The General Education Program, A Qualified Success

Gen Ed," the term that dominates of Harvard education, was probably coined by some freshman or sophomore 15 years ago. He used the phrase to name an experimental program that offered eight courses to 459 students that year.

General Education, the idea that controls Harvard education, has a longer history, reaching back into the administrations of Lowell and Eliot, but it was given meaning for current generations at Harvard in 1943 when President Conant appointed a University Committee on the Objectives of a General Education in a Free Society. That Committee produced a book, the book produced a program of education that gave new significance to the ideas of electives, concentration and distribution.

Gen. Ed has succeeded quite well since then. Several thousand students have now received a sub-lethal dose of a few great books and some impressive ideas. They not only exchange them at cocktail parties, but sit up for hours in Holworthy or arguing about them. Those early-morning hours are when Gen Ed succeeds most of all.

Gen. Ed is a part of the Harvard experience which especially tries the student. Lecturers and section men cannot ruin most of this material; the Harvard student fools only himself with that excuse. Here the freshman is first the test of how well he will use a Harvard education--the test of whether he can bring some enthusiasm of his own to a book, instead of expecting the book, and a Ph.D. explicator, to do everything for him.

Varities of Gen Ed

The practice of Gen Ed is not yet past childhood, though, and it certainly has not solved every problem--partly because it is young, and partly because it is so many different things:

Broad, lower level courses, which introduce the student to an area of knowledge.

A diverse assortment of upper-level courses on many topics, with little in common but a generally high quality of teaching, perphas the most meaningful bond of all.

For freshmen, Gen Ed also means a writing course which will never be too much fun, though it tends increasingly to teach them how to write.

For upperclassmen, Gen Ed is also a plan of distribution, a vague set of signposts suggesting where to scatter some courses outside one's major field.

And Gen Ed is, basically, a philosophy of education, whose aim President Conant outlined thus in 1943:

The primary concern of American education today is not the development of the appreciation of the 'good life' in young gentlemen born to the purple. It is the infusion of the liberal and humane tradition into our entire educational system. Our purpose is to cultivate in the largest number of our future citizens an appreciation of both the responsibilities and the benefits which come to them because they are Americans and are free.

This concern underlies General Education at Harvard, and its sense of national mission shines through the legendary "red book," General Education in a Free Society, the committee report whose publication in 1945 brought this concept to Harvard education.

This an essay on that concept, particularly on how it has worked and failed at Harvard. It cannot yet be assessed in relation to all American education, though it seems to have a widening impact on schools and colleges in the nation.

The basic aims have not changed much since 1943, but they seem all the more vital today in a post-war America that seems content with Herman Wouk or Anne Morrow Lindbergh as culture, or will sit by quietly as it is told that nuclear radiation is a) dangerous, b) harmless, c) over its head, or d) none of its business.

This radiation problem has a regrettable complement at Harvard, for the General Education hope that a citizen might have some comprehension of the problems of science and scientists is balked here. The sciences thwart General Education, which is pointless if it cannot teach the three areas of knowledge on a roughly equal level. Scientists in the University rarely agree to give Gen Ed courses, and the notable exceptions, men like Kemble, Cohen, Nash, Holton, and LeCorbeillier are left to keep on teaching the courses year in and year out.

This is the chief problem for General Education today, but there are other issues which must be faced.

The depth of the lower-level Humanities and Social Sciences is one problem. These courses have undeniable impact, for their reading lists are scarcely surpassed in the University and they are usually very well taught. But some people wonder if they do not try to do too much, to read too many books. Except Humanities 6, the lower-level Humanities courses read no fewer than eleven great books in a year, and often quite a few more.

General Education in a Free Society showed concern on this point:

There must be time for reflection or the familiarity will remain too verbal ... Probably,... a course which chose eight great books would be trying to do too much. A list from which a selection would be made might include Homer, one or two of the Greek tragedies, Plato, the Bible, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Tolstoy.

This is a problem that interests President Pusey, too. The matter of "reading in depth" was an important part of General Education at Lawrence College, where he taught a section of the required course on five or six "great books" during his presidency there. "You can't examine a text," he complains, "if simply getting through the number of pages exhausts you." Owen shares this concern, and one instructor recently suggested that a Gen Ed course might profitably take up only one or two books a term, delving into them for every possible meaning.

