<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>