Core Curriculum Still Controversial

In the September 1990 issue of The Atlantic, a Harvard alumnus attacked the Core: "The [Core] areas themselves are odd assemblages of specialized classes watered down for the nonspecialist."

"Harvard's stature and the media's lavish praise have made the Core one of the most influential curricula in America, but it is hollow," continued Caleb Nelson '88, who is currently a third-year student at Yale Law School.

Nelson's sentiments are echoed by many of today's undergraduates.

"[In Core courses], the thought and effort required of the students tend to be minimal," says Timothy M. Hall '94.

But despite widespread criticism from students and outside commentators alike, the 13-year-old Core Curriculum is now a deeply entrenched part of the College's academic life and does not seem likely to go away.

There has not been much pressure from faculty or students to revise the Core, says Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles.

"[The Core] was thoroughly reviewed at age 10 (in 1989)...[and] found healthy," he adds.

Indeed, the Core has been singled out for praise by such diverse watchdogs of higher education as former New York Times education editor Edward Fiske and The Carnegie Foundation.

The Foundation recommended in a 1981 report that schools institute a general education program similar to Harvard's, according to Nelson.

In addition, many colleges--most notablyDartmouth College--have followed Harvard's lead byinstituting similar core curricula.

But many students remain non-believers andshine a much less rosy spotlight on the Core. Themost common criticism centers on the Core office'slack of flexibility, especially when it comes toaccepting departmental courses for Core credit.

Hall tells his version of a familiar story offrustration with the rigidity of the program.Hall--who took an introductory linguistics courseat the Summer School--says he tried to get theCore office to accept the course for SocialAnalysis credit, since his course and SocialAnalysis 34, "Knowledge of Language," used thesame textbook.

But Hall says the Core still would not exempthim from Social Analysis.

"There is no reason that equivalent courses ina department should not be eligible for Corecredit," he says.

The Core Office's refusal to substitutedepartmental courses for Core classes seems,however, to fly in the face of its philosophy,which stresses methods of learning over what isbeing learned.

In his book The University: An Owner'sManual, Geyser University Professor ofEconomics Henry Rosovsky states that the Coreensures that "all [students] learn the ways ofthinking or method of analysis associated withthese comprehensive and significant modes ofinquiry."

"In each [Core] category, courses seek tointroduce students to major approaches toknowledge," writes the former dean of the faculty,who was the Core's chief architect. "Choice ispreserved because major approaches are presentedin various forms: courses with differing content."

But under this philosophy, at least somedepartmental courses should count for Core credit.And even nonequivalent departmental courses wouldseem to fulfill the stated aims of the Core.

Yet despite the emphasis on method over matter,the Core Committee is unlikely "to extend thedoctrine of `free substitutability' to areasbeyond Science A and B," according to Dean ofUndergraduate Education Lawrence Buell, who sitson the committee with nine other faculty members.

Director of the Core Program Susan Lewis saysthat the probability of departmental coursesoutside the sciences being accepted for Corecredit is "not high in the near future."

Lewis says that the developers of the Coreagreed not to permit such substitutions. She addsthat the rationale "could not be explained in twolines in The Crimson."

Departmental courses tend to be"discipline-specific" whereas their Corecounterparts aim at acquainting the uninitiatedwith a department's methodology, Buell says.

But it is this characteristic of the Core thatrankles many undergraduates. Many say they wouldprefer to "approach" knowledge with greatersophistication.

"Core courses are usually tailored to thelowest common denominator," says Ben A. Auspitz'95. "If a student is very interested inphilosophy, he or she cannot pass out of the MoralReasoning requirement with a philosophy course."

And students not prepared for a more advancedstudy of a Core topic are no better off, Auspitzsays. These students are short-changed, he says,because too often the courses are not broad enoughin scope.

Examples of such specialized courses includeHistorical Studies B-17, "Power and Society inMedieval Europe: The Crisis of the 12th Century,"and Literature and Arts B-35, "The Age of SultanSuleyman the Magnificent: Art, Architecture andCeremonial at the Ottoman Court."

"Broader courses would better serve thepurposes of the Core," Auspitz says. "Why shouldsomeone who knows nothing about music take acourse only on Beethoven?"

Oppostion to Core

Opposition to the Core has not been restrictedto the program's inflexibility and the quality ofofferings. Some of the most strident criticism hasbeen aimed at the very shape and model of theCore.

