Instant Improvement

As the Harvard College Curricular Review (HCCR) is finally brought before the Faculty in the coming semester, its focus will shift from broader issues of general philosophy and overall framework to finer details of implementation. Chief among these unresolved details is the pressing issue of how and when to transition from the Core Curriculum to the new system. Because of the deficiencies of the Core and the ostensible simplicity of a transition, the best course of action for current students is “instant implementation”—getting rid of the Core and moving all students to the new distribution system by next fall.

The debate mainly concerns the recommendations of the Committee on General Education, which Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby recently announced would be brought before the Faculty as legislation in the middle of the semester. The recommendations include moving most introductory courses into the departments and replacing the Core with a distribution requirement of three courses in each of three areas: the Arts and Humanities, the Study of Societies, and Science and Technology. Additionally, the committee recommended that the Faculty create a set of intensive and foundational courses in general education along the lines of Life Sciences 1a and Social Studies 10. The committee’s report has generally been received favorably, although some professors have called for more requirements and a moral or quantitative reasoning requirement. On this page, we have expressed our support for the committee’s “three-by-three” proposal—among its many advantages, it provides a higher level of flexibility for students, putting them in control of their own education.

As for the transition to the new system, there are two clear alternatives. Students could be expected to complete the Core requirements that existed when they enrolled as freshmen, giving the faculty time to develop the new courses in general education while the rest of the student body would still be stuck with the Core. Alternatively, the new distribution requirements could be implemented immediately. Assuming the Faculty votes by the end of the year, which could be impacted by Kirby’s recent decision to step down, the new system could be in place by the fall and apply to the Class of 2007. We strongly support this second option.

On this page, in the HCCR reports, in senior surveys, and amongst faculty, a consensus has developed that the Core is antiquated and broken. Instead of teaching “approaches to knowledge” as intended, it pigeonholes students into taking courses that are specific and narrow in scope, producing graduates who may be interesting to chat with at cocktail parties but who are not necessarily broadly educated. Furthermore, the Core provides professors with captive audiences, eliminating the incentives of competition which would force professors to innovate and improve the courses themselves.

Given the acknowledged flaws of the Core, it would be hypocritical and unfair to current students not to implement the new system as soon as possible, unless there were some great cost involved in doing so. Any concerns about instant implementation, however, are minor and far outweighed by the benefits of the new distribution requirements.

The first concern is that the transition might not yet be able to reconcile the Core with the new distributive system. Yet with the exception of moral reasoning, the 11 current Core areas map fairly cleanly onto the three distribution categories. Because students are currently expected to take seven Core courses in the areas most distant from their concentration, Core courses already completed can cover students’ distribution requirements. As for moving courses out of the Core and into the departments, current Core courses could easily be moved into the department of the professor that teaches each course. These changes are quick and easy enough that they could be in place by next fall.

The second concern is that the courses in general education should be ready before the switch to the new system of distributive requirements is made. While useful additions to the overall system, these courses will be optional and are not so central to the new general education system that they warrant holding up the implementation of the rest of the system. In the interim, the distribution requirement will increase student flexibility and improve the curriculum by introducing competition between courses.

The future of a Harvard education is finally beginning to crystallize, and it looks very promising. There is no reason to tease the Classes of 2007, 2008, and 2009 with this vision of education in the twenty-first century while they are stuck with a patched-up product of the 1970s. Consequently, we strongly urge the faculty to implement the new general education system as soon as possible.