<p>it needs to be said that there is a HUGE difference between a core curriculum and several additional requirements--between a Columbia or Chicago-style Great Books series or simply requiring each student to fulfill the Latin Honors requirements. and frankly, i think the latter is a good idea. i came to smith because of the open curriculum, but i left smith wishing that i'd made some different choices.</p>
<p>Recent Alimna...could you explain what you mean by "I came to smith because of the open curriculum, but i left smith wishing that i'd made some different choices." What changes would you have made?</p>
<p>um, i guess i just think that when you're 18 and you come to smith, you have pretty definite ideas of what it is you want and who you are. those ideas are not usually as fixed as one tends to think. and yes, an open curriculum offers lots of leeway to do something different if you want, but the chances of coming across that "something different" are harder if you spend a year or two taking ONLY or MOSTLY sociology classes. </p>
<p>i just think most 18-year-olds, myself included, don't really know what they want. (yes, even MOST people who say they hate math or hate English or hate whatever. take a class with a REALLY good teacher before you decide that, or take a class that approaches it for a different perspective.) "(and yes, some do, but they are, i think, few in number.) having SOME requirements allows for some clarification of those interests--and some balance. you could complete latin honors in the first year or two years, then you'd be free to do what you like. i wish i'd known then how important i'd find that now--or i wish someone had warned me :)</p>
<p>i would never have imagined myself pursuing an academic career when i was 18, and yes, i ultimately got the preparation i needed to do it, but gosh, do i wish i'd had to take a language!</p>