Harvard’s Puzzling Lack of Double Secondaries

A year ago, Harvard authorized double concentrations for the first time. The move was a welcome increase in academic flexibility, allowing students to pursue multiple interests simultaneously without the more complicated requirements of joint concentrations.

The introduction of double concentrations also means that students can spend a lot more of their class time just meeting requirements. With most concentrations requiring 10 to 14 credits, a double concentrator can now fill up more than two thirds of their 32 total class slots with requirements. A highly ambitious student can even try to rack up two concentrations, one secondary, and a language citation.

Double concentrations and language citations seem to represent a choice by Harvard to permit students to take on a lot more structure in their course load than the basic requirement of one concentration, if they choose to do so. Nevertheless, the administration remains unwilling to permit one particular type of course-load structure: multiple secondary fields.

This incongruity exists despite the fact that concentration requirements are not only more numerous than a secondary’s four to six courses, but they usually also involve more difficult requirements than a secondary. In simple terms, Harvard allows students to be experts in two subjects and dabble in another, but not to be experts in one and dabble in two. In one fell swoop, Harvard has both added flexibility to its curricular requirements and created a glaring inconsistency.

As far as I can tell, it is not clear why Harvard has failed to create double secondaries — whether it is an oversight or a deliberate feature of curricular design. Double secondaries would likely be quite popular. More than 50 percent of students currently complete a secondary field, and because most require few courses, many students likely already complete the requirements for multiple secondaries but have to arbitrarily choose one to be officially awarded.

Perhaps administrative higher-ups determined that double secondaries would be too popular or easy to get and are thus less deserving of recognition than double concentrations. Indeed, one could argue that students who already have one secondary would be better off choosing their remaining classes without seeking to satisfy additional requirements.

This view would be hard to reconcile with permitting double concentrations, but perhaps administrators perceive that an additional concentration requires so much effort that only the truly passionate will pursue them. By contrast, double secondaries would be too easy to obtain for students with merely a casual interest or a desire to improve their resumé.

However, those arguments are unconvincing. For starters, because they require so many additional courses, double concentrations are much more restrictive of course choice than double secondaries. As for academic rigor, it is not necessarily easier to be competent in three subjects (demonstrated by a concentration and two secondaries) than to have deep competence in only two: their relative difficulties will vary from person to person.

Harvard should thus extend its good sense in allowing double concentrations to the realm of secondary fields. The most coherent option would be to allow up to three secondary fields, at least for single concentrators, since three secondaries’ requirements would add up to roughly as much as a second concentration.

What, then, will become of students’ unstructured exploration of different academic subjects? I think it will live on. First, many students choose to come to Harvard in part because it offers the option to take varied classes outside of structured requirements. There is no reason to believe that they will stop doing so simply because they would have additional structured options. Second, it is precisely because students already engage in this sort of exploration, pursuing various disciplines without worrying about recognition on their degree, that many likely already meet the requirements for several secondaries. Allowing multiple secondaries would only give official acknowledgement to this exploration.

Ultimately, the introduction of double concentrations, despite the inconsistency that I’ve highlighted, is a good thing for students. But Harvard mustn’t stop at concentrations when prioritizing flexibility in student requirements. It’s time to take the next logical step in ensuring that students can design the best academic plan for themselves. It’s time to permit multiple secondaries.

Lucas R. Szwarcberg ’23, a Crimson Editorial comper, is an Applied Mathematics concentrator in Currier House.