History Urges Study Abroad

The Department of History will hold a meeting next Wednesday to officially inform concentrators of a change in requirements instituted in order to make it easier for students to go abroad.

“The history department is at the forefront of the movement across the College making requirements more flexible to enable students to go abroad more easily,” said Professor of American Studies Lizabeth Cohen, head tutor in the history department.

Gutman Professor of Latin American Affairs John H. Coatsworth, who pushed for the reforms, said that while about 8 percent of each graduating class is comprised of students who have studied abroad, the long-term goal of the University is to “arrive at a situation where it would be unusual for a Harvard student to graduate without having had some significant international experience.”

“It’s well within our capacity to double or triple [the 8 percent] if one looks at the experience of other institutions comparable to Harvard,” he said.

The department’s faculty unanimously adopted last spring the proposed requirement reforms, independent but coinciding with the move by the College’s study out of residence committee to encourage study abroad.

Cohen said that in the past, students who felt more able to study abroad were those with advanced standing.

The department hopes that its curricular changes—dropping the spring semester of the junior year tutorial, abolishing the requirement that concentrators choose a focused track and giving credit for a larger number of courses abroad—will encourage more students to pursue overseas study.

The new requirements apply to history concentrators beginning with those in the Class of 2005.

“We want to encourage history students to go abroad and come back more motivated to study and write history,” Cohen said.

“Historians are very aware of the importance of learning another language and acquiring a more international scope,” she said.

Perhaps the most popular change among students is the move to end the department’s policy of forcing concentrators to choose a specific area of focus, such as American History or International Relations.

“I think more flexibility in the history department indeed anywhere in the school, is a wonderful thing,” said Neeta Lal ’05, a former history concentrator.

“Students will be more responsible for providing depth in their programs without the track program to do it for them,” Cohen said.

“Those concentrators who write theses will delve deep into their subject matter, but the one-half of history concentrators who do not will have more flexibility within their programs. We want concentrators to taste a lot of different kinds of history,” she said.

“As far as tracks are concerned, I would be inclined to pursue a specialty anyway, because I would want some depth, so I don’t really see how it affects me,” said possible history concentrator Charles E. Maule ’06.

The elimination of tracks also means that students will have greater freedom in selecting courses for their foreign programs, as ensuring that having courses that will fulfill track requirements will no longer be a concern.

“Before, we were very picky about giving credit for courses abroad,” Cohen said. “Now students don’t have to please me to be able to go abroad.”

Not everyone may be thrilled by the changes, though. With the elimination of the second half of the junior tutorial for honors concentrators comes fewer opportunities for graduate students to virtually teach their own classes, Cohen said.

“We can’t let the tail wag the dog,” she said. “We must do what’s best for our undergraduates.”