Report Blasts Universities for Poor Teaching

In a stinging report released yesterday, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching became the latest voice in a chorus criticizing research universities like Harvard for treating undergraduates like "second-class citizens."

The report, a survey of the state of undergraduate teaching at 125 "research universities" around the country, singled out several major failings of such schools--including huge and impersonal lecture classes and a failure to engage students with opportunities for research-and discussion-centered learning.

Harvard administrators said yesterday that they are reserving judgment until they review the report's research methods. They also pointed to recent reforms in the Core curriculum and efforts to train graduate students to be better instructors as proof that Harvard is already addressing some of the report's concerns.

But Harvard observers and Carnegie Foundation committee members say Harvard is not above the report's rebuke.

"Although Harvard looks better than most [research institutions], in its exploitation of undergraduates it ranks right up there with the rest of them," said Wayne Booth, a professor at the University of Chicago and a member of the committee that issued the report.

The committee says research institutions like Harvard are "guilty of an advertising practice they would condemn in the real world."

These include using a bait and switch tactic whereby they lure students in with high-profile faculty and then allow students to graduate "without seeing the world-famous professors or tasting genuine research."

The report goes on to say that it does not expect research institutions to provide undergraduate instruction on the model of a small liberal-arts college, but rather to bring undergraduates "into the big tent," allowing for more participatory research and learning opportunities.

As a remedy, the report recommended smaller, more interactive classes and less undergraduate instruction by gradu- ate students.

This recommendation echoes a plan put forwardby Marquand Professor of English Lawrence A.Buell, who called for smaller courses in the Corecurriculum during the Faculty's discussions ofCore reform last spring. Buell's plan was shotdown by concerns that it would require anexpensive increase in the number of Facultymembers.

"My special concern was to try to ensurethat...within the requirements for students tograduate be some possibility for small-groupinteractive learning," Buell said. "I thought[last spring] was an opportunity...which it willbe hard to get back again."

The Carnegie Foundation report's furtherrecommendations include the expansion ofinquiry-based learning for first-years. The reportlauds a Duke University program, which usesbig-name faculty in small discussiongroups--somewhat like the Freshman Seminar programat Harvard.

Sarah K. Hurwitz '99, a student member of theCommittee on Undergraduate Education (CUE), saidshe has seen large introductory courses stifle theenthusiasm of Harvard first-years.

"There's a tremendous problem with freshmencoming here with a lot of passions and wanderinginto big classes," Hurwitz said. "They don't finda mentor who encourages them...and there's atremendous loss of potential."

Buell agreed with Hurwitz, saying "everyonerecognizes the courses [students take] duringtheir first two years to be sub-optimal."

Another highlight of the report is a call formore undergraduate involvement in facultyresearch. Hurwitz said such opportunities areoften not widely advertised at Harvard.

"There's a tendency for the loud and moreaggressive students to thrive and for the moretimid, less confident students to get leftbehind," she said.

Talking Back

Dean of Undergraduate Education William M. ToddIII, who said he has not yet read the report, saidhe was skeptical of the report's conclusionswithout knowing "its sources and the quality ofits argument."

He said such reports often fail to make thedistinction between schools like Harvard andlarger state universities--which often featuremore widespread instruction by graduate students.

Todd cited the CUE Guide and course evaluationforms, along with the Bok Center for Teaching andLearning--a training ground for graduate-studentteaching fellows--as evidence of Harvard'scommitment to undergraduate education.

In addition, he noted that all tenure decisionsnow take into account evidence of a candidate'sclassroom teaching skills--a move designed tolimit the promotion of professors with stellarresearch but questionable lecture-hall presence.

Todd also rebutted the report's assertion thatintroductory courses aimed at first-years shouldnecessarily be discussion-based.

"It's kind of hard to have a discussion withsomeone who's just entering the subject area," hesaid.

He also defended Harvard's attitude about theimportance of Faculty research, saying that ratherthan detracting from undergraduate learning--asalleged in the report--a professor's research maybe a boon to undergraduates seeking to learn onthe cutting edge.

"You expect your professor to be able to saysomething intelligent, but how can that professorbe able to say anything [without the ability toconduct research in his or her field]?" Toddasked.

Former President Derek C. Bok, reached at hishome yesterday, said he also has not read thereport. He said reports like the one releasedyesterday often make contradictory claims on thetime and efforts of high-profile faculty likeHarvard's.

"Society is very anxious to have professors doresearch and very interested in consulting [them]so [their] expertise can be used for society'spurposes," Bok said. "Against this you have tobalance the claims of undergraduates."

"You can't act as though you have unlimitedresources," he added. "It's unrealistic to createall these incentives for professors to do researchand then come around and say, 'Why aren't youteaching?"

Bok also defended the use of graduates studentsas instructors and section leaders as part of theUniversity's "strong commitment" to train a newgeneration of teaching professors.

The Net Result

But will the conclusions of the report everresult in changes in Harvard policy? The answerfrom all corners seems to be "not likely."

While Todd said "these [issues] are things wetalk about anyway," he also said that "just becomesomeone issues a report doesn't mean that it'ssomething worth noticing."

Bok agreed that new action on these issueswould probably not be forthcoming. He said thesame conclusions have been reached by a variety ofstudies in recent years, but applied over such adiverse group of institutions they have yieldedfew concrete results.

