In Defense of the Core

During shopping period, readers of The Crimson's editorial page encountered a series of six increasingly hyperbolic staff editorials calling for the abolishment of the "flawed and failed Core curriculum." While we agree that the current Core program may have some shortcomings in practice, we feel that the University must continue to progress diligently toward improving the quality of this curricular keystone rather than forfeit its myriad positive attributes in the name of "flexibility."

Before addressing specific points raised in the editorial series, it is worthwhile to examine the Core's functional significance, that is, its status as a philosophy as well as a requirement. The philosophy of the Core rests on President Lowell's conviction that "every educated man should know a little of everything and something well." It also, however, assumes that students need guidance in achieving this goal, and that the Faculty has an obligation to direct them toward the knowledge and intellectual skills characteristic of "the company of educated men and women" into which Harvard graduates are welcomed.

The Core program seeks to introduce students to the major approaches to knowledge in areas deemed vital to a liberal arts education. Upon developing the critical tools of a discipline, students will be well-equipped to further examine any of its topics. The notion of an "approach to knowledge" must be distinguished from knowledge as such. The question is not merely "What is the theme of The Brothers Karamazov?" but "How does literature function?" and "How are literary genres constituted and transformed?" Beyond a comprehension of the historical events that comprised the French Revolution, students in Historical Studies B-35: "The French Revolution: Causes, Processes, and Consequences" leave with an understanding of the interactions that shape events and how historians conceptualize them.

The Crimson's editorials posit a disconnect between the Core's theoretical underpinnings and its practical execution. The editors cite, for example, an absence of features linking courses in the same Core area (i.e.: Social Analysis 10: "Principles of Economics" and Social Analysis 34: "Knowledge of Language"). What can this "radically different" duo possibly share? Simply that each fulfills a common aim of the courses in Social Analysis, namely to familiarize students with some of the central approaches to the social sciences and to do so in a way that gives students a sense of how those approaches can enhance their understanding of human behavior in the context of contemporary society. Those in search of the so-called "arbitrary" guidelines such as the above rubric would be well served to consult the Core program's website or the book that each student receives in the first year, both of which discuss the educational goals of courses in each of the Core areas.

Another point of contention is the persistent chorus of "Anything the Core can do, departments can do better." We disagree. By virtue of the Core program's oversight, Core courses are reviewed for consistency in grading policies and student workload. Students benefit from Core resources that may not be available to them through departments. Most important, Core classes provide students with an introduction to an approach to knowledge in a format uncharacteristic of standard departmental introductory courses. Surely The Crimson does not wish to propose a program whereby a student would wander from survey course to survey course in hopes of achieving an appropriate "distribution." We will assume that the Crimson meant to advocate the opportunity for students with background in a field akin to one of the Cores to explore upper-level departmental coursework remote from their concentration in satisfaction of graduation requirements. In such cases, cross-listing departmental courses would be an appropriate route. For the majority of students, however, the Core effectively blends methods of thinking with manageable quantities of knowledge within a discipline in which a student may have little or no experience.

For students who fit the special case outlined above, the scarcity of departmental courses cross-listed for Core credit stands out as a significant problem of the current Core program. So does the somewhat mysterious petition process. As students familiar with the tempting biannual array of course options, we believe that reasonable departmental alternatives for Core courses should be explored more fully, and the Standing Committee on the Core Program pledges to do so. Progress has been made--the committee recently approved the cross-listing of Economics 1010a for Social Analysis credit. We hope this trend will continue, allowing students to include in their liberal arts education those courses which most interest and excite them.

When the new Harvard president takes office, ideally the "candidate" who has been a member of the Harvard community from its "pre-Core" days to the present, we advise him or her not to wipe clean the undergraduate curricular slate but rather to inventory the strengths and successes of the current Core program, in theory and in practice, and to build upon them. The Core is an indispensable feature of the Harvard undergraduate experience and must be preserved.

Stephanie L. Murg '01, a neurobiology concentrator in Leverett House, and Andre M.A.V.F. Moura '03, a computer science concentrator in Adams House, are the elected student members of the University's Standing Committee on the Core Program.