The Truth About Reading Period

Harvard University, arguably the finest educational institution in America, is one of two universities in the nation with reading period after the winter holiday. Over reading period's 70-year life span, its purpose has changed along with its usefulness. As its motives for existence have gained in integrity, its necessity has all but vanished. Harvard has changed since the 1920s, and with that change has come the need for reading period reform. Why does Harvard insist on having exams after the vacation? Why does it seemingly remain a slave to tradition?

President A Lawrence Lowell '77 said in 1926, "The president of another university remarked some time ago that one of the impediments to be avoided by such an institution was that of traditions; to which the reply was made that there was one tradition of which the speaker would doubtless approve, and that was the tradition of frequent change. We certainly have that tradition here." If this attitude formed the backdrop to Harvard's instituting reading period, then it follows that the University should not hesitate to make changes today.

We think of reading period as a time meant for students, but this is a false belief. It was instituted in 1927-28 more for the benefit of tutors and instructors than undergraduates. The President's Report of 1926-27 reads: "In last year's report it was pointed out that the tutors' time was so absorbed by their pupils as to make it difficult for them to pursue their own studies and research, and a danger was felt of losing our best men if they could not be given a better opportunity for these things." Harvard administrators were worried because "the students [were] more keen, more ready to criticize and discuss"; they were afraid the tutors would be too busy answering their pupils' questions to conduct any productive research.

It was stipulated in Lowell's report, however, that "instructors...shall make appropriate provision for the work on the part of their students, it being understood that the suspension of lectures shall involve no diminution in the total amount of work." Reading period was not meant to be a waste of time, however, it is important to note that the revised schedule, including the new study period, only included 12 weeks of classes, whereas we now have 14. But let us give the benefit of the doubt to the administration of the 1990s and assume that reading period is for the benefit of the undergraduates. Does it achieve the dubiously noble goals of Harvard's forefathers?

I'm not convinced. I returned to Harvard three days into reading period, knowing that I had two papers and three exams to look forward to in the coming month. But instead of hitting the books upon my late arrival to Harvard, I caught up with friends and roommates for three stressful days. They were stressful because each moment that I relaxed, I felt guilty about the work I wasn't doing. Monday the eighth rolled around, and I figured it was time to start researching the paper I had due on the 10th. I put in a couple days of good work, handed in the paper, celebrated its completion that night and frittered away the next day. But at this point, seven days into my reading period, I still had a final paper to write and three exams to study for.

The truth about reading period is that though there might be two weeks of cumulative work, very few people actually work nonstop for two weeks. As a result, students waste a lot of time and spend an even greater amount of time stressing about work undone. If we started on September ninth instead of the 18th, had only 13 weeks of classes instead of 14, and had only one week of reading period before the winter vacation, then theoretically we could hold exams before break and not come back to Harvard until mid-or late January.

This would still maintain the integrity of reading period, because it would allow students to engross themselves in their work. It would also prevent cramming studying into a day or two, as other schools do, and would reward us with more than five days of intersession. It would be easier to travel because one would not be required to make two trips homed, and the constant threat of exams would not hang over one's head during vacation.

Even though the revised purpose of reading period may be to provide time when we can concentrate on our studies and give ourselves wholly to our work, without (in most cases) the interference of classes, the real effect of reading period is a dwindling away of time and an unnecessary accumulation of stress. Granted, there would be more stress in a more concentrated period if we had exams before the vacation, but it would all be worth something: a month's vacation with no stress at all.

Another concern is that some people have intersessions that are twice as long as their friends'. A friend of mine finished his exams on the 16th and took the next plane out to Mexico. I was stuck at school until the 25th finishing a philosophy final while he was sipping pina coladas on the beach; that hardly seems fair. This disparity in exam schedules makes it difficult to plan trips with one's friends, and it creates a climate in which it is difficult to work. In addition, it gives an incentive to plan one's classes around a particular exam schedule. One would hope that no one does this, but I could see the thought of a week's more intersession swaying one's choice from "Images of Alexander the Great" to "The Concept of the Hero in Greek Civilization."

When reading period was conceived, it may have been a productive time; it may even have been welcomed, but as times change, so should policies. Harvard's president in 1926 realized this; so should we. Reading period is no longer fulfilling its goals. Maybe past generations had more work to complete and absolutely needed the full two weeks, but we do not. If Harvard considers this period one of reflection and self-exploration, it may be right, but I could reflect and explore just as productively outside the stressful gates of Harvard Yard.