Crazy Computing

As fertilizer suffocated the Yard last week, its freshman residents were experiencing a run-in of their own in Harvard's procedural wasteland: the computer test of the quantitative reasoning requirement.

The computer requirement itself is not a bad thing. The founders of the Core Curriculum wisely realized that familiarity with computers would become necessary for anyone living in this technological society, but unfortunately Harvard's requirement uses the wrong timing and means to achieve computing competency.

Currently, arbitrary deadlines determine the timing of the computer tests. The Core office reminds freshmen of the deadlines through two or three communiques scattered thoughout the year. The bogus deadlines come and go, without any strict enforcement--until the last minute pile-up, like last week's episode, in which one third of the class waits in line for hours and graders pull marathon sessions until 5 a.m.

To avoid end-of-April testing madness, Core policymakers could take a clue from the scheduling of the data interpretation part of the QRR. Computer tests should be scheduled in mandatory sessions for all freshmen at the beginning of the year. Exams could begin in October so that students will have had plenty of opportunity to attend mini-courses and work with the computers.

Furthermore, the complicated jargon of the VAX system so hastily memorized by frantic freshmen for the test is rarely even applicable to future use. Detailed command memorization obscures the underlying need for programming skills that students can apply to future encounters with technology. The VAX system, which connects all terminals to one main computer, frequently falls victim to system failures which halt the already rushed testing sessions and inconvenience test takers and graders.

Instead of being forced to conquer the monstrous Harvard system, students should be tested on microcomputers that half of the student body already owns and that the vast majority will have occasion to use in the future. At present, the Core staff is investigating the possibility of offering the test on Harvard's Macintoshes and IBM PCs in the Science Center terminal rooms.

The computer requirement is part of the Core in name; it should be added for Core class credit as well. Currently, students who want to take an in-depth computer course in lieu of the test must take an elective such as Computer Science 10 or the Quantitative Reasoning course. Last year an Undergraduate Council subcommittee proposed a welcome alternative within the Core curriculum--a Science A class on programming and how computers work. Unfortunately, planning for the class was given low priority status by the council and no action was taken on it this year. Core planners should create a computer class and reconstruct the testing method before next year's freshmen end up in yet another spring cramming session in the Science Center basement.

In theory, a computer requirement seems both reasonable and beneficial, but in practice it has a long way to go. What students need is a program to meet the requirement rather than a scattered series of tests and haphazard ultimatums.