In 1979, the Core Curriculum replaced theGeneral Education Program, which emphasized theclassics of Western literature and philosophy.

The General Education Program, whose philosophywas laid out in a text nicknamed the Redbook, wasinfluenced by the shock of World War II andstressed the importance of learning "the conceptof free government."

The Redbook's authors believed that this goalcould be best met through a study of "Westernheritage"--what would come to be known as a "GreatBooks" curriculum.

But 25 years later, few Harvard students werereading the canon. Undergraduates frequentlysubstituted departmental courses for those"recommended" by the General Education committee,according to Phyllis Keller, associate dean of thefaculty for academic affairs.

"[D]uring the 25 years after 1945,Harvard's...General Education Program underwent analmost satiric distortion of its objectives,"Phyllis Keller writes in Getting at theCore.

Rosovsky, who was appointed dean of the facultyin 1973, received a mandate to restore order tothe undergraduate curriculum--or, in his ownwords, "to make the `fellowship of educated menand women' a more meaningful concept."

To provide all students with a "commonbackground," Rosovsky and a team of facultymembers and students fashioned a program thatwould "assist in creating an atmosphere ofintellectual sympathy among extremely diversestudents," Rosovsky writes.

The emphasis on "modes of inquiry" would alsoallow for both choice of courses and the carryoverof specific skills to other endeavors.

But for all its innovation, critics continue todismiss the Core and its guiding philosophy.Holding the traditional view that what onelearns is more important than how, theseopponents say they prefer distributionrequirements or a "Great Books" curriculum.

Both of these alternatives, they say, wouldbetter fulfill the Core's aim of providing "commongrounding."

"I think the Core is the worst of both worlds,"says Dianne M. Reeder '93, editor of the Salient."On one hand, it offers no set body of knowledge,no common experience to draw on. Also, thedistribution situation is no good because we can'ttake departmental courses."

`Great Books' Curriculum

Like Reeder, prominent educators--includingformer secretary of education William J. Bennettand Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. '38--have writtenthat all undergraduates should study the so-calledclassics of Western civilization.

Hall agrees, saying "even if you believe thatthe canon of Western history and literature hasbeen biased in favor of white, upper-class,straight males, to a large extent they've shapedwhat we have now."

A core that truly provides students with anappreciation of the culture in which they"operate" should include two full, compulsorycourses "devoted to a broad survey of literatureand a broad survey of Western history," Hall says.

But multiculturalists condemn this version of acore curriculum--which exists under similar guisesat Columbia University and the University ofChicago.

Opponents to the "Great Books" curriculum claimthat college curricula are already Eurocentric andshould be shaped to represent non-Westerncultures.

"Great Books" cores promote "a false feeling ofWestern supremacy" when "the issue is of world,not Western, civilization," says Zaheer R. Ali,president of the Black Students Association.

Buell agrees that the Core should have "a goalof inclusion rather than a goal of exclusion." Hecalls the "Great Books" curriculum "anobsolescently paternalistic approach to generaleducation in this day and age."

Both Ali and Raza President Lilia Fernandez '94would like the content of the Core to change byincluding more classes on "non-European" subjectmatter.

BSA is officially calling for an ethnic studiesrequirement, "a class which [would] help people tounderstand the complex issues of ethnicrelations," according to Ali.

Another problem with the "Great Books"curriculum is the lack of student choice, say someundergraduates and faculty. Harvard's Core programprovides students with the opportunity to selectfrom a range of courses within each category.

"There is nothing more dreary than having toteach people who are not interested in yourcourse," says Porter University Professor ofEnglish Helen H. Vendler.

And Gil B. Lahav '94, a transfer student fromColumbia, says that students and professors at hisold school would sometimes circumvent the aim ofthe Great Books curriculum by "focusing on currentevents."

Faculty support for the Core remains strong.Vendler says that Harvard should not move towardsthe Great Books program because "there is noindispensable document to a solid education."

Mellon Professor of the Humanities Thomas M.Scanlon Jr. also rejects the idea that there arecertain books that every educated person must haveread. Like Rosovsky and the other framers of theCore, he stresses that the Core can accommodate awide range of students.

"This Core allows you to emphasize `greatbooks,' but you don't have to," says Scanlon, whois a member of the Core Committee.

Meanwhile the Undergraduate Council continuesto press the Core Committee to bring moredepartmental courses into the Core. The councilhas successfully moved, with the Core Committeeand Carswell Professor of English SacvanBercovitch, "Myth of America" into the Core'sLiterature and Arts A category.