Benjamin A. Rahn '99, another undergraduatemember of the CUE, said while he felt that thereport addressed many concerns of current Harvardundergraduates, remedying them would require anear-impossible institutional shift.

"Our Faculty is just not expected to devote asmuch time to undergraduate teaching," Rahn said."But changing that attitude would mean changingthe general culture of Harvard."

Committee member Robert N. O'Neil '56, a lawprofessor at the University of Virginia, said hiscommittee was not optimistic about its ability tochange an institution like Harvard.

"I don't think we have any illusions aboutcreating revolutionary change," said O'Neil, whois a former Crimson executive. "But a smallincrease in commitment by professors would make ahuge difference.

This recommendation echoes a plan put forwardby Marquand Professor of English Lawrence A.Buell, who called for smaller courses in the Corecurriculum during the Faculty's discussions ofCore reform last spring. Buell's plan was shotdown by concerns that it would require anexpensive increase in the number of Facultymembers.

"My special concern was to try to ensurethat...within the requirements for students tograduate be some possibility for small-groupinteractive learning," Buell said. "I thought[last spring] was an opportunity...which it willbe hard to get back again."

The Carnegie Foundation report's furtherrecommendations include the expansion ofinquiry-based learning for first-years. The reportlauds a Duke University program, which usesbig-name faculty in small discussiongroups--somewhat like the Freshman Seminar programat Harvard.

Sarah K. Hurwitz '99, a student member of theCommittee on Undergraduate Education (CUE), saidshe has seen large introductory courses stifle theenthusiasm of Harvard first-years.

"There's a tremendous problem with freshmencoming here with a lot of passions and wanderinginto big classes," Hurwitz said. "They don't finda mentor who encourages them...and there's atremendous loss of potential."

Buell agreed with Hurwitz, saying "everyonerecognizes the courses [students take] duringtheir first two years to be sub-optimal."

Another highlight of the report is a call formore undergraduate involvement in facultyresearch. Hurwitz said such opportunities areoften not widely advertised at Harvard.

"There's a tendency for the loud and moreaggressive students to thrive and for the moretimid, less confident students to get leftbehind," she said.

Talking Back

Dean of Undergraduate Education William M. ToddIII, who said he has not yet read the report, saidhe was skeptical of the report's conclusionswithout knowing "its sources and the quality ofits argument."

He said such reports often fail to make thedistinction between schools like Harvard andlarger state universities--which often featuremore widespread instruction by graduate students.

Todd cited the CUE Guide and course evaluationforms, along with the Bok Center for Teaching andLearning--a training ground for graduate-studentteaching fellows--as evidence of Harvard'scommitment to undergraduate education.

In addition, he noted that all tenure decisionsnow take into account evidence of a candidate'sclassroom teaching skills--a move designed tolimit the promotion of professors with stellarresearch but questionable lecture-hall presence.

Todd also rebutted the report's assertion thatintroductory courses aimed at first-years shouldnecessarily be discussion-based.

"It's kind of hard to have a discussion withsomeone who's just entering the subject area," hesaid.

He also defended Harvard's attitude about theimportance of Faculty research, saying that ratherthan detracting from undergraduate learning--asalleged in the report--a professor's research maybe a boon to undergraduates seeking to learn onthe cutting edge.

"You expect your professor to be able to saysomething intelligent, but how can that professorbe able to say anything [without the ability toconduct research in his or her field]?" Toddasked.

Former President Derek C. Bok, reached at hishome yesterday, said he also has not read thereport. He said reports like the one releasedyesterday often make contradictory claims on thetime and efforts of high-profile faculty likeHarvard's.

"Society is very anxious to have professors doresearch and very interested in consulting [them]so [their] expertise can be used for society'spurposes," Bok said. "Against this you have tobalance the claims of undergraduates."

"You can't act as though you have unlimitedresources," he added. "It's unrealistic to createall these incentives for professors to do researchand then come around and say, 'Why aren't youteaching?"

Bok also defended the use of graduates studentsas instructors and section leaders as part of theUniversity's "strong commitment" to train a newgeneration of teaching professors.

The Net Result

But will the conclusions of the report everresult in changes in Harvard policy? The answerfrom all corners seems to be "not likely."

While Todd said "these [issues] are things wetalk about anyway," he also said that "just becomesomeone issues a report doesn't mean that it'ssomething worth noticing."

Bok agreed that new action on these issueswould probably not be forthcoming. He said thesame conclusions have been reached by a variety ofstudies in recent years, but applied over such adiverse group of institutions they have yieldedfew concrete results.

Benjamin A. Rahn '99, another undergraduatemember of the CUE, said while he felt that thereport addressed many concerns of current Harvardundergraduates, remedying them would require anear-impossible institutional shift.

"Our Faculty is just not expected to devote asmuch time to undergraduate teaching," Rahn said."But changing that attitude would mean changingthe general culture of Harvard."

Committee member Robert N. O'Neil '56, a lawprofessor at the University of Virginia, said hiscommittee was not optimistic about its ability tochange an institution like Harvard.

"I don't think we have any illusions aboutcreating revolutionary change," said O'Neil, whois a former Crimson executive. "But a smallincrease in commitment by professors would make ahuge difference.