So instead of getting to work on my Homer response, I took some time to read this week's Phoenix. The cover story (which can be read here) is about Swatties taking science courses at the other schools in the Tri-College consortium. The headline is Finding a Solution: An increasing number of pre-med students travel to other schools to fulfill natural science requirements. Now, doesn't that make it sound like Swarthmore is liking in the sciences, like we don't offer the classes that pre-med students need? It does, doesn't it? Read the article. That's not the case at all. They're taking classes elsewhere because many of them feel that Swat's courses are too hard, too much work.

Key quotes:
"I didn't want to work my ass off in calculus-based physics here."
"Classes here are hella tough... I plan to do that [take science classes at Bryn Mawr] next semester. I took Orgo here and found it very difficult."
"Getting into med school is very competitive. Science courses here are to prepare you for graduate school and Ph.D. programs. My advisor encouraged me to go to another school where I could get a better grade."

I assume the last quote is referring to non-med school grad schools, otherwise this quote is just bizarre. It's still kind of odd to me -- I would think that the more information you have, the better off you'd be. And I'm trying very hard not to say anything about the use of "hella" in the second quote. But seriously, the whole idea of pre-meds taking classes elsewhere because they want to get away with doing less work makes me worry. I mean, I guess in some cases it's understandable. You probably don't need calc-based physics to be a doctor. If you're just taking the science classes because you're interested in them but aren't a major and don't have the time to devote to yet another class with an insane workload, it makes sense. But if this is a general trend for pre-meds, eep. I want my doctor to be willing to work hard and actually learn, rather than just being focused on good grades. And then there's the fact that you know, this is Swat. There's our somewhat elitist tendency to pride ourselves in the toughness of our academics (though the admissions department may be trying to soften that image, I'm not sure)

There's also the issue of the science departments not being accessible to female students and minorities. I'm not sure what to make of this... A quote: "The faculty in the chemistry department teaches in a way that many students, especially female students, find culturally insensitive." This quote confuses me some, mostly because they don't really elaborate on what they mean by that. I know female chem majors, and they seem fine with the program. Maybe there's hidden hate that I don't know about. But I'm confused how one even manages to teach chem in a culturally insensitive way. Okay, English or some humanities course, maybe even psychology... I can see how these could be presented in a very slanted way that favors a male, white perspective, etc. But chemistry? Hard facts about solutions and moles and other things that I don't even know the names of? Someone please explain this to me.

If any science majors want to let me know what they think of this article, that would be awesome. Otherwise I may have to approach you at dinner and inquire into the matter. I'm actually kind of curious about this.

Alright. Time to do some real work.