2

ad



Wednesday, May 15, 1957



THE COLLEGE NEWS

FOUNDED IN 1914 ;

Published weekly during the College Year (except during

Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter holidays, and during examina-

tion weeks) in the interest of Bryn Mawr College at the Ardmore
Printing Company, Ardmore, Pa., and Bryn Mawr College.

The College News is fully protected by copyright. Nothing that appears |

in it may be reprinted wholly or in part without permission of the Editor-in-Chief.

EDITORIAL BOARD



Anna Kisselgoff, ‘58

EAMES Se airman Net? Debby Ham, ‘59
Managing Editor ..........ss0sseeeeeeerreeereeseetes Rita Rubinstein, ‘59
Make-up Editor ...........ssseereeererestreeseereees Eleanor Winsor, ‘59
Member-at-Large ......---ssee decor cress eererrereseeeeeee Patty Page, 58

EDITORIAL STAFF
Miriam Beames, ‘59; Barbara Broome, ‘60; Sue Goodman, ‘60; Betsy Gott, 58;
Sue Harris, ‘60; Gretchen Jessup, ‘58; Elizabeth Rennolds, ‘59; Sue Schapiro, ‘60
(music reporter); Dodie Stimpson, ‘58; Jana Varlejs, ‘60; Helene Valabregue, ‘58.
2 BUSINESS STAFF
Elizabeth Cox, ‘60; Judy Davis, ‘59; Ruth Levin, ‘59; Emily Meyer, ‘60.

COPY STAFF
Margaret Hall, ‘59

Staff Photographer Ae ae bie sea cht s Chee e ORES TULA EROEE Holly Miller, 3
Shall Arte ciccccccsivcccccccccscccccescressomessevers Ann Morris, ‘57
Business Manager ......--.- sce ce eee eeeeecereeeeeneeeees Jane Lewis, ‘59
Associate Business Manager ........--+seeeereeseeecererees Jane Levy, ‘59

‘Kiev Effie Ambler, ‘58
Barbara Christy, ‘59; Kate
Ruth

Subcription Manager .........-+-+sssserssereesees
Subscription Board: Judith Beck, ‘59; Pat Cain, ‘59; ;
Collins, ‘59; Elise Cummings, ‘59; Sue Flory, ‘59; Faith Kessel, ‘59;

Simpson, ‘59; Lucy Wales, ‘59; Sally Wise, 157,

$4.00. Subscription may begin at any time.

i 50. Maili rice,
pest: ee Pet
Entered as second class matter at the Ardmore,
of March 3, 1879.



Finis

All things says Aristotle, have a beginning, a middle
and an end. To this belief we firmly subscribe, for no mat-
ter how our feelings may vary concerning the beginning
and the middle we are sure to unite in welcoming the end.
For one moment, however, let us raise the limp, dragging
tai] of our days and before oblivion comes, let us again ad-
dress a few words to you, our reading public, wiose- ments and marriages we publish. “What could we desire more
than the knowledge that you include us on your list of leisure
reading, that we rank with your-smattering of correct auth-
ors, Joyce, Proust, ancient philosophy and the minor plays
of Shakespeare? ! oo

Those who believe in the cyclic theory of history may
maintain that no year is different from its predecessors, but
we uphold this year as significant. Twice defeated in open
contest, we have seen Eisenhower and the hygiene exam
triumph over our protest by crushing majorities. But we
have seen autonomy prevail, and the orals crumble and fall.
We have stood squarely before T. S. Eliot, the Maypole, Arts
Council, Legislature, The Vassar Study, the Kelpy, the Bryn
Mawr-Haverford Revue, “Vita” and “Strife”. We have cross-
ed our own millponds, and emerged always with faithful re-
viewing, biased coverage, and vehement editorial opinion.

Looking toward the future, we face expansion westward,
toward Faculty Row where science buildings will soon be
mushrooming up over the decayed tennis courts. Ultimate-
ly, after much discussion, these will be followed by the long-
awaited new dormitory. In view of this fact, we wish to
state or to restate an advisory suggestion which some time
ago we printed, a combination of practicality, economy, orig-
inality and art. , ‘

When at last the new dormitory appears, we firmly hope
that it will not appear at all, but will be built underground.
The advantages of such a proposition are self-evident: nat-
ural soil heat to be used instead of costly artificial heat, nat-
ural sources of ground water simply to be tapped instead of
being pumped up from the ground, ready made walls, and
the avoidance of any blemish on the rolling green landscape.
As evidence of its convenience and utility we also predict that
the new dormitory will soon be dubbed by students “The
Hole”. .
Construction work on The Hole might begin in October,
and will surely be greeted with enthusiasm by students and
faculty alike, for the actual excavating should not be restrict-
ed to practice work for geologists and archeologists but
should be ipso facto open to all. Why build fireplaces when
such glorious work is waiting? With new vigor we shall
undertake the task; O, ladies of Bryn Mawr, this is the chal-
lenge. Let us rise, let us dig; let us descend!

oe Why We Did Not Publish
| his Year

o























In tle past it has been the custom of the College
to print the Cum Laude list for the first semester. This year




the list was deliberately not published, and there were almost
~ ‘no complaints’ or-demands-or,-indeed; “any inquiries at all.
‘Those who noticed mostly offered their congratulations.

