Shrink to Grow in Wisdom

IN the glossy brochures Harvard sends to prospective students, the College brags about section quality. Even though Harvard is known for large lectures, the intimacy of discussion sections more than compensates for this lack of student-faculty discourse, the promos claim.

In many cases, that claim is true. But Harvard has seen to it that section sizes--a key determinant of section quality--are pegged more to fiscal and administrative expediency than to grander visions of educational excellence.

This fact became all to clear to me this semester in a history course. After initially scheduling two sections for History 1332, Assistant Professor of History and of Social Studies John McCole had the unfortunate duty of telling the class that there might be only one big section for all 34 students.

According to Faculty of Arts and Sciences officials, a section is only created when there are 20 students to fill it. If there are more than 20 students, but less than 40, that usually results in just one big section.

Fortunately, in this particular history course, the professor succeeded in securing funds for a second section--five weeks into the semester--from a fund established to support innovative and/or small group teaching. A special fund should not be expected to take up the slack for a legitimate pedagogical aim--having small groups of students discuss the material in a larger lecture course.

Most courses in this situation are not lucky enough to qualify for special assistance. They simply offer crowded, impersonal sections, and that's the problem.

SECTION size is central to section performance. Sections are ideally designed to clarify the readings and lectures, but more importantly they aim to provoke thinking and discussion critical of the points spoon-fed to students by other course requirements.

However, trying to conduct a meaningful discussion with 20 or more students is an exercise in futility. Large sections impede a section leader's ability to direct the discussion, by intimidating the teaching fellow and the students and discouraging students to volunteer unconventional thoughts. Packed sections preclude give-and-take; leaving most students with only one chance to speak during the entire hour. With little personal involvement, students quickly can lose interest and lower their expectations for the discussions.

Sections are often reduced to something they are not meant to be: condensed outlines of the lectures and one sentence distillations of readings. Instead of thought-provoking discussions centered around questions like "Melissa, what does Locke overlook in his theory of property?" students are often subjected to an hour-long barrage of questions like "Andy, could you summarize the main points of this week's article?"

ADMINISTRATION officials are quick to note that section size is more a question of budgetary concerns than pedagogical philosophy. Nothing could be further from the truth: by not spending its resources on smaller sections, Harvard is in effect opting for a pedagogical agenda that sacrifices undergraduate education.

Reducing section size would undoubtedly afford Harvard students a better undergraduate education. Harvard ought to return to its mission--by cutting section size and, at the very least, sticking to a 20 student maximum. While the College claims to do nothing more than teach us how to think, large sections do the exact opposite.