And although the process of bringing adepartmental course into the Core takes about ayear, both the Council and the Core Committee areeager to make more additions to the program, Buellsays.

Still, in a community of more than 6,000students, some are bound to grumble that the Coreneeds minor repairs. And still others willcontinue to question the validity of the Core'sphilosophy.

But even the dogmatic Redbook recognized thatthis sort of debate could only be healthy.

"General [e]ducation," it reasoned,"perpetuates itself, if only by seeking todiscover what it itself is."Crimson File Photo

In addition, many colleges--most notablyDartmouth College--have followed Harvard's lead byinstituting similar core curricula.

But many students remain non-believers andshine a much less rosy spotlight on the Core. Themost common criticism centers on the Core office'slack of flexibility, especially when it comes toaccepting departmental courses for Core credit.

Hall tells his version of a familiar story offrustration with the rigidity of the program.Hall--who took an introductory linguistics courseat the Summer School--says he tried to get theCore office to accept the course for SocialAnalysis credit, since his course and SocialAnalysis 34, "Knowledge of Language," used thesame textbook.

But Hall says the Core still would not exempthim from Social Analysis.

"There is no reason that equivalent courses ina department should not be eligible for Corecredit," he says.

The Core Office's refusal to substitutedepartmental courses for Core classes seems,however, to fly in the face of its philosophy,which stresses methods of learning over what isbeing learned.

In his book The University: An Owner'sManual, Geyser University Professor ofEconomics Henry Rosovsky states that the Coreensures that "all [students] learn the ways ofthinking or method of analysis associated withthese comprehensive and significant modes ofinquiry."

"In each [Core] category, courses seek tointroduce students to major approaches toknowledge," writes the former dean of the faculty,who was the Core's chief architect. "Choice ispreserved because major approaches are presentedin various forms: courses with differing content."

But under this philosophy, at least somedepartmental courses should count for Core credit.And even nonequivalent departmental courses wouldseem to fulfill the stated aims of the Core.

Yet despite the emphasis on method over matter,the Core Committee is unlikely "to extend thedoctrine of `free substitutability' to areasbeyond Science A and B," according to Dean ofUndergraduate Education Lawrence Buell, who sitson the committee with nine other faculty members.

Director of the Core Program Susan Lewis saysthat the probability of departmental coursesoutside the sciences being accepted for Corecredit is "not high in the near future."

Lewis says that the developers of the Coreagreed not to permit such substitutions. She addsthat the rationale "could not be explained in twolines in The Crimson."

Departmental courses tend to be"discipline-specific" whereas their Corecounterparts aim at acquainting the uninitiatedwith a department's methodology, Buell says.

But it is this characteristic of the Core thatrankles many undergraduates. Many say they wouldprefer to "approach" knowledge with greatersophistication.

"Core courses are usually tailored to thelowest common denominator," says Ben A. Auspitz'95. "If a student is very interested inphilosophy, he or she cannot pass out of the MoralReasoning requirement with a philosophy course."

And students not prepared for a more advancedstudy of a Core topic are no better off, Auspitzsays. These students are short-changed, he says,because too often the courses are not broad enoughin scope.

Examples of such specialized courses includeHistorical Studies B-17, "Power and Society inMedieval Europe: The Crisis of the 12th Century,"and Literature and Arts B-35, "The Age of SultanSuleyman the Magnificent: Art, Architecture andCeremonial at the Ottoman Court."

"Broader courses would better serve thepurposes of the Core," Auspitz says. "Why shouldsomeone who knows nothing about music take acourse only on Beethoven?"

Oppostion to Core

Opposition to the Core has not been restrictedto the program's inflexibility and the quality ofofferings. Some of the most strident criticism hasbeen aimed at the very shape and model of theCore.

In 1979, the Core Curriculum replaced theGeneral Education Program, which emphasized theclassics of Western literature and philosophy.

The General Education Program, whose philosophywas laid out in a text nicknamed the Redbook, wasinfluenced by the shock of World War II andstressed the importance of learning "the conceptof free government."

The Redbook's authors believed that this goalcould be best met through a study of "Westernheritage"--what would come to be known as a "GreatBooks" curriculum.

But 25 years later, few Harvard students werereading the canon. Undergraduates frequentlysubstituted departmental courses for those"recommended" by the General Education committee,according to Phyllis Keller, associate dean of thefaculty for academic affairs.

