<p>Carolyn – I’m not sure I would say lacking because it’s a different style of pedagogy. They may have set their department up this way on purpose.</p>
<p>But Wellesley’s department (and the one I graduated one) has survey courses for every period in British and American. Smith’s seemed sketchier, with perhaps one survey course in each in the early periods (which in American is up to 1865. Smith’s program also didn’t seem to have courses in all major writers, like Milton and Chaucer.</p>
<p>My D graduated from Barnard and they had the survey courses, but I’m not sure they had the courses in Milton and Chaucer. Their department is very theory heavy.</p>
<p>Smith’s department is very “thematic”. So is the department my son studies in at Williams.</p>
<p>So, pedagogy seems to be changing. Wellesley’s department seemed to emphasis nuts and bolt, Smith’s exploration.</p>
<p>Now this was a very quick glance and I mean no disrespect to anyone.</p>
<p>I have already by told my a CC poster (who attended Harvard) that I am a stickler in this area. My state u had a more structured program than Harvard. I think the basics are fabulous for PhD’s, less so for everyone else.</p>
<p>And please take what I say with a grain of salt. I thought I’d just do a little poking beyond the issue of “fit”. Different schools do have different pedagogy, and it isn’t always consistent from department to department.</p>
<p>For example, Barnard’s pedagogy is very much organized around having to do a senior thesis. That really changes the course line-up in junior and senior years a bit. But this isn’t completely consistent across departments.</p>
<p>Mythmom, my understanding from my daughter is they have all three biggies, Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton, and they are supposed to take two of the three, so I don’t know how you missed those offerings in the online catalog. She’s planning on Chaucer and Shakespeare as she’s already had a reasonable exposure to Milton and she’s not entirely wild in having more. I took all three and loved them all. I agree with you, if Smith were missing one of them, the department would seem sketchy.</p>
<p>Would you have broken the British and American survey lit courses into smaller time periods for more detail? I think they have two for each.</p>
<p>So sorry Carolyn. Hope my disclaimers covered it. I think it is a real difference in style about what the two departments are out to teach. I took all three and loved all three also. S loves Paradise Lost, but he’s a Classicist so he’s predisposed to epics. Don’t think he’s read much Chaucer, though, but he’s not an English major.</p>
<p>And that is a very good requirement. I think I was required to take all three, but it was so long ago. Americanists, of course, don’t necessarily have to.</p>
<p>My D majored in American Studies to avoid all the theory and requirements of English, and made up her own concentration, Literature and Law. She had to take four American Lit surveys. Barnard parses things into these small historical packages. </p>
<p>Well, the Smith English Department looked vibrant and a lot of fun.</p>
<p>My S took the course on Ulysses because his classics background was very helpful there.</p>
<p>Maybe I’m missing something, but I do think Smith has survey courses in all the major periods. Yes, the American one is American lit up to 1865 (I took this, it’s a very good survey of colonial, early republic, and then 19th century literature), then 1865-1914, then I think just a general American literature. But in English they do, as far as I know, have literature survey courses, as well as the Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton that others mentioned. </p>
<p>If you’re looking just at the course catalog, you’re probably confused because the course catalog will only show the classes offered during the upcoming semester. Not all survey courses are offered every semester because they’re intended to be taken sequentially. You’d need to look at the English Department web page and go to course offerings to see the full range of courses.</p>
<p>Well, that makes sense, but a good survey system goes up to contemporary literature, not just 1914 and then general American literature. The same would be true for British literature. Perhaps that’s what I noticed. No matter. I’ve already indicated that different schools have different pedagogy on purpose.</p>
<p>I am devoted to Barnard, my D’s school, but if I ruled the world I would definitely tweak their English program, for which they are duly noted. Their first year seminars are spotty – some excellent, some not.</p>
<p>I think even things we love dearly and deeply can have flaws, not to suggest that Smith’s English Dept. is flawed. And if not flawed that somewhat different than we would wish. I have run into these feelings with Williams, my son’s school too.</p>
<p>However, I am happy to concede that I was mistaken in every aspect in perusing the catalogue so hurriedly.</p>
<p>I should have left my advice to the OP to peruse the catalogues side by side and decide for herself. I will in future.</p>
<p>I am not trying to belabor this and have already made apologies. I was trying to help the OP. I have nothing against Smith’s English Dept. which I am sure is excellent.</p>
<p>The surveys do go up to Contemporary literature (the last of the survey courses). Sorry if I gave the impression that wasn’t so. I also don’t want to belabor the point, I just know how many students can look at CC and make the mistake that it’s gospel, so tweaking where possible can be good. </p>
<p>I’m sure there probably are flaws in the Smith English department, I just don’t know that lack of survey courses is one of them, that’s all I wanted to point out about it.</p>
<p>My experiences with faculty in the Smith English department have been nothing but positive. Though I have not taken classes specifically within that department, two of the three professors at the helm of my American Studies course teach English, as did the professor for Reacting to the Past, Bill Oram. He, in fact, is particularly renowned at Smith for his course on Shakespeare, and it always has a long waiting list. </p>
<p>I would say that all of these professors are very serious scholars and very well-respected in their field. Visit their offices and you’ll see rows of well-loved books from all parts of English literature, as well as many books they have written themselves. Their presentation of material in the classroom has always been engaging and they seem to reflect a department that thrives on intelligent discourse between professors and students. You’re not going to be slouching in the back of the classroom and doodling here. They expect and demand active participation and thorough, critical readings of material. In return, they give you profound insight into whatever you happen to be studying today. Also, some of them are downright hilarious (Michael Thurston is brilliantly funny). </p>
<p>Now, I know that sounded kind of vague, but as I’m reviewing physics it is the best I can do.</p>
<p>I have the utmost respect for Wellesley and almost went there, only to change my mind at the last minute (and I mean the last minute), but obviously my experiences there are even more limited than with the Smith English department. I’m sure their professors are equally as impressive, but they have neither Bill Oram nor Michael Thurston nor the brilliant Floyd Cheung, and for that I have to vote for Smith. :D</p>
<p>“Well, that makes sense, but a good survey system goes up to contemporary literature, not just 1914 and then general American literature. The same would be true for British literature. Perhaps that’s what I noticed. No matter. I’ve already indicated that different schools have different pedagogy on purpose.”</p>
<p>When I took my Oxford degree, English literature stopped at 1792. (But “modern history” stopped at 1689, with the “Glorious Revolution”.) Of course now, much of the finest English literature is not written in England (or the U.S.) at all, but in India, Africa, Trinidad, Jamaica (places where, ironically, education is more particular about teaching the “English classics”.)</p>
<p>I imagine that if I were a Smithie, I’d try to take Milton with my old college mate Eric Reeves, not because of Milton, and not because of Eric’s teaching, but because of the extraordinary human being he has turned out to be.</p>
<p>Mythmom: your comparison of the two English departments is intriguing, even if it’s somewhat incomplete. I don’t doubt for a moment that Wellesley’s pedagogy is more traditional/conservative than Smith’s, simply because I think the same can be said for the colleges themselves. Students would be well-advised to look at both the course catalogue and the departmental pages to get a sense of how the majors are trained, although, again, you can’t tell everything from an online perusal.</p>
Thanks!</p>