totally crazy. </p>
<p>Also, I've heard Scribbling Women is an interesting seminar (takes place in the Spring), but it is definitely very writing-intensive, while Gamemaster G's Re-enacting class was far less writing intensive than I thought it would be (be prepared, though, to be plunged into ~200-300 pages of reading per class at the beginning of each of the three sections. I spent quite a bit more time with people from Bridge Pre-O than with housemates my first week of classes because I did not anticipate the amount of reading, which tapers off after the 'intro week' of each session).</p>
<p>D took the Re-Enacting the Past or whateverit'scalled from Dan Gardner and loved hit. As a bonus, most of the class bonded together, to the point of having a class t-shirt.</p>
<p>bea, when you say 200-300 pages of reading per class, does that mean that you have (assuming the class is mwf) monday night and tuesday to do it?</p>
<p>Yes, you have Monday/Tuesday to read for your Wednesday class, Wed/Thursday to read for Friday and so on. </p>
<p>I can vouch for the high level of reading in Re-enacting the past. My roommate took that class and when they did the French Revolution she was Robespierre so she got way into it. Everyone thinks that re-enacting will be just playing the parts, but before you ever get to the actual re-enactment you have to do A LOT of prep reading and note taking. But then it will taper off and you get to do more of the fun stuff.</p>
<p>My D opted not to take a FYS and didn't miss it.</p>
<p>Cessnovember: The class I took (with dan gardner) was on tuesdays and thursdays, so for thursday night you would have tuesday night and wednesday to do thursday's reading and then the thursday night and the whole weekend to do tuesday's reading. However, factor in all the other reading for your 3-4 other classes and the space in between tuesday and thursday starts to look a little small. The first week to two weeks is a period of intense reading which involves reading the introductory "booklet" for each section, as well as the entirety (or sometimes just most of) any accompanying books (plato's republic, the analects of confucious, &c. and some portions of books that comment on the historical feel of the time you're re-enacting), IN ADDITION to researching with your group /by yourself various aspects of your characters and their viewpoints. But the rest of the class is really very fun and, because the class is very small (usually 18) and the first week is essentially a trial by fire, you bond very much with some, if not all, of your classmates. </p>
<p>One note, Gamemaster G's class (I believe) typically covers three apple slices of history, while the other only covers two. This leads to some differences in the courses that extend beyond the simple one of having two different professors. People in the other class typically spend more time on each section, since they do not have a third one to cover. However, Dan Gardner is usually very judicious in his choices of which games to pursue, choosing ones which give a great breadth of experience and gameplay to his students. Each game was very different for me (Athens was a lot of bawdy shouting and blatant partisanship, the Wanli China game involved quite a bit of underhanded secrecy as well as the experience of pandering to an emperor and his principal advisor, the trial of anne hutchinson was different in that it required participants to play a game within a game: one as members of the Boston Church, the other as a simple trial, and then experiencing the effect of the Church game upon the outcome of the trial, AS WELL as delving into the Bible - a work of literature that many students in this day and age, let alone people at an instution that is considered extremely liberal, are not as fluent in as they would have been 100 to even 50 years ago. </p>
<p>All in all, I would say to treat your FYS courses as you would any other course. Smith sometimes has a way of making you worry too much that you're going to miss out on so many things if you don't utilise one-time resources to their fullest (praxis, FYS, JYA) when really those are just opportunities open to you SHOULD those particular opportunities appeal to you. If they don't, don't do them. At any rate, there are quite a few FYS courses that do not fill up completely and then become open to students who are not first years (The most popular, such as Re-enacting, will probably never be open to those beyond first year, however).</p>
<p>D loved the Wan-Li module. Bea, what year did you take DanG's class?</p>
<p>I took "Kyoto Through the Ages" that included a trip to Japan if you passed the class.</p>
<p>Who knew... I thought I wouldn't talk so much about Japan afterwards because I didn't really love the country... but ack, 2 1/2 years later, I'm STILL talking about it!!!</p>
<p>Do the FYS if you're REALLY interested in the subject (I was only in for the trip benefit :)) or if you really want to have at least one class where everyone's in the same boat as you. Definitely a lot of handholding... I don't know... I think every professor I had in my first year held my hand.</p>
<p>well, i think the level of handholding depends on the class and its level. I took ENG 231 my first semester (American Lit before 1865), I was the only first year in the class and the prof was.....Michael Thurston (for you non-Smithies, the guy has a big brain and a big ego to go with it.). During "The Michael Thurston Show" there was no handholding whatsoever, only really, really stringent requirements. Whereas my Gov 100 class was obviously full of first years and our hands were lovingly held through the whole process.</p>
<p>I think I've written this before, but my d. was one of the last to register her first year. She was shut out of "Re-Enacting the Past", so her advisor suggested she sign up for a writing-intensive seminar "The Lover and the Courtesan" in 19th century opera. It was taught by one of Smith's most famous....and also most feared, professors. If you were to read what is said about him on "Rate My Professors", etc., you'd likely never take a course with him. Only 6 students signed up, 5 seniors and herself, and by the end of term, they were down to three. She LOVED it!!! and it was one of the best experiences she had at Smith.</p>
<p>She also signed by for the Geology course on "Natural Disasters" which, by total serendipity, was just before we went over to India to help with tsunami relief. She was an instant expert!</p>
<p>She took the French placement exam, and did so well, she decided to take Italian. I've already written what happened as a result.</p>
<p>I guess the point is that one should leave a little room for serendipity to have free rein.</p>
<p>TD: I took RtP last year, fall semester.</p>