This might prove to be extreme, for not many section men could keep a single book exciting for eight weeks, even if the lecturer could. Yet the idea is an important one, and something could probably be done to relieve the sense of frantic pressure a freshman feels when handed a Humanities 3 or Social Sciences 5 reading list. Each of these courses is taught well, generally, and they are popular with students, but much of the time spent in sections is devoted to explaining the books which were hastily read if read at all.

With these exceptions, the lower-level courses fulfill their function very well, for all but the exceptionally prepared freshmen who come to Harvard already generally educated in Western culture, ethical and political For a fairly large number from Eastern prep schools, these courses add little to the student's already generous background.

Without analyzing individual , it seems fair to say that means employed are suitable, once the validity of a system is admitted. All sorts of in the lecture-section exist.

Teachers at such institutions as Columbia may insist that discussions are better than lectures, but they assume that all discussions will be as good as the best ones. This cannot a bad discussion is probably worse than a bad lecture, for one cannot good book in a bad section meeting (his) attendance is often punitive quizzes.

The Committee's second group are less certain in purpose. "Classics of the Christian clearly cut or ignore departmental Many others, especially the courses under Social Sciences, as easily be given by a Originally these courses were an integral part of the distribution under General Education, and the which cut departmental lines in General Education in Society. Now any course in the is accepted for distribution, and the Committee feels that its courses must fill some holes. Consequently one can scarcely find a comparably fine courses in any department's listing interest and good teaching are important than inclusiveness.

Quality of Upper Courses

The quality of the courses of Gen Ed's greatest contributions to Harvard education. Unlike a the Committee has no use for the services of the great students. It can altar or course, and its repeated efforts to create an acceptable course in logical sciences form one would be hard to tell whether influence has yet spread to other , but it certainly affects teaching fellows the Committee the men who will climb the ladder to tenure in the department . This effect can certainly be expected to increase.

Writing clear English perplexes students everywhere, and learning how to do it is rarely interesting. General Education Ahf, Harvard writing course, faces the same problems as similar courses at other . One more it takes on risk of being disregarded by for as a full-year half-course it be pushed aside by freshmen. A essay can be written in half and many of them are. Harold C. director of General Education , "Many students do not same respect to this course as to .

Aside from teaching Ed Ahf provides two significant methods as examples for the Fifteen to sixteen per cent of its students are enrolled in honors sections, use only literary sources and more work of the students. Freshmen in these sections usually emerge with a better impression of the course than others, and Martin believes this segregation works more effectively in a writing course than in others, discussion in a Gen Ed Ahf section of great importance and therefore the best students off does not others.

Gen Ed Ahf's other unique practice is of general education for the staff of this course is drawn fields of study, not exclusively from graduate student ranks. small minority of the teachers next year's staff are graduate in English, and for the first is including some men from School.

reason for this is that he has English students excessively their approach to the course. a sort of philosophical to the idea, which faintly parallels the general education course at where instructors from all departments taught the basic Gen Ed course, the physics professors became the most teachers of Hamlet. The of this approach is worth thought, if only in terms of more .

Languages

Gen Ed now covers all but one of the requirements outside of . It ignores only the language , which is left to the presumably takes care of it is not busy with swimming .

The Faculty will probably rummage the subject of the language again next year, according to , and it seems likely that be pressure to tighten the so it will mean something.

has met the problem by competence in either a foreign language or in mathematics, and along this line might be put in there seems to be little current demand for more math instruction. The requirement might just be raised, the placement tests and the level to be passed. At least one year of foreign literature might be .

The problem is more than a . The intermittent watchfulness of the Faculty has not brought forth a system, and a standing profitably survey the area. If a committee were created, it would probably include many members of the language departments who now the responsibility for the low instruction given in so many modern languages. This instruction helps make the language requirement worthless.

If an independent but vitally concerned body like the Committee on General Education were given jurisdiction over the requirement, and perhaps over the instruction as well, the language requirement might be translated into a useful contribution to Harvard education.

When Gen Ed was adopted it was not looked on as final and perfect, and there was a feeling that the program would need a reconsideration after some years of practice. Ten years then seemed a proper interval, and that would put the review any time after the next academic year, for General Education went into permanent status with 1949-50. Owen says that the committee would welcome such a review, but it seems that if such a study is to make sense, both the teaching of science and the place of languages should be carefully examined first. Excepting the unlikely eventualities of curricular or term-arrangement reform, these are the most pressing problems for Harvard education today.

