Reject The Core

IN NINE DAYS the Faculty of Arts and Sciences will vote on the much-publicized Core Curriculum program. The outcome of that vote will determine the basic shape of the "Harvard education" for years to come, just as the General Education proposal did after its institution in the '40s. While it is true that the new proposal will not affect the educations of anyone now in the College, students should realize that the Core will affect the Class of '83--and many subsequent classes. The fact that the Core will not affect us does not mean current undergraduates should ignore this important issue.

For many reasons, the Core proposal, as it will be presented to the Faculty, is unacceptable. The five subcommittees Dean Rosovsky appointed last year have created a plan that would adversely, if indirectly, affect America's higher education system. In considering this important step, both faculty and students should bear in mind the considerable weight Harvard carries in social and academic circles, and tread carefully. While the Gen Ed system certainly merits revamping, the current Core proposal is not the answer.

The Core in fact represents a disturbing move away from the traditional, cherished concept of a "liberal education;" the proposal's rigid requirements simply do not allow students enough freedom to gain what they see as a balanced education.

One of the more unfortunate aspects of the Core proposal is the method by which it is being discussed and adopted. Harvard's administrators like to function in quiet, low-profile fashion, tinkering with the system but largely failing to consult the students--whom their plans will affect. True to form, the Core proposal has arrived with a minimum of student input. It is strangely presumptuous--almost insulting--to ask undergraduates to buy the idea that only a small number of Faculty members know enough about Harvard's problems to be able to suggest a replacement for the current system. The Faculty should instead consult their student body--which has, after all, an equally important stake in the new program.

The Faculty Council's rejection last week of an Educational Resources Group (ERG) proposal to allow student representation on the Core committees bears an arrogant and unconcerned tone that many students find all too typical. The council will vote again on ERG's proposal today, and we urge it to vote differently this time. Failing that it seems that only a strong expression of student disappointment over being left out of the Core process, and over the contents of the Core itself, will be the only student recourse. Unfortunately, given the general tone of apathy on campus today, such a development is hardly likely.

When the first sketchy outlines of what has become a very intricate set of proposals came to light last year, most students and Faculty members believed only five new areas of general education would be established, to replace the three existing areas. However, the Core report recommends a much more rigid program with ten specific areas in all. This is unacceptable: although we recognize the inevitability of some type of Gen Ed revisions, ten areas constitute an unnecessarily excessive infringement on students' freedom of choice. Indeed, most members of the Harvard community were prepared to accept the verdict of the Faculty subcommittees. In light of the unexpectedly stringent requirements, however, many must now reconsider whether or not the Faculty is going too far. The idea of some required courses in a loose framework, as embodied by the Gen Ed principle, is desirable. But in terms of the degree of curtailment of students' choice students must accept, the Core proposal is excessive.

AMAJOR PROBLEM with the new Core curriculum is the attempt by its authors to delineate carefully the structure and content of courses to be designated as "core courses." Whether Faculty members will be willing to teach the types of courses outlined in the report is not clear; the Core proposal might well set up the type of lecture courses that no one likes to teach, and no one likes to take.

The present Gen Ed program, while inadequate, at least makes some concessions to the individualized talents of Faculty members. To attempt to eradicate much of the educational innovation present in many small, specialized courses would be a misguided effort. Furthermore, the Faculty Council's unwillingness to allow students to by-pass some of the Core requirements by taking selected combinations of departmental courses further indicates the authors' determination to restrict student freedom.

The Core Curriculum is only a poor substitute for the good advice and counseling that would direct, but not coerce students to attain a balanced education. And the Core will not solve one of Harvard's fundamental problems: the dearth of close associations between students and Faculty members. Instead, by setting the huge introductory course up as the basis of a Harvard education, the Core proposal would only widen the gulf between students and Faculty members. A Harvard education could easily be reduced to instruction by busy graduate students who are much more interested in pleasing their doctoral advisers than accommodating the students in their classes.

The Faculty will most likely accept some form of the Core proposal. But the current proposal, which may soon be the new system, is sadly out of tune with student needs. Students and faculty should work quickly to stop the current proposal and help create a viable alternative within the core framework--not out of contempt for its creators, but out of objections to their methods and a serious concern for a better undergraduate education at Harvard.