Poskanzer Report: II

The Special Committee on Education in its presentation of "The Students' View" yesterday gave the College enough problems to worry over for months to come. To correct some of the educational deficiencies pointed out by the Poskanzer Committee will take ingenuity, brains, talk, and sweat.

In one area, however, the Committee possibly has called for a bit of needless fretting. "We feel," the report says, "that unless Administration is freed from its preoccupation with an incomplete program and comes to reconsider the more basic questions of personnel and of the incentives to actual learning, General Education may never become more than expensive half success."

GE will be expensive, yes. But the efforts of the Faculty to promote the new GE program seem likely to produce far more than half success. The Faculty is approaching the questions of personnel and incentives with an enlightenment that would warm the Special Committee's heart. The scheme of split-appointments for GE teachers means that they will be able to devote much time and energy to the new courses; and in general GE instructors are especially skilled in the art of teaching, as distinct from the art of research. In addition, small sections, stimulating term papers, and more constructive examinations provide educational incentive for the GE student.

But this still leaves room for pondering in the other fields of the Committee's report. The problems posed by the report may be divided roughly into four large and small categories.

First, improvement of the teaching effectiveness of lecturers, advisors, and section men. The report says that the University-College balance is partially at fault, the faculty members have to devote too much time to their specialty and not enough to the undergraduates. If this is correct, perhaps the Administration could insist that all Faculty members devote more of their working hours to the College, as GE instructors already do. Perhaps also the Administration should consider a man's ability to teach as well as to publish when it makes promotions and appointments. And if Faculty members would read the Poskanzer Report and consider the great desire of undergraduates to receive more stimulation from the front of the room, perhaps more incendiary teaching methods would result without administrative intervention.

Second, giving of examinations that "probe for knowledge, not . . . pry for lack of it." The report commends GE instructors who announce a list of key problems to be thought over before the examination. Although this method would not work in all fields, some courses could make use of it as soon as this June as a first step toward a more constructive system of studying and grading.

Third, building up the Houses as centers for the interaction of ideas. House committees and masters might begin to set up the suggested "bull and beer" discussion groups this Spring as a starter. Locating tutorial and certain classes in the Houses seems worthwhile, but it will take longer to put into effect.

Fourth, the return of more comprehensive tutorial. While Dean Bender's committee thrashes out problems related to tutorial and advising, individual departments could be thinking up possible ways to give at least group tutorial to all non-freshmen concentrators.

None but the last of these suggestions would seriously cut into House or Faculty budgets. And they would start the College on its way toward a day when "The Students' View" of, let us say, "Harvard Education 1953" would be a much brighter view.