Gen Ed a Success

Gen Ed has succeeded; one of President Pusey's major concerns when he came was seeing that "General Education engaged the full interest and support or senior Faculty members whose standing is as high as that of anyone in their departments." Under the vigorous leadership of Kenneth B. Murdock, General Education continues to do that. Three University Professors teach Gen Ed courses, and leading professors from two of the three areas contribute to the program.

There is much to be done. If one can ever sit back and relax about an educational problem, he cannot do it yet about Gen Ed. But there is room for a feeling of accomplishment. In the words of one professor of long standing, "General Education, for all its defects in execution, aims at a useful goal, and whatever its failings may have been, has had 'successes' which more than counter-balance them, 'successes' of a sort less commonly achieved when Gen Ed was not in existence."

General Education, the idea that controls Harvard education, has a longer history, reaching back into the administrations of Lowell and Eliot, but it was given meaning for current generations at Harvard in 1943 when President Conant appointed a University Committee on the Objectives of a General Education in a Free Society. That Committee produced a book, the book produced a program of education that gave new significance to the ideas of electives, concentration and distribution.

Gen. Ed has succeeded quite well since then. Several thousand students have now received a sub-lethal dose of a few great books and some impressive ideas. They not only exchange them at cocktail parties, but sit up for hours in Holworthy or arguing about them. Those early-morning hours are when Gen Ed succeeds most of all.

Gen. Ed is a part of the Harvard experience which especially tries the student. Lecturers and section men cannot ruin most of this material; the Harvard student fools only himself with that excuse. Here the freshman is first the test of how well he will use a Harvard education--the test of whether he can bring some enthusiasm of his own to a book, instead of expecting the book, and a Ph.D. explicator, to do everything for him.

Varities of Gen Ed

The practice of Gen Ed is not yet past childhood, though, and it certainly has not solved every problem--partly because it is young, and partly because it is so many different things:

Broad, lower level courses, which introduce the student to an area of knowledge.

A diverse assortment of upper-level courses on many topics, with little in common but a generally high quality of teaching, perphas the most meaningful bond of all.

For freshmen, Gen Ed also means a writing course which will never be too much fun, though it tends increasingly to teach them how to write.

For upperclassmen, Gen Ed is also a plan of distribution, a vague set of signposts suggesting where to scatter some courses outside one's major field.

And Gen Ed is, basically, a philosophy of education, whose aim President Conant outlined thus in 1943:

The primary concern of American education today is not the development of the appreciation of the 'good life' in young gentlemen born to the purple. It is the infusion of the liberal and humane tradition into our entire educational system. Our purpose is to cultivate in the largest number of our future citizens an appreciation of both the responsibilities and the benefits which come to them because they are Americans and are free.

This concern underlies General Education at Harvard, and its sense of national mission shines through the legendary "red book," General Education in a Free Society, the committee report whose publication in 1945 brought this concept to Harvard education.

This an essay on that concept, particularly on how it has worked and failed at Harvard. It cannot yet be assessed in relation to all American education, though it seems to have a widening impact on schools and colleges in the nation.

The basic aims have not changed much since 1943, but they seem all the more vital today in a post-war America that seems content with Herman Wouk or Anne Morrow Lindbergh as culture, or will sit by quietly as it is told that nuclear radiation is a) dangerous, b) harmless, c) over its head, or d) none of its business.

This radiation problem has a regrettable complement at Harvard, for the General Education hope that a citizen might have some comprehension of the problems of science and scientists is balked here. The sciences thwart General Education, which is pointless if it cannot teach the three areas of knowledge on a roughly equal level. Scientists in the University rarely agree to give Gen Ed courses, and the notable exceptions, men like Kemble, Cohen, Nash, Holton, and LeCorbeillier are left to keep on teaching the courses year in and year out.

This is the chief problem for General Education today, but there are other issues which must be faced.

The depth of the lower-level Humanities and Social Sciences is one problem. These courses have undeniable impact, for their reading lists are scarcely surpassed in the University and they are usually very well taught. But some people wonder if they do not try to do too much, to read too many books. Except Humanities 6, the lower-level Humanities courses read no fewer than eleven great books in a year, and often quite a few more.

