<p>Big, happy dance in my house. My d. in Italy this morning (evening there) just received word that she has been awarded a Kahn Fellowship!"</p>
<p>Congrats to your daughter!!:)</p>
<p>Well, the formal Board of Trustees vote on the new strategic plan isn't until May, so I suppose things could change. Quantitative reasoning was one of seven items the faculty wanted addressed in curricular goals and I specifically asked point-blank about breadth requirements, though not a single quantitative reasoning course per se. Per Pres. Christ, the faculty's reasoning was they didn't want students in the courses who didn't want to be there.</p>
<p>I took it for granted everyone was aware that for the past 18 months Smith has been vigorously working on a comprehensive strategic plan. Myriad alumnae, as well as students, have been involved with the process. The majority of the issues Pres Christ discusses with alumnae groups are covered on the Smith website. I find it interesting she included this statement in her web letter </p>
<p>Smith's Challenges<br>
A. Navigating the Curriculum</p>
<p>"Open curriculum, much valued by students, that provides less structure than many feel is ideal" <a href="http://www.smith.edu/planning/context.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.smith.edu/planning/context.php</a></p>
<p>TD, Pres. Christ did inform me the open curriculum was here to stay. It's a recruiting tool. You're correct, there will be no breadth requirements. . I do believe however, if not this fall, then soon, an analytical analysis course will be required. Far too many professors and alumnae (wife included) are in favor of the requirement. I believe some are confusing the analytical requirement for the dreaded M word.</p>
<p>Let me just pitch in right here:</p>
<p>An "analytical requirement" is utterly pointless in my opinion. It seems as though it would be so watered down that it would barely require anything meaningful out of anybody who wouldn't otherwise take such a class. However, it would subtract a few symbolic points for admissions. I think there would be a few "Ewwww---I hate that!" lines from prospective students [regardless of whether the response is justified].</p>
<p>Another point: I feel that if all of a sudden introducing a new requirement to an open curriculum would only add an element of dread. The analytical class will become something to be avoided, to be feared. </p>
<p>I just don't see what it would really accomplish. Please enlighten me if you think otherwise.</p>
<p>Arianne, I'd imagine that if a quantitative skills requirement were to be implemented, it'd be similar to the current writing intensive requirement. There are many classes that fulfill the requirement in almost every department (writing intensive courses include English, history, geology, and math!) and I'd hope that quantitative skills would be much of the same way. I have friends who refuse to take a class designated math now, and such courses are in computer science, logic, economics, and linguistics. There are many areas in which a math background is useful, and there are already classes that support this (an empirical methods class in the government department, for example). As long as there are many ways to fulfill the requirement, I'm all for it.</p>
<p>That said, I'm glad there seems to be some consensus as to whether or not it will be implemented now. I know that the strategic planning process is ongoing, but adding a quantatitive skills requirement immediately seemed to be a little quick.</p>
<p>Has the writing intensive requirement been in place as long as the open curriculum has been around? Or did they establish an open curriculum, and then decide to enforce a writing requirement? If it's the latter, then, yes, a quantative requirement may make sense. If it's the former, than I would advise against it --- it would seem to be a substantial change.</p>
<p>I don't know. I don't think think it will have any impact whatsoever.</p>
<p>I have no idea about which came first. But it's an open curriculum as there are no distribution requirements to fulfill - you don't have to take a certain number of years of a foreign language, this many semesters of science, etc. Instead, you can take whatever you want, with a writing requirement - and the writing requirement isn't Freshman Writing, it's whatever class you want that happens to hold the distinction (I took two writing intensive classes my first semester, audited a third, and nearly took a fourth as a sophomore). Quantitative skills, if it's implemented the way I would like it to be, would be the same. And of all the Smithies I've met as a student, I've met one who really could not find a writing intensive class, but she seemed to have a true phobia of writing.</p>
<p>Of course, there is still no quantitative skills requirement, and since it hasn't been implemented at all we don't know if it'd be grandfathered in or if older students would have to meet it.</p>
<p>I'd bet major bucks that any new requirements would apply to future Smith students, not those already enrolled. And, as Borgin says, if there were a quantitative requirement, it would not be a single class that's required but one class from a very broad menu where the bottom line was the ability to demonstrate numeric analytical thinking. It's not as if a calculus class were suddenly going to be required.</p>
<p>The underlying need is pretty much indisputable, imho. Even if you're the artistic director for non-profit, you need to be able to read budgets and recommendations and see if what is being asserted makes sense or not.</p>
<p>I think everyone should be able to write a coherent essay, analyze a budget or a public opinion survey, and change a diaper. You never know what situation you're going to be thrown into.</p>
<p>Everyone who gets into Smith took math in high school. Frankly, I don't really care a whole lot, but I think making a quantitative requirement may add a scary line to the admissions brochures. It probably won't do a whole lot of good, but then again, it probably won't do much harm (assuming that its flexible).</p>