Public declaration of merit, whether desirable or not, is,

‘at any rate, superfluous at Bryn Mawr where each student is
srivately responsible for the quality of her own work. As
often said, the emphasis is on the individual’s fulfillment of
‘her own scholarship capacities rather than on her achieve-
ion is out of keeping with Bryn Mawr’s





beats

News

by Nancy Dyer

On the 26th and 27th of April,
Bryn Mawr attended the annual
Seven College Conference held this
year at Barnard. The purpose of
this conference was to provide a
chance for representatives of the
Student Government organizations
from Barnard, Bryn Mawr, Mt.'
Holyoke, Radcliffe, Wellesley, Vas-
sar, and Smith to meet together
and discuss current campus prob-
lems. This' year Sarah Lawrence
was invited as the guest partici-
pant.

In general, the Conference was
divided into two panels, one for
Student Government and the other
Curriculum Committee discussion,
though there was a great deal of
outside exchange between the two
groups. Dodie Stimpson, Joan
Parker, and I sat in on the dis-
cussions on Student Government.
All of us found that. the most in-
teresting and perhaps reassuring
thing about meeting with other
colleges on this subject was to see
that they were concerned with
many of the same problems which
have our own Undergrad Council
scratching its head.

The agenda began with Fresh-
man Week. All the colleges had
some sort of freshman orientation
period; the main differences seem-
ed to be in its organization and
policy. Sarah Lawrence, for ex-
ample, pointed out that they did
not have a specific Freshman Week
Committee, but that the whole Col-
lege arrived back before the Fresh-
men in order to help them get to
know the ropes. All of us agreed
that it was difficult to provide an
academic atmosphere during this
time. But was this necessary?
Vassar definitely felt that it was,
and had started an academic panel
composed of faculty members and
students to give the freshmen a
kind of preview of coming events.
Radcliffe’s. Committee had been
specifically told .not. to discuss
courses, so that an upperclassman’s
personal prejudice would not bias
a freshman’s choice.

Another interesting difference in
the policy of another college was:
brought up by Mt. Holyoke. Here
the emphasis was on having each
freshman make out her own aca-
demic schedule rather than having
an interview with the Dean. This
would mean less work for the
Dean, but it would also curtail per-

)



sonal connection and consultation

7 College Conference Discusses
Honor Systems; treshman Week

with the Administration.

Another item on the agenda con-
cerned all-college assemblies. Smith
and Mt. Holyoke had weekly meet-
ings which were required and fined
for the whole student body. Both
colleges brought out that the gen-
eral campus feeling towards these
meetings was favorable, as_ they
provided a chance for the whole
College to be together and created
a more unified college spirit. Bryn
Mawr, Vassar, Radcliffe, and- Well-
esley were among those who did
not have required ‘assemblies,

In the discussion about campus
newpapers, it was brought out that
Bryn Mawr was one of three col-
leges where the newspaper was
self-supporting and not subsidized
by an undergraduate treasury fund.

On Saturday morning, as a pre-
face to the discussion of the honor
system, each college gave a brief
outline of the structure of its
campus organizations. This involv-
ed a rather lengthy explanation
from Bryn Mawr, since our six-
headed phenomenon of Self Gov,
Undergrad, Alliance, A.A., Léague,
and Interfaith se ite unique.

ent@d.q
Most other colleges hd
structure, with a’ single organiza-

a pyramid
tion, such as College Government
at Vassar, at the top.

The distussion about the “incr,
system was cursory and somewhat
difficult to-report,

Sarah Lawrence felt that an
honor system was “a very compli-
cated way of making life easier.”
Vassar did not feel that they could
require a student to be responsible
for anyone’s honor except her own,
and therefore called the system
“personal responsibility.” On the
other hand, Smith felt it was neces-
sary. to try and enforce double re-
porting for infringements.

Naturally it would be impossible
to~reach any conclusions as to the
best Freshman Week or the best
Honor System in any of these dis-
cussions. Many of the differences
between the policy and structures
of Student Governments could be
explained because of the differences
in size and location of the various
colleges. Barnard is in the city,
Bryn Mawr is in the suburbs. Smith
has 2,200 students, Bryn Mawr has
under 800. But as it has been said
before, great value can be gained
from an exchange of ideas. This
naturally stimulates a critical re-
evaluation of one’s own system, a
good way to keep a Student Gov-
ernment working effectively.



Faculty

Continued from Page 1

Philosophy, 4 Political Science, 4
Biology, 3 Psychology, 3 Econo-
mics, 3 in French, 2 each in Math,
Latin, and Geology, and 1 each in
Anthropology and Classical Arch-
eology. 9 Freshmen were undecided.

As for the Faculty and their
response to the special question-
naire we asked them to fill out, we
feel that their own words can
best best communicate their idea
of the characteristics the well-edu-
cated Bryn Mawr graduate should
possess, as well as a few caustic
remarks on what the Bryn Mawr-
tyr “as is” is at her worst.

