FAS Approves Core Changes

Core Curriculum reform became the year's hottest academic controversy as the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) debated and finally voted to approve changes to the Core.

Since 1974, when the Faculty replaced General Education with the Core, a system of undergraduate area requirements, FAS has made small adjustments to the program, adding new classes and changing regulations.

But the 18-month study by the Faculty's Core Review Committee (CRC), chaired by Pforzheimer University Professor Sidney H. Verba '53, marked the first attempt to reevaluate the Core's mission and future since the program's inception.

The CRC came down squarely in favor of the Core as originally conceived. In its report to the Faculty, Verba's committee--which consisted of two students and six professors--endorsed the Core's goal of exposing undergraduates to different approaches to knowledge.

Because the CRC felt the Core was educationally valuable to Harvard's undergraduates, the committee's report did not recommend drastic changes.

Instead, the report proposed adding a new Core subfield in Quantitative Reasoning (replacing a test out option), bringing the number of Core fields to 11 and raising the number of courses offered in each area.

To balance the new Quantitative Reasoning course students would now have to take, the CRC recommended reducing the number of overall Core requirements from the current eight to seven, a proposal the committee abandoned amid Faculty opposition.

The CRC's proposal sparked intense debate both in the FAS, the Faculty Council, a small group of professors elected by their colleagues to advise the Faculty and among the wider College community.

Some argued the proposal did not go far enough toward giving students more choice of courses and the opportunity to take departmental classes for Core credit.

Others warned that such a liberal approach would lead to a system of pure distribution requirements and the demise of the Core, a debate that intensified when Professor of English and Comparative Literature James Engell proposed adding courses not taught at an introductory level into the Core curriculum.

For the first time in recent memory, the Faculty voted against a Faculty Council recommendation to table the proposal, disregarding the unanimous advice of the council in a narrow vote before approving Engell's proposal by a slightly wider margin.

Surprisingly, the debate over Core reform did not engage most of the undergraduate community in formal discussion.

A CRC question-and-answer session aimed at addressing student concerns drew only a few undergraduates--most of whom were Undergraduate Council representatives. However, students later blamed the meeting's low turnout on lack of publicity.

The debate over Core reform came during a year when students were especially dissatisfied with the Core.

Many students were disappointed when several of the largest and most popular Core classes, including Historical Studies B-61: "The Warren Court" and Science B-29: "Human Behavioral Biology," were lotteried, forcing unlucky undergraduates to rearrange their schedules at the last minute.

In addition, only three courses were offered this year in the Moral Reasoning subfield, and the number of courses offered in the Core overall fell to a seven-year low.

Several specific reform proposals from outside the CRC emerged in the debate. Former Dean of Undergraduate Education Lawrence Buell submitted an amendment to the CRC's legislation which would have encouraged small, seminar-style courses in the Core.

Buell, who teaches in the Core as the Marquand professor of English, was unsuccessful in his attempt to amend the CRC proposal.

Some professors argued that Buell's plan would have required Faculty members teaching popular classes--such as Professor of Government Michael J. Sandel, who teaches Moral Reasoning 22: "Justice"--to turn away hundreds of students.

However, many other professors who voted with Buell said his proposal would help provide small-group instruction from Faculty members to the students least likely to get it--first-years and sophomores.

The Undergraduate Council also authored a Core reform proposal which suggested expanding course offerings to include departmental courses. The council's proposal drew little attention from the student body at large.

The reform package that the Faculty eventually approved, however, did include the idea of increased flexibility that the council had lobbied for, though the Faculty rejected the idea of departmental bypasses.

In its final form, the Core legislation that the Faculty passed May 20 incorporated both elements of the original CRC proposal and several key amendments.

The Faculty approved the CRC plan to institute a Quantitative Reasoning department in the Core. The new subfield may feature applied statistics courses in such diverse areas as education, biology and economics.

In addition to the new Quantitative Reasoning requirement, the Faculty also voted to make the guidelines for admitting departmental courses into the Core "more inclusive."

The move to soften the rules for selecting Core courses represents a strong feeling against the standing Faculty subcommittees which govern the Core's class admissions process.

During the debate over Core reform, many Faculty members came forward to say the course vetting process was long and complicated and the subcommittees were often disinterested in admitting new courses.

The new legislation gives the subcommittees a responsibility to actively recruit professors to teach cross-listed Core courses and to simplify the application process to increase student choice in the Core.

The final version of the legislation did not lower the number of requirements to the CRC's suggested seven. But administrators said the exact requirements might change as the legislation is implemented and the Faculty examines undergraduate requirements as a whole with an eye toward reducing them.

