Getting There…

The Harvard College Curricular Review (HCCR) took a small but important step forward yesterday as five of the six HCCR committees—all but general education—presented concrete proposals to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS). We agree with most of the committees’ recommendations (look for a synopsis in our Commencement issue), but there are a few that are unrealistic or fundamentally flawed. In particular, Expository Writing should not be graded pass/fail and should be taught exclusively in the fall, a January term should not be added to the calendar, and advising changes should be implemented with care to avoid potential pitfalls.

Quite simply, a pass/fail Expos would be a disaster. We understand that Expos is an extremely difficult class and that it can be traumatic for freshmen, especially those who wrote little in high school. While a pass/fail Expos may soften the transition to Harvard, it is the unfortunate truth that for many students a transcript grade is what compels them to work. Expos is a cornerstone course in which the educational experience critically involves investing time and energy in the writing and improvement of papers. Both the class itself, and the writing program at Harvard in general, would be immensely diminished without a grade as an incentive to go the extra mile, or in the case of a few, make any effort at all.

Another important improvement to writing instruction at Harvard was not included—teaching Expos exclusively in the first semester. Currently, half of the freshman class is at a disadvantage, as they learn the fundamentals of college writing after a semester of writing college papers. This diminishes the value of both first semester courses and Expos. Currently, Expos has its own set of preceptors that makes a single semester solution economically unviable. However, the report proposed that Expos be taught by lecturers and tenure-track faculty, who could teach Expos in the fall and a different class in the spring. Given that fall Expos could now be practical, it is essential that this necessary change be added to the HCCR.

But Expos is not the only problem we have with the HCCR’s recent proposals—we are still vehemently opposed to the idea of a January term. We share, with many, legitimate fears that a January term would not have the faculty support to create the types of small seminar courses that would make it worthwhile. The January term as currently envisioned by the HCCR would lack academic rigor. It could degenerate into a glorified activities period. Students would be better served by a longer winter vacation with optional Harvard-funded components (like immersion in a foreign country). Driving the push for a January term is the desire to sync the calendars of all eleven schools at Harvard. However, the best interests of each school should be kept in mind, and FAS must not change simply to match everyone else.

Finally, the Committee on Advising and Counseling has made a number of good suggestions (we particularly applaud their decision to reject Yale-style housing), but clear implementation problems threaten their future. Having all members of the faculty involved in advising undergraduates is impractical. And it should not be assumed that faculty will make better advisers than proctors or resident tutors. Indeed, many faculty members don’t know much about undergraduate education beyond the scope of their departments. Instead of faculty involvement, the key to better advising, regardless of who does it, is extensive training and support for advisers—something the committee has already recommended.

The best solution to advising overall would be a multi-tiered advising system that includes faculty, tutors and proctors, concentration advisers and peer advisers. With multiple levels of redundancy, students could pick which person they want to get advice from based on their advisers’ specialties and commitments. With this possibility in mind, we are particularly interested in the committee’s proposal to add a peer advising system, particularly for freshmen. However, we fear that recruiting advisers and making sure they pay attention to advisees on top of each student’s heavy workload will be difficult. The Faculty should pay attention to this potential bottleneck. A small stipend for peer advisers may be the solution.

Besides these fixable qualms, we are quite satisfied with how this latest batch of HCCR reports has turned out. They are not only a step forward, but also a step in the right direction.