Opting for More Options

With the approach of pre-term planning, idealism and pragmatism are at war once again in the academic lives of many Harvard students. Students can’t learn the basics of economics or computer science without devoting a full year to Ec 10 or pulling all-nighters for CS 50. As a pre-med humanities concentrator with little time or energy to spare beyond my regular academic workload, I am reluctant to enroll in these valuable but large, time-intensive and notoriously stressful courses even though I would like to learn about these subjects.

As evidenced by the open secret that students prefer to strike a balance of “easy” and “hard” classes in their course selection, I am not alone in the caution with which I approach large introductory courses outside my field of study. In order to better serve myriad students with preexisting academic commitments, the College should expand its offerings of accessible introductory courses in popular subjects such as computer science and economics.

Many Harvard students pursue honors concentrations or pre-professional tracks that demand rigorous course loads. The result is twofold: First, major “gateway” or introductory courses like Ec10 experience high numbers of enrollment, resulting in a lecture-style course that employs a singular method to teach the same content to students of wildly diverse academic preparation and motivations for taking the course. Consequently, the perception of these introductory courses as large, demanding, and time-intensive discourages students from pursuing them in addition to other major academic obligations. Taking a large introductory course becomes a rite of passage for the majority of students, but taking one in addition to other significant commitments becomes unadvisable from a practical standpoint.

This semester, Ec 10 and CS 50 enrolled more students than any other course, reflecting the mass appeal and relevance of these subjects. In today’s technologically-defined and economically volatile world, it is crucial for Harvard graduates to have practical knowledge of computer science and economics. As such, Gen Ed requirements should be altered or expanded to include these fields. If the Program in General Education’s purpose is “to prepare students for civic engagement” and “to enable students to respond critically and constructively to change,” then it is equally, if not more, necessary for students to understand the basics of economics or computer science as it is for them to know about the role of the United States in the world or the science of living systems.

Given the logistical complications of altering the current Gen Ed program, the college should, at minimum, introduce a greater variety of courses in introductory economics and computer science, including some that are comparable in workload and time commitment to Gen Ed courses. Granted, the breadth of a field like economics would be difficult to reconcile with the typical scope and workload of a Gen Ed course, but the Computer Science and Economics departments could work to devise courses that balance satisfactory scope of material with reasonable expectations from students. Just as many students attest that some of their most meaningful academic experiences have been through Gen Ed courses that weren’t necessarily the most academically rigorous, students who cannot or choose not to take Ec 10 or CS 50 stand to benefit from carefully balanced courses that expose them to the basics of these practical and intellectually significant fields.

Alternative introductory courses should, by no means, replace the existing courses designed for concentrators, nor should they count for concentration credit. Rather, these courses should serve as a means for students to develop knowledge and interests outside their area of expertise. In regard to concentrations and secondary fields besides economics and computer science that currently require Ec10 or CS50, departments should exercise discretion to decide whether the traditional course or a less in-depth introductory option satisfactorily communicates the knowledge required by a given academic program. The potential benefits of empowering more students with the opportunity to gain basic, valuable knowledge are sufficient incentive to develop and implement new courses in two invaluable fields.

In the end, the lack of more accessible, less time-intensive courses in practical subjects reveals that the Harvard undergraduate academic curriculum is currently too focused on academic rigor as opposed to the dissemination of interdisciplinary knowledge and diverse methods of learning to the maximum number of students. The latter is the purpose of a liberal arts education, one oft forgotten amidst the pressure to provide students with a rigorous academic experience.

Tarina Quraishi ’14, a Crimson editorial writer, lives in Eliot House.