Keep All Science Core Bypasses

We are pleased that some Faculty members have expressed reservations about changing the requirements for the Science Core. We were disappointed by the decision two weeks ago by the Faculty Council to approve a recommendation from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Standing Committee on the Core to end, starting with the class of 2003, the practice of allowing science Advanced Placement (A.P.) tests to count for one Science Core class. This decision seems both misguided and not in line with other recent Core reforms.

Currently, a four or five on the A.P. biology or chemistry test can provide a bypass from a Science B class, or a four or five on the A.P. physics C exam can provide a bypass from Science A. Though currently favoring the non-science concentrators at this liberal-arts college, the policy was first approved because the committee felt the material covered by a science A.P. test was comparable to Harvard material in a way A.P. humanities classes are not.

The committee has pointed to the fact that the science A.P. exams serve as departmental bypasses to higher levels of material. However, similar departmental recognition exists in economics, yet student who are not exempt from Social Analysis and have used their A.P. test scores to accelerate within the department of economics are still required to take an Social Analysis Core class.

The committee's new position--that classes that serve as departmental bypasses no longer can serve as Core bypasses--puzzles us. If the departments understand an A.P. score as proving a certain level of proficiency adequate for higher-level classes, and A.P. credit is also the basis for Advanced Standing, why does the Faculty Council not believe that A.P. tests should be allowed as Core bypasses?

This seems like an unnecessary and improper bolster for Science Core classes. With this decision, the Faculty Council is forcing those who are not exempt to take Science Core classes even when they have passed A.P. tests in science that are recognized by the science departments as comparable to their introductory classes. Furthermore, though it is undergoing change, it is often unclear what the objective is for a science Core class and how these goals differ from A to B. This lack of clarity often leads to either a very limited or very facile reach in a class meant to show essentially the breadth of science to non-science concentrators.

Also, this change seems to be part of an alarming increase in the number of requirements. We question whether the Faculty Council has considered the sort of course load they are requiring of the classes of the next millennium. As it stands now, with the upcoming Quantitative Reasoning requirement and the removal of the science bypass, even before any increase in the language requirement, future Harvard students will face (including Expos) a potential 12 half-courses of requirements, fully three semesters of their time at Harvard.

Such weighty requirements may make those poorly prepared in language ineligible for concentrations with a large number of requirements, or may force them to stay an extra semester or two. A five-year Harvard undergraduate career? We hope this was not the aim of the Faculty Council in passing this recommendation, and we urge the full Faculty to reconsider and maintain bypasses in further reforms.