"[D]uring the 25 years after 1945,Harvard's...General Education Program underwent analmost satiric distortion of its objectives,"Phyllis Keller writes in Getting at theCore.

Rosovsky, who was appointed dean of the facultyin 1973, received a mandate to restore order tothe undergraduate curriculum--or, in his ownwords, "to make the `fellowship of educated menand women' a more meaningful concept."

To provide all students with a "commonbackground," Rosovsky and a team of facultymembers and students fashioned a program thatwould "assist in creating an atmosphere ofintellectual sympathy among extremely diversestudents," Rosovsky writes.

The emphasis on "modes of inquiry" would alsoallow for both choice of courses and the carryoverof specific skills to other endeavors.

But for all its innovation, critics continue todismiss the Core and its guiding philosophy.Holding the traditional view that what onelearns is more important than how, theseopponents say they prefer distributionrequirements or a "Great Books" curriculum.

Both of these alternatives, they say, wouldbetter fulfill the Core's aim of providing "commongrounding."

"I think the Core is the worst of both worlds,"says Dianne M. Reeder '93, editor of the Salient."On one hand, it offers no set body of knowledge,no common experience to draw on. Also, thedistribution situation is no good because we can'ttake departmental courses."

`Great Books' Curriculum

Like Reeder, prominent educators--includingformer secretary of education William J. Bennettand Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. '38--have writtenthat all undergraduates should study the so-calledclassics of Western civilization.

Hall agrees, saying "even if you believe thatthe canon of Western history and literature hasbeen biased in favor of white, upper-class,straight males, to a large extent they've shapedwhat we have now."

A core that truly provides students with anappreciation of the culture in which they"operate" should include two full, compulsorycourses "devoted to a broad survey of literatureand a broad survey of Western history," Hall says.

But multiculturalists condemn this version of acore curriculum--which exists under similar guisesat Columbia University and the University ofChicago.

Opponents to the "Great Books" curriculum claimthat college curricula are already Eurocentric andshould be shaped to represent non-Westerncultures.

"Great Books" cores promote "a false feeling ofWestern supremacy" when "the issue is of world,not Western, civilization," says Zaheer R. Ali,president of the Black Students Association.

Buell agrees that the Core should have "a goalof inclusion rather than a goal of exclusion." Hecalls the "Great Books" curriculum "anobsolescently paternalistic approach to generaleducation in this day and age."

Both Ali and Raza President Lilia Fernandez '94would like the content of the Core to change byincluding more classes on "non-European" subjectmatter.

BSA is officially calling for an ethnic studiesrequirement, "a class which [would] help people tounderstand the complex issues of ethnicrelations," according to Ali.

Another problem with the "Great Books"curriculum is the lack of student choice, say someundergraduates and faculty. Harvard's Core programprovides students with the opportunity to selectfrom a range of courses within each category.

"There is nothing more dreary than having toteach people who are not interested in yourcourse," says Porter University Professor ofEnglish Helen H. Vendler.

And Gil B. Lahav '94, a transfer student fromColumbia, says that students and professors at hisold school would sometimes circumvent the aim ofthe Great Books curriculum by "focusing on currentevents."

Faculty support for the Core remains strong.Vendler says that Harvard should not move towardsthe Great Books program because "there is noindispensable document to a solid education."

Mellon Professor of the Humanities Thomas M.Scanlon Jr. also rejects the idea that there arecertain books that every educated person must haveread. Like Rosovsky and the other framers of theCore, he stresses that the Core can accommodate awide range of students.

"This Core allows you to emphasize `greatbooks,' but you don't have to," says Scanlon, whois a member of the Core Committee.

Meanwhile the Undergraduate Council continuesto press the Core Committee to bring moredepartmental courses into the Core. The councilhas successfully moved, with the Core Committeeand Carswell Professor of English SacvanBercovitch, "Myth of America" into the Core'sLiterature and Arts A category.

And although the process of bringing adepartmental course into the Core takes about ayear, both the Council and the Core Committee areeager to make more additions to the program, Buellsays.

Still, in a community of more than 6,000students, some are bound to grumble that the Coreneeds minor repairs. And still others willcontinue to question the validity of the Core'sphilosophy.

But even the dogmatic Redbook recognized thatthis sort of debate could only be healthy.

"General [e]ducation," it reasoned,"perpetuates itself, if only by seeking todiscover what it itself is."Crimson File Photo