One -professor wrote: “She

jabould_speex and write well; be
able to think for herself;.be com-
pletely at home in any library,-art
museum, theatre, opera, etc.; have
1 social conscience which expresses
itself in active participation in
agencies for human betterment; be
without intellectual pride and snob-
bery so that ‘one’s learning is worn
like under-garments, decently con-
cealed’,”

Another listed the characteristics
as “1—Ability to read intelligently,
2—Ability to recognize a logical
argument, 3—Some background in
history of thought.”

Or again, “I couldn’t be helpfully



the publication of a Cum



Feels Bryn Mawrters Possess
‘A Veneer of Culture,’ ‘Sanitary Beauty’

definition, but she should, I think,
without being a Bloomer girl, have
along with the information and
habits of mind that the well-edu-
cated male is assumed to have,
some sense of the difficulties ahead
for the Educated Woman, some
sense of the difficulties of choice
(marriage vs. career and all the
variations of this theme) and a
strong sense of irony by which she
can be sustained as she learns that
the Problenr is insoluble but man-
ageable.”

A professor who felt he could
not describe the ideal Bryn Mawr
graduate wrote the following on
“as she is,” a superficial veneer of
culture, composed of a smattering
of paint drops from the ‘correct’

| writers:—A.little Joyce, some Pro-

ust, a dash of archeology, a smat-
tering of philosophy (all from the
past), lots of Shakespeare (in
cluding the minor plays, though
God knows why), some obscure 17th
Century English writers ,and some
20th Century ones who will be
obscure shortly; social poise; a
sanitary beauty; a snobbish feeling
of superiority.” eri

Another “as is-er” wrote, “sub-
missive, fairly knowledgeable, prey
to emotions, security-minded, so-
cial-pressured, wary, little self-con-







brief in working out



an eligible

eee

‘UTsctussron-



7 Colleges Confer
On Their Curricula
Report on the Curriculum Com-

mittee of The Seven College Con-
ference, April 26 and 27, 1957.

by Martha Bridge

The Curriculum Committee meet-
ings, a new feature added this year
to the annual Seven College Con-
ference, proved to be a lively and
valuable forum on educational pro-
blems, particularly those which
apply to the women’s colleges rep-
resented, Both the Friday and Sat-
urday meetings, planned and chair-
ed by Barnard’s student curriculum
committee chairman, began with
keynote addresses given by faculty
members; in both eases, these stim-
ulating talks tended to focus the
discussion upon points which one
might not have predicted to arise
from the formal agenda. :

Professor Ursula Nieburh, of the
Barnard Faculty in Philosophy of
Religion, addressed the opening ses-
sion, which was devoted to consid-
eration of traditional higher edu-
cation. Professor Nieburh, who has
studied and taught both in this
country and in British universities,
pointed out the opposing concepts
of education for practical purposes
and education for the “sheer intoxi-
cation” of learning. Mrs. Nieburh
firmly advocated a return to this
“hedonistic” view of education, and
came out strong for more independ-
ent work and opportunity for ex-
ploration of the delights of learn-
ing. Her colorful talk sparked a

American colleges, with the usual ©
requirements and major work plan.
The main questions raised were 1)
whether the purpose of college was
to prepare the student for some
further work, and therefore the -
college had to demand that certain
minimal skills and information be
acquired, or 2) whether the purpose
was not rather to allow the student
to explore the “rich. fare” of the
college curriculum and-find the im-
petus to study through whatever
particular field he or she happened
to enjoy. These general questions
rapidly settled into more concrete
ones, and the evening was spent
in a rather careful consideration of
requirements and free electives,
major work and general back-
ground education, and the value
of independent work on the under-
graduate level.

There was considerable difference
of opinion on the issue of require-
ments, both among colleges and
between -representatives of the
same college. There were those who
bewailed their own _ institutions’
rigid requirements (chief bone of
contention was the science require-
ment) which one delegate char-
acterized as “forced dabbling.” The
delegate from Sarah Lawrence,
guest at this year’s conference,
explained that the fundamental
purpose. of requirements, that of
achieving reasonable balance in the
program, was effected at Sarah
Lawrence through the important
role played by the student’s advisor.
After much discussion, even the
most ardent opponents of require-
ments were forced to concede that —
they served some purpose as guid-
ing introductions to varied fields.

It is pénhaps interesting to note
here that the Bryn Mawr delega-
tion found itself explaining with
great enthusiasm the Bryn Mawr
philosophy of requirements. Many
of the other schools, we found, ap-
proached requirements through the
“taste” method, giving rise to the
kind of survey courses which the
Bryn Mawr curriculum assiduously
avoids. Delegates from other col-
leges expressed admiration for the
idea that a requirement serves to
project the student into the think-.
ing and working methods of the
subject.

Bryn Mawr also appeared to be
unique in the amount of respon-
sibility generally placed upon the
student in her outside-of-class
work, and only Radcliffe, with its
‘tutorial and honors program, seem-
ed to have the same sort of
arrangement as our Comprehensive
Conferences and honors. (In the
field of honors work, by the way,







fidence, hard working, depressed.”

¥

} i



.

GUERIN