Some Sense Gen Ed Deja Vu

Next fall’s freshman class will be the first to graduate entirely under the General Education curriculum, but they may find themselves in classes that are strikingly similar to ones taken by their older peers.

The Standing Committee on General Education has recently approved more courses to fill out the eight Gen Ed categories. But currently, the vast majority are drawn from departmental courses and the Core curriculum, with very few newly-designed courses made specifically to suit Gen Ed categories.

Although the lack of brand new courses made some wonder about just how novel the new program is, others argued that natural overlaps between the Core and Gen Ed exist and should be taken into consideration.

“Many courses already taught carry out some of the same objectives that Gen Ed aspires to, so I don’t think it is a defect to draw initially on some of these courses,” said History Professor Charles S. Maier ’60, whose departmental course History 1920: “A Global History of Modern Times” now counts for Gen Ed credit in Societies of the World.

The College’s new general education program was designed to mirror the traditional underpinnings of a liberal arts education, imparting broad knowledge in a wider variety of categories and encouraging a greater real world application of curriculum, according to Gen Ed administrators.

Music and African American Studies Professor Kay K. Shelemay, who teaches Literature and Arts B-78: “Soundscapes: Exploring Music in a Changing World,” said that the new Gen Ed criteria very much affects the way she teaches her course.

“The class is now much more connected to music in a changing world,” she said. “It approaches social and ethical issues and questions and includes much more performance and performance activity.”

“I have also incorporated significantly more media materials into my lectures,” Shelemay added.

Professors have the option of submitting current Core or departmental courses for review by the Gen Ed Committee for Gen Ed credit approval. They can also design entirely new courses that meet the Gen Ed objectives.

“Obviously with existing courses we need to work with the most recent syllabus with whatever revision the faculty member suggests,” said Dean of Undergraduate Education Jay M. Harris. “For newer courses we don’t demand a full syllabus but a narrative.”

For Folklore and Mythology Professor Maria Tatar, the review process for Literature and Arts A-17: “Childhood: Its History, Philosophy, and Literature” was surprisingly short.

“In terms of content, I was quite surprised that were really no changes or tinkering made to my syllabus at all,” she said.

Tatar added, however, her experience may not have been the norm.

Because the earliest proposals of the Gen Ed program presented in early 2006 consisted of three broader areas of study—humanities, social studies, and physical sciences—Tatar’s course was originally conceptualized as a humanities course. It was one of approximately 10 courses introduced to fit the Gen Ed guideline while simultaneously serving as Core courses during the developmental stage of the new curriculum.

Although the current Gen Ed program now requires students to fulfill eight categories, faculty members are hoping to spark creative pedagogy through the implementation of a new academic structure.

“It included more categories than originally envisaged, and that has led to a superficial resemblance to the Core,” Maier said. “But this does not mean that it cannot be a meaningful general education curriculum.”

—Staff writer Wendy H. Chang can be reached at whchang@fas.harvard.edu.