General Education in a Free Society showed concern on this point:

There must be time for reflection or the familiarity will remain too verbal ... Probably,... a course which chose eight great books would be trying to do too much. A list from which a selection would be made might include Homer, one or two of the Greek tragedies, Plato, the Bible, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Tolstoy.

This is a problem that interests President Pusey, too. The matter of "reading in depth" was an important part of General Education at Lawrence College, where he taught a section of the required course on five or six "great books" during his presidency there. "You can't examine a text," he complains, "if simply getting through the number of pages exhausts you." Owen shares this concern, and one instructor recently suggested that a Gen Ed course might profitably take up only one or two books a term, delving into them for every possible meaning.

This might prove to be extreme, for not many section men could keep a single book exciting for eight weeks, even if the lecturer could. Yet the idea is an important one, and something could probably be done to relieve the sense of frantic pressure a freshman feels when handed a Humanities 3 or Social Sciences 5 reading list. Each of these courses is taught well, generally, and they are popular with students, but much of the time spent in sections is devoted to explaining the books which were hastily read if read at all.

With these exceptions, the lower-level courses fulfill their function very well, for all but the exceptionally prepared freshmen who come to Harvard already generally educated in Western culture, ethical and political For a fairly large number from Eastern prep schools, these courses add little to the student's already generous background.

Without analyzing individual , it seems fair to say that means employed are suitable, once the validity of a system is admitted. All sorts of in the lecture-section exist.

Teachers at such institutions as Columbia may insist that discussions are better than lectures, but they assume that all discussions will be as good as the best ones. This cannot a bad discussion is probably worse than a bad lecture, for one cannot good book in a bad section meeting (his) attendance is often punitive quizzes.

The Committee's second group are less certain in purpose. "Classics of the Christian clearly cut or ignore departmental Many others, especially the courses under Social Sciences, as easily be given by a Originally these courses were an integral part of the distribution under General Education, and the which cut departmental lines in General Education in Society. Now any course in the is accepted for distribution, and the Committee feels that its courses must fill some holes. Consequently one can scarcely find a comparably fine courses in any department's listing interest and good teaching are important than inclusiveness.

Quality of Upper Courses

The quality of the courses of Gen Ed's greatest contributions to Harvard education. Unlike a the Committee has no use for the services of the great students. It can altar or course, and its repeated efforts to create an acceptable course in logical sciences form one would be hard to tell whether influence has yet spread to other , but it certainly affects teaching fellows the Committee the men who will climb the ladder to tenure in the department . This effect can certainly be expected to increase.

Writing clear English perplexes students everywhere, and learning how to do it is rarely interesting. General Education Ahf, Harvard writing course, faces the same problems as similar courses at other . One more it takes on risk of being disregarded by for as a full-year half-course it be pushed aside by freshmen. A essay can be written in half and many of them are. Harold C. director of General Education , "Many students do not same respect to this course as to .

Aside from teaching Ed Ahf provides two significant methods as examples for the Fifteen to sixteen per cent of its students are enrolled in honors sections, use only literary sources and more work of the students. Freshmen in these sections usually emerge with a better impression of the course than others, and Martin believes this segregation works more effectively in a writing course than in others, discussion in a Gen Ed Ahf section of great importance and therefore the best students off does not others.

Gen Ed Ahf's other unique practice is of general education for the staff of this course is drawn fields of study, not exclusively from graduate student ranks. small minority of the teachers next year's staff are graduate in English, and for the first is including some men from School.

reason for this is that he has English students excessively their approach to the course. a sort of philosophical to the idea, which faintly parallels the general education course at where instructors from all departments taught the basic Gen Ed course, the physics professors became the most teachers of Hamlet. The of this approach is worth thought, if only in terms of more .

Languages

Gen Ed now covers all but one of the requirements outside of . It ignores only the language , which is left to the presumably takes care of it is not busy with swimming .

The Faculty will probably rummage the subject of the language again next year, according to , and it seems likely that be pressure to tighten the so it will mean something.

has met the problem by competence in either a foreign language or in mathematics, and along this line might be put in there seems to be little current demand for more math instruction. The requirement might just be raised, the placement tests and the level to be passed. At least one year of foreign literature might be .

