<p>Hi Guys,
So I have been accepted into LSP.
I have read so many posts about the pros and cons about the program
Honestly, I don't really care that I was put into the program either because my GPA or SAT was not high enough or whatever </p>
<p>All I really want to know is the quality of the classes in LSP; are they interesting; do we get to LEARN for learning's sake? </p>
<p>THANKS!</p>
<p>Teaching is what teachers do - and teachers need students.</p>
<p>Learning is what students do - and they don’t necessarily need teachers.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, a good teacher is a gem. But the real responsibility for learning is yours - if you apply yourself, you’ll take what any teacher can offer, and thrive.</p>
<p>LSP classes are taught by the faculty of CAS, so you get the same quality of teaching as everyone else. Some professors are “adjunct lecturers” so they teach at other colleges as well.</p>
<p>It’s Liberal Arts, so not pre-professional at all. I guess they’re about learning for learning’s sake, since you can’t apply your in-depth reading of Dante’s Inferno to real world situations. 
</p>
<p>CT2010 is right, whether you’re learning for learning’s sake really depends on YOU, the individual. I just finished 1 year of Cultural Foundations and found I despised it. I was assigned ridiculous amounts of uninteresting reading which were never discussed in class, and weren’t even on the final exam (avoid Prof Jurich).
Social Foundations, on the other hand, I found enjoyable. They’re sort of a mix of Philosophy and History, you read interesting works by John Locke, Machiavelli, Thomas More, etc, (take Prof Wilson). </p>
<p>It all comes down to what you personally like; even if your Prof sucks, you’ll thrive if you like the class and readings. In CF, I was uninterested and unmotivated, I hated it. I thrived in the classes I genuinely enjoyed and worked hard in. Don’t worry, most of them are very easy to do well in.</p>