Gen Ed Forum Finds Faults

Professors and students criticized the Report on General Education for its lack of specific curricular requirements at an open forum last night.

While speakers generally endorsed the “flexible” new program intended to replace the current Core Curriculum, many expressed concern that the proposed program offered too little direction for students and failed to live up to its potential as a seminal statement of education principle.

The event, which filled the Faculty Room of University Hall, represented the first formal opportunity for response to the report since its release earlier this month.

Comments echoed the internal debates of the committee that authored the report, including a call for the addition of a moral reasoning requirement.

Representatives of the Educational Policy Committee (EPC) and the Committee on General Education began the meeting by summarizing their recommendations.

The Report on General Education mandates that students take three courses in each of three major areas—Arts and Humanities, the Study of Societies, and Science and Technology. Students could choose to fulfill their requirements with either departmental courses or broad non-departmental Courses in General Education.

“The idea is to let the catalogue do the work of attracting students into courses,” said Diana Sorensen, professor of Romance languages and literatures and of comparative literature. She called the new system of general education an “agora.”

Members of the Committee on General Education said that improved advising will help students take advantage of greater free choice.

But some faculty were concerned that the new system will not provide enough guidance to students.

“Requirements are one of the most effective ways of advising,” said Baird Professor of Science Gary J. Feldman. “Beyond the first term of their freshman year, students are immune to any advice they don’t want to hear.”

“Without any control of distribution requirements one could have a math major who does three courses in music theory and three courses in economics and who would potentially read no piece of literature, look at no piece of art, [and] study no piece of history,” said Richard F. Thomas, chair of the classics department.

Heated student calls for a moral reasoning requirement spurred further debate as to how much freedom students should be given.

“[The recommendations] are not taking into account the type of student who comes into Harvard,” said Andrew H. Golis ’06, describing students as “high-achieving academic bureaucrats,” focused on self-promotion and unlikely to seek out a moral reasoning course.

Other students however said that they should be trusted.

Jacquelyn Chou ’07 advocated “letting students pursue and structure their academic life in a way that best fits their needs.”

Participants at the forum, including a member of the committee, questioned whether the report effectively puts forward Harvard’s ideals for general education.

“The rest of the world pays attention [to Harvard],” said Johnstone Professor of Psychology Steven A. Pinker, who served on the general education committee. “We could be more assertive with our recommendations.”

Pinker acknowledged, however, that there is a “burden of proof” for any requirement.

Saltonstall Professor of History Charles S. Maier ’60 compared a system of general education to a Christmas tree, with each faculty member hoping to add a particular requirement as an ornament.

Presenters said that requirements are still subject to change and urged faculty and students to voice their opinions in coming weeks and months. The report’s recommendations are slated to be discussed at upcoming Faculty meetings, with the goal of voting on legislation by the end of the academic year.

“The greatest resource we have...[is] the ideas and energy of the people in this room,” said Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby.

—Staff writer Allison A. Frost can be reached at afrost@fas.harvard.edu.