The problem is more than a . The intermittent watchfulness of the Faculty has not brought forth a system, and a standing profitably survey the area. If a committee were created, it would probably include many members of the language departments who now the responsibility for the low instruction given in so many modern languages. This instruction helps make the language requirement worthless.

If an independent but vitally concerned body like the Committee on General Education were given jurisdiction over the requirement, and perhaps over the instruction as well, the language requirement might be translated into a useful contribution to Harvard education.

When Gen Ed was adopted it was not looked on as final and perfect, and there was a feeling that the program would need a reconsideration after some years of practice. Ten years then seemed a proper interval, and that would put the review any time after the next academic year, for General Education went into permanent status with 1949-50. Owen says that the committee would welcome such a review, but it seems that if such a study is to make sense, both the teaching of science and the place of languages should be carefully examined first. Excepting the unlikely eventualities of curricular or term-arrangement reform, these are the most pressing problems for Harvard education today.

Gen Ed a Success

Gen Ed has succeeded; one of President Pusey's major concerns when he came was seeing that "General Education engaged the full interest and support or senior Faculty members whose standing is as high as that of anyone in their departments." Under the vigorous leadership of Kenneth B. Murdock, General Education continues to do that. Three University Professors teach Gen Ed courses, and leading professors from two of the three areas contribute to the program.

There is much to be done. If one can ever sit back and relax about an educational problem, he cannot do it yet about Gen Ed. But there is room for a feeling of accomplishment. In the words of one professor of long standing, "General Education, for all its defects in execution, aims at a useful goal, and whatever its failings may have been, has had 'successes' which more than counter-balance them, 'successes' of a sort less commonly achieved when Gen Ed was not in existence."

Gen. Ed is a part of the Harvard experience which especially tries the student. Lecturers and section men cannot ruin most of this material; the Harvard student fools only himself with that excuse. Here the freshman is first the test of how well he will use a Harvard education--the test of whether he can bring some enthusiasm of his own to a book, instead of expecting the book, and a Ph.D. explicator, to do everything for him.

Varities of Gen Ed

The practice of Gen Ed is not yet past childhood, though, and it certainly has not solved every problem--partly because it is young, and partly because it is so many different things:

Broad, lower level courses, which introduce the student to an area of knowledge.

A diverse assortment of upper-level courses on many topics, with little in common but a generally high quality of teaching, perphas the most meaningful bond of all.

For freshmen, Gen Ed also means a writing course which will never be too much fun, though it tends increasingly to teach them how to write.

For upperclassmen, Gen Ed is also a plan of distribution, a vague set of signposts suggesting where to scatter some courses outside one's major field.

And Gen Ed is, basically, a philosophy of education, whose aim President Conant outlined thus in 1943:

The primary concern of American education today is not the development of the appreciation of the 'good life' in young gentlemen born to the purple. It is the infusion of the liberal and humane tradition into our entire educational system. Our purpose is to cultivate in the largest number of our future citizens an appreciation of both the responsibilities and the benefits which come to them because they are Americans and are free.

This concern underlies General Education at Harvard, and its sense of national mission shines through the legendary "red book," General Education in a Free Society, the committee report whose publication in 1945 brought this concept to Harvard education.

This an essay on that concept, particularly on how it has worked and failed at Harvard. It cannot yet be assessed in relation to all American education, though it seems to have a widening impact on schools and colleges in the nation.

The basic aims have not changed much since 1943, but they seem all the more vital today in a post-war America that seems content with Herman Wouk or Anne Morrow Lindbergh as culture, or will sit by quietly as it is told that nuclear radiation is a) dangerous, b) harmless, c) over its head, or d) none of its business.

This radiation problem has a regrettable complement at Harvard, for the General Education hope that a citizen might have some comprehension of the problems of science and scientists is balked here. The sciences thwart General Education, which is pointless if it cannot teach the three areas of knowledge on a roughly equal level. Scientists in the University rarely agree to give Gen Ed courses, and the notable exceptions, men like Kemble, Cohen, Nash, Holton, and LeCorbeillier are left to keep on teaching the courses year in and year out.

This is the chief problem for General Education today, but there are other issues which must be faced.