<p>Arianne has a good point. Math phobia is more acute than any other academic fear. Smith would be less intimidating to many if it required "science" instead of "quantitative reasoning." Even those who hate to write don't have the same visceral response as those who fear math. If Smith's open curriculum is a huge draw, then this decision could cause enrollment problems. </p>
<p>Arianne is also correct in saying that admitted students must have taken math as high schoolers. (Algebra covers most math needs for ordinary adults.) Still, I agree with TD that even one semester of college math could serve Smith students well.</p>
<p>I suspect that the requirement may be a rankings/accreditation move, an answer to people like Cellardweller who devalue a Smith education because women are allowed to graduate "science illiterate." Not that quantitative reasoning is the same as science. </p>
<p>The problem with distributive requirements, even on this small scale, is the watered-down courses that go with it.</p>
<p>Currently, for Latin Honors, logic meets the math-analytic requirement. </p>
<p>Math is nice. It doesn't outweigh the case for freedom, including the freedom to make mistakes.</p>
<p>Well, whatever may end up happening, it'll probably be a well thought out decision, judging from how much time they seem to be spending on the issue.</p>
<p>I came into Smith largely because I was one of those math-phobes: my high school was very competitive and science-oriented, and while I made it into the middle-level calculus class, I HATED it. I was thrilled to be able to avoid math in college.</p>
<p>And then I took the quantitative class in my social science major, and loved it (having an amazing lab partner who ended up being one of my best friends in college certainly helped, but it was more than that). I really liked statistics, and ended up taking quanitative classes in the math and econ departments, too. I designed a minor in a quantiative field, and ended up being inducted into the national statistics honor society (i wish I could bring THAT certificate back to show my high school calc teacher!).</p>
<p>All this is to say I've become a huge advocate of a quantitative requirement. I think it's absolutely unacceptable to graduate from college without a basic numerical literacy--we don't let students get away with saying "oh I hate reading--I won't take any class that has reading or papers" and we shouldn't let them get away with saying "oh I hate math." I think this is especially true at a women's college. And, if even 1 or 2% of the students who are "forced" to take a quantitative class end up falling in love with it the way I did, I think that's worth the requirement in and of itself.</p>
<p>To paraphrase what Stacy said, without a certain minimal amount of quantitative competence, one approaches the world as if color-blind. Can you make it through? Sure. Are you missing a lot? Sure.</p>
<p>====</p>
<p>Less than 24 hours, ladies. Good night and good luck.</p>
<p>Based on Stacy's comment, it seems like things are working out under the current system. She was drawn into Smith due to the lack of a math requirement, then took a quantitative class anyway, and was happy.</p>
<p>well, things worked out FOR ME under the current system. But I shudder to think how many of my classmates missed out on the skills and intellectual stimulation and awesome professors that I got to experience, because they didn't end up taking a math class.</p>
<p>I would've thought that the Latin Honors requirement for quantitative reasoning would hve been enough to prompt students to take logic or some form of math. I guess not all the students care about that. Does anyone know how many make sure they are qualified through the distributive requrements?</p>
<p>I don't know any percentages, but I can quote a friend. "My gpa isn't high enough for latin honors, so I'm not going to bother taking a math class." Since the cutoff for latin honors is usually around a 3.7, being a junior and having a gpa lower than that serves as motivation to not bother completing the requirements.</p>
<p>One of the reasons I liked Smith was because I'd never have to take a science class - I was good at science through middle school (I had a teacher who messed up the curriculum and taught us the eighth grade material in sixth grade and I was good at it) but after my three years in high school I never wanted to take a science class again. Though I've taken a number of classes in science departments at Smith that count as math for latin honors, I'm only taking my first natural science class now, and I'm not sure if it'll even count for the latin honors distribution because it's three credits.</p>
<p>Smith seems fairly unusual with its Latin honors. Only 20 percent get Latin honors, according to the catalogue. In some places, including other LACs and even Ivy Leagues, over 50 percent get Latin Honors [I think at Harvard 90 percent get honors, at least until recently]. Is this because, unlike other schools, you are not required to complete the necessary distribution of classes? If everyone were required to complete the distribution for Latin honors, would more than 20 percent get Latin Honors due to a high GPA? Or do only 20 percent even have a 3.7 GPA?</p>
<p>I'm not sure how latin honors works exactly, but it's based on distribution and gpa. The gpa requirements change from year to year, and they are internal numbers - I said 3.7 because that seems to consistently be the low end for cum laude.</p>
<p>Here it is from the class</a> deans' web site:
[quote]
Who gets Latin Honors?
Approximately 25 percent of each graduating class may receive departmental and/or Latin Honors ( summa cum laude, magna cum laude, and cum laude ). Eligibility for Latin Honors is determined by: 1) completion of the distribution requirements for Latin Honors, taking at least one course in each of the seven major areas of knowledge (see the curriculum section of the catalogue); 2) the highest cumulative grade point averages of the graduating class, which vary from year to year and are identified by the Subcommittee on Honors and Independent Programs of the faculty's Committee on Academic Policy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that if everyone completed latin honors requirements, the same number of students would graduate with the distinction, because the GPA cutoff would be even higher.</p>