BRYN MAWR COLLEGE

Two-college cooperation objectives
The central objective of this plan is the strengthening of the academic programs offered at Bryn Mawr and Haverford Colleges so as to provide greater diversity of intellectual pursuits while also maintaining the distinctiveness and enhancing the excellence of each college.

Increased educational diversity and enrichment can be achieved in the face of difficult fiscal realities through the sharing of educational resources. Planned cooperation will permit each college not only to broaden its programs, but also to maintain common traditional strengths based in such factors as small size, close student-faculty relationships, high academic standards for both students and faculty, and student and faculty responsibilities for self-government. In addition, it will permit each college to maintain its distinctive traditional strengths: Haverford's tradition of Quakerism in its decision-making and community affairs and its dedication to undergraduate education exclusively; Bryn Mawr's traditional role in the education of women and its commitment to both graduate and undergraduate education.

It is essential to strengthen each college's position in the competition for highly-qualified students. Both colleges face major problems in admissions because of the projected shrinkage of traditional applicant pools and increased competition from other colleges and universities. It is hoped that cooperative recruiting efforts will strengthen and enlarge the applicant pools of both colleges and will help to mitigate these admissions problems. Furthermore, the two colleges seek through this plan a stronger educational program, with the advantages of a small college and the academic resources of a much larger one, that will be more attractive to students and will make intellectual life more attractive to scholar-teachers than programs achieved by either college on its own or by merging the two into one institution. It is proposed to develop more fully the potential of the two colleges to generate a novel and exciting educational-social environment which could achieve a viable alternative to conventional coeducation. It is recognized that in the future it may become necessary, in the interests of both colleges, to change admissions policy. The cooperative plan is viewed not only as an end in itself, for the strengthening of academic programs, but, once it becomes truly functional, as a means of paving the way with a minimum of disruption to any change in admissions policy which may become necessary at either or both colleges.

Agreement
As part of the new institutional relationship, the two colleges agree to full consultation with each other at all appropriate faculty, student, and administrative levels before any decision is made concerning policies which will have a significant effect on the other college. Such policies will include, but not be limited to, standards and policies of admission, major curriculum changes and staffing decisions. Consultations should seek agreement and not mere notification. However, each institution will retain the authority to make its own final decisions as neither institution seeks veto power over the decisions of the other. Each reviewing or deciding body will be required to request a statement from the appropriate body at the other college giving its advice and recommendation before any action may be taken.
Back to the top.

Academic plan of cooperation
The academic plan involves the development and coordination of three different types of programs.

1. Non-counterpart Programs
   Each college will continue to have some majors and programs that do not exist at the other and, through joint planning, will seek an equitable balance of such programs. These majors and programs will be open equally to students of both colleges.
2. New Federated Programs
   New, bi-college majors or programs when developed, will be staffed with faculty of both colleges and administered by a single Chairperson elected by the joint faculty of that program (for three years). Again, these programs will be open equally to students of both colleges.
3. Counterpart Programs
   Cooperation at the level of counterpart departments aims at strengthening and enriching the major at each college by broadening the range of coverage of the discipline; eliminating unnecessary duplication of effort; and increasing diversity of approach to the subject matter.

Because of differences in the nature of the subject matter in the various major-areas of study and in the current composition of counterpart departments, no single model of cooperation is likely to be appropriate for all departments. Therefore, several approaches to joint planning are presented, among which departments may choose. One approach is for counterpart departments to reduce nonessential overlap in areas of specialization of the faculties and course offerings and for each department to offer courses for major credit in areas not offered in the other department. Under this scheme, counterpart departments may choose to develop either a single major in the subject matter or two different majors. In either case, a primary outcome is that the program of the major(s) will have become broader in scope, providing greater diversity of coverage to each student majoring at each college. A second approach is to maximize the distinctiveness of two, less interactive departments. Under this scheme, diversity would be provided in the choice by the individual student between two (necessarily) narrower, but self-contained majors which contrast (by design) either in philosophy of approach to the subject matter or in the content emphasized in each major. Still a third approach is for counterpart departments with essentially self-contained majors to concentrate on increasing efficiency in the use of faculty time. As many courses as possible would be shared by the faculties of the two departments (i.e., given alternately, as opposed to simultaneously, on the two campuses or, in cases such as senior conference, parts of a single course given by Bryn Mawr faculty and parts by Haverford faculty). This would afford individual faculty of both departments greater freedom to pursue special academic interests which could serve to enrich the majors. Other approaches, or combinations of those described here, are possible, but in each instance the final design of the major(s) must be directed to meeting the goals outlined in the preceding paragraph.

These programs will be open equally to students of both colleges as outlined in the section on implementation.

General college distribution requirements will be those of the college at which the student is matriculated. With respect to specific major requirements, departments are free to set those prerequisites they deem essential to the major and which may not be met by the general distribution requirements of the other college.

The student's major plan will be developed with an advisor from the department within which the student majors.

Students majoring at the opposite campus will have this noted on their transcripts and diplomas.
Back to the top.

Guidelines for Joint Departments, February 1988