Now that the Core has undergone this reform, professors and administrators estimate that full implementation might not come until the 1999-2000 academic year.

The Core's administrators must now assemble a curriculum and Faculty in the new Quantitative Reasoning subfield, a process that is expected to take at least two years.

Dean of Faculty of Arts and Sciences Jeremy R. Knowles is currently conducting a search for a new Quantitative Reasoning standing subcommittee chair, and work on the new statistics curriculum must wait until a new chair is in place.

Increased course choice, however, may start as early as next spring. This fall, the standing subcommittees will start to examine professors' applications to allow some concentration classes into the Core, and the deadline for applying for course development funds has been extended by the Dean of the Faculty

Some argued the proposal did not go far enough toward giving students more choice of courses and the opportunity to take departmental classes for Core credit.

Others warned that such a liberal approach would lead to a system of pure distribution requirements and the demise of the Core, a debate that intensified when Professor of English and Comparative Literature James Engell proposed adding courses not taught at an introductory level into the Core curriculum.

For the first time in recent memory, the Faculty voted against a Faculty Council recommendation to table the proposal, disregarding the unanimous advice of the council in a narrow vote before approving Engell's proposal by a slightly wider margin.

Surprisingly, the debate over Core reform did not engage most of the undergraduate community in formal discussion.

A CRC question-and-answer session aimed at addressing student concerns drew only a few undergraduates--most of whom were Undergraduate Council representatives. However, students later blamed the meeting's low turnout on lack of publicity.

The debate over Core reform came during a year when students were especially dissatisfied with the Core.

Many students were disappointed when several of the largest and most popular Core classes, including Historical Studies B-61: "The Warren Court" and Science B-29: "Human Behavioral Biology," were lotteried, forcing unlucky undergraduates to rearrange their schedules at the last minute.

In addition, only three courses were offered this year in the Moral Reasoning subfield, and the number of courses offered in the Core overall fell to a seven-year low.

Several specific reform proposals from outside the CRC emerged in the debate. Former Dean of Undergraduate Education Lawrence Buell submitted an amendment to the CRC's legislation which would have encouraged small, seminar-style courses in the Core.

Buell, who teaches in the Core as the Marquand professor of English, was unsuccessful in his attempt to amend the CRC proposal.

Some professors argued that Buell's plan would have required Faculty members teaching popular classes--such as Professor of Government Michael J. Sandel, who teaches Moral Reasoning 22: "Justice"--to turn away hundreds of students.

However, many other professors who voted with Buell said his proposal would help provide small-group instruction from Faculty members to the students least likely to get it--first-years and sophomores.

The Undergraduate Council also authored a Core reform proposal which suggested expanding course offerings to include departmental courses. The council's proposal drew little attention from the student body at large.

The reform package that the Faculty eventually approved, however, did include the idea of increased flexibility that the council had lobbied for, though the Faculty rejected the idea of departmental bypasses.

In its final form, the Core legislation that the Faculty passed May 20 incorporated both elements of the original CRC proposal and several key amendments.

The Faculty approved the CRC plan to institute a Quantitative Reasoning department in the Core. The new subfield may feature applied statistics courses in such diverse areas as education, biology and economics.

In addition to the new Quantitative Reasoning requirement, the Faculty also voted to make the guidelines for admitting departmental courses into the Core "more inclusive."

The move to soften the rules for selecting Core courses represents a strong feeling against the standing Faculty subcommittees which govern the Core's class admissions process.

During the debate over Core reform, many Faculty members came forward to say the course vetting process was long and complicated and the subcommittees were often disinterested in admitting new courses.

The new legislation gives the subcommittees a responsibility to actively recruit professors to teach cross-listed Core courses and to simplify the application process to increase student choice in the Core.

The final version of the legislation did not lower the number of requirements to the CRC's suggested seven. But administrators said the exact requirements might change as the legislation is implemented and the Faculty examines undergraduate requirements as a whole with an eye toward reducing them.

Now that the Core has undergone this reform, professors and administrators estimate that full implementation might not come until the 1999-2000 academic year.

The Core's administrators must now assemble a curriculum and Faculty in the new Quantitative Reasoning subfield, a process that is expected to take at least two years.

Dean of Faculty of Arts and Sciences Jeremy R. Knowles is currently conducting a search for a new Quantitative Reasoning standing subcommittee chair, and work on the new statistics curriculum must wait until a new chair is in place.

Increased course choice, however, may start as early as next spring. This fall, the standing subcommittees will start to examine professors' applications to allow some concentration classes into the Core, and the deadline for applying for course development funds has been extended by the Dean of the Faculty