JUNIOR YEAR ABROAD

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Last Wednesday the Faculty Committee on Educational Policy turned down the Junior year foreign study program. There has apparently been no official statement of the reasons for this rejection. This is to be regretted, for the reasons given by the crimson as probable seem scarcely sufficient.

First, many faculty members feel undergraduates do not have adequate language preparation. This is to be regretted, for the reasons given by the Crimson as probable seem scarcely sufficient.

First, many faculty members feel undergraduates do not have adequate language preparation. This is difficult to apply to students wishing to study at English-speaking universities abroad. It is impossible to apply to various individual undergraduates who have an indisputably adequate language preparation in a foreign language. And it may seem a rather out-of-the-way argument to the student who wishes to go abroad in order to improve and develop his command of another language.

Second, it is felt that the College offers the best possible undergraduate training. One is compelled to admire the confidence revealed by such a statement. But a considerable act of faith is required, to accept it, when one remembers that this refers to nine major fields of study, and rejects the claims of all other universities the world over. Presumably, when one has achieved such faith, the additional consideration that it is not Harvard or another university, but merely four years at Harvard or three, will be an easy hurdle.

Third, it is felt that students are not mature enough to meet the complexities of foreign study. It is indeed a sorry reflection upon the undergraduates of the world when those who are to be treated to three years of the best possible preparation are even so unable to face one year at some second-rate university. An objection, by the undergraduate, to this accusation of incapacity would doubtless serve only to demonstrate further his immaturity.

Finally there may be difficulties in integrating the junior year abroad with the years at Harvard. Assuredly there will be. But may one not assume that a particular student, of exceptional ability and with exceptional interest, is able, with the assistance of his department, to make the necessary adjustments? Should we judge the proposal by criteria drawn from facts about the majority of students? It in fact concerns only individuals, and there is not one of the objection listed above which may not be overcome by a student of the necessary qualifications. Why then is an absolute of the necessary qualifications. Why then is an absolute denial made to him?

Harvard cannot claim to hold the four year purity program as a matter of dogma, since students are allowed to transfer from other colleges. Nor can one truly believe that Harvard has such a low opinion of foreign schools. The presence of foreign students here is admitted to be valuable; why not the presence of American students who have spent a year abroad? It is strange that in a world desperately in need of internationalism, one of the leading institutions of the most international pursuit, scholarship, should in this matter be maintaining such unbending restrictions.

It is doubtless presumptuous of the undergraduate to inquire concerning matters which touch him no more closely than his education, experience, enjoyment and career, but at least one undergraduate feels that the present situation remains slightly inadequately explained. sincerely,   Humphrey Fisher '55