Any alum or current students want to comment on Barnard’s curricular changes set for class of 2020? Good or bad?
http://columbiaspectator.com/news/2015/04/09/barnard-curricular-review-committee-recommends-10-foundation-courses-six-modes
Talked with my D about this (she graduated from Barnard in 2009). She had mixed feelings about it. For example, the reduction of two lab requirements to one–she said she always thought Barnard was “set apart” (in a good way) form other LA colleges by requiring two labs. She also said that in her experience as a Neuroscience major, she never had difficulty with the Nine Ways and satisfying her requirements.
Graduated in 2012. I am also upset about the change in requirements. I agree with churchmusicmom that Barnard stood out to me because it seemed to promote both liberal arts and science. Scientific reasoning and a basic understanding of science is fundamental to understanding the world. It saddens me that Barnard decided to get rid of the 1 year lab requirement. I was also a Neuroscience major, pre-med, and studied abroad.
My D’s GPA would be a lot higher if not for that 1 year lab requirement- she’s not a sciency science girl but she enjoyed those astronomy classes in spite of the grades. I don’t know if she’s aware of the change- we haven’t discussed it.
My daughter also took astronomy for her lab science. She would never have taken a lab science if it were not required, but she found the course fascinating and remarked to me at one point that it was the only class she had that year where she was learning anything new. Didn’t hurt her GPA – she had an A for fall, opted for Pass/Fail for spring semester. I asked her why she would go for P when she had already proven she could get an A, and she said she had a very heavy courseload that semester and thought she would enjoy the class more without the added pressure of worrying about the trade.
DD was not at all pleased to learn about the changes at Barnard – I think she has always taken pride in the rigor of Barnard’s curriculum.
In hindsight it is very good that my math-phobic daughter was required to take a math-type course to graduate. She opted for a basic stats course in Columbia – and she did take that for a grade, because she thought it would look bad on her transcript for grad schools if she seemed to be opting out of a grade on a core math course like that. Miraculously she managed an A.
Now she’s in grad school, with a program that requires a stats course of everyone – but guess what? She was able to waive out of the grad school requirement based on her undergraduate course. Given that she’s now paying out of pocket by the unit… I think she’s very grateful for that requirement, as much as she detested the stats course at the time.
As rising senior whose first choice is Barnard, I’m disappointed. I wouldn’t be applying if I didn’t want a rigorous education, and I’m concerned that these changes reflect relaxing standards.
Magdelena, I’m sure you can still get a rigorous education at Barnard based on the choices you make. If you are a humanities major, you can still opt to take a year of lab science and a core math course, even if no longer absolutely required. On the other hand, if you are a STEM major – well, I don’ think 9 ways of knowing added rigor for those students – for them, it’s been more of a matter of adding breadth. But I think you should keep Barnard on your list-- just make a point of challenging yourself and thinking beyond the undergrad degree while you are there.
What I mean about thinking beyond is that I doubt my daughter would have taken that stats course if it hadn’t been required --but it proved worthwhile, not just because she waived out of stats in her grad program, but also because I know that it is something that is looked for in the process of admissions to that type of program.
I think there are some students who are highly motivated and are thinking about double or triple majors – and they are going to challenge themselves no matter what. And given how competitive Barnard has become, I think that the bulk of students who get in these days are going to fit that profile.
@calmom - sorry, I worded my post poorly. It’s not that I’m directly concerned about having fewer requirements, so much as that I’m concerned about how it reflects on the rest of Barnard. I attend what is considered a fairly “elite” boarding school, which was once known for the difficulty of its history program, but the standards of aforementioned program have fallen considerably, and has become much more social studies than history, in my opinion. There is a similar trend nationwide, as far as I’ve seen, so I’m worried that this might be indicative of a similar shift at Barnard. I acknowledge, however, that it’s not anything like conclusive proof to that effect. I still applied ED, and I still believe that Barnard is a great school, I just hope that it won’t disappoint me in the same way my high school did.
Also, to be fair, I still love my high school and still think it was a relatively rigorous education, just not as rigorous as it could have been.
(Also, sorry I sent this reply so late. I completely forgot about it until today, when I was talking with a friend about this subject and I remembered this thread.)
Magdalena - I don’t understand your reasoning at all. As far as how this change “reflects” on Barnard, I’d only observe that Brown doesn’t have a Core; Harvard’s Gen Ed requirements are far less onerous and are being further relaxed; and Penn and Dartmouth have far less demanding “core” programs. And that only covers other Ivy Group institutions.
I think you are hung up about the term “elite” and mistaken core requirements for the rigour of an academic program. If you are worried about Core, I suggest you apply to Columbia or University of Chicago. You will feel more at home with their more inflexible approach.