The depth of the lower-level Humanities and Social Sciences is one problem. These courses have undeniable impact, for their reading lists are scarcely surpassed in the University and they are usually very well taught. But some people wonder if they do not try to do too much, to read too many books. Except Humanities 6, the lower-level Humanities courses read no fewer than eleven great books in a year, and often quite a few more.

General Education in a Free Society showed concern on this point:

There must be time for reflection or the familiarity will remain too verbal ... Probably,... a course which chose eight great books would be trying to do too much. A list from which a selection would be made might include Homer, one or two of the Greek tragedies, Plato, the Bible, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Tolstoy.

This is a problem that interests President Pusey, too. The matter of "reading in depth" was an important part of General Education at Lawrence College, where he taught a section of the required course on five or six "great books" during his presidency there. "You can't examine a text," he complains, "if simply getting through the number of pages exhausts you." Owen shares this concern, and one instructor recently suggested that a Gen Ed course might profitably take up only one or two books a term, delving into them for every possible meaning.

This might prove to be extreme, for not many section men could keep a single book exciting for eight weeks, even if the lecturer could. Yet the idea is an important one, and something could probably be done to relieve the sense of frantic pressure a freshman feels when handed a Humanities 3 or Social Sciences 5 reading list. Each of these courses is taught well, generally, and they are popular with students, but much of the time spent in sections is devoted to explaining the books which were hastily read if read at all.

With these exceptions, the lower-level courses fulfill their function very well, for all but the exceptionally prepared freshmen who come to Harvard already generally educated in Western culture, ethical and political For a fairly large number from Eastern prep schools, these courses add little to the student's already generous background.

Without analyzing individual , it seems fair to say that means employed are suitable, once the validity of a system is admitted. All sorts of in the lecture-section exist.

Teachers at such institutions as Columbia may insist that discussions are better than lectures, but they assume that all discussions will be as good as the best ones. This cannot a bad discussion is probably worse than a bad lecture, for one cannot good book in a bad section meeting (his) attendance is often punitive quizzes.

The Committee's second group are less certain in purpose. "Classics of the Christian clearly cut or ignore departmental Many others, especially the courses under Social Sciences, as easily be given by a Originally these courses were an integral part of the distribution under General Education, and the which cut departmental lines in General Education in Society. Now any course in the is accepted for distribution, and the Committee feels that its courses must fill some holes. Consequently one can scarcely find a comparably fine courses in any department's listing interest and good teaching are important than inclusiveness.

Quality of Upper Courses

The quality of the courses of Gen Ed's greatest contributions to Harvard education. Unlike a the Committee has no use for the services of the great students. It can altar or course, and its repeated efforts to create an acceptable course in logical sciences form one would be hard to tell whether influence has yet spread to other , but it certainly affects teaching fellows the Committee the men who will climb the ladder to tenure in the department . This effect can certainly be expected to increase.

Writing clear English perplexes students everywhere, and learning how to do it is rarely interesting. General Education Ahf, Harvard writing course, faces the same problems as similar courses at other . One more it takes on risk of being disregarded by for as a full-year half-course it be pushed aside by freshmen. A essay can be written in half and many of them are. Harold C. director of General Education , "Many students do not same respect to this course as to .

Aside from teaching Ed Ahf provides two significant methods as examples for the Fifteen to sixteen per cent of its students are enrolled in honors sections, use only literary sources and more work of the students. Freshmen in these sections usually emerge with a better impression of the course than others, and Martin believes this segregation works more effectively in a writing course than in others, discussion in a Gen Ed Ahf section of great importance and therefore the best students off does not others.

Gen Ed Ahf's other unique practice is of general education for the staff of this course is drawn fields of study, not exclusively from graduate student ranks. small minority of the teachers next year's staff are graduate in English, and for the first is including some men from School.

reason for this is that he has English students excessively their approach to the course. a sort of philosophical to the idea, which faintly parallels the general education course at where instructors from all departments taught the basic Gen Ed course, the physics professors became the most teachers of Hamlet. The of this approach is worth thought, if only in terms of more .

Languages

Gen Ed now covers all but one of the requirements outside of . It ignores only the language , which is left to the presumably takes care of it is not busy with swimming .

The Faculty will probably rummage the subject of the language again next year, according to , and it seems likely that be pressure to tighten the so it will mean something.

has met the problem by competence in either a foreign language or in mathematics, and along this line might be put in there seems to be little current demand for more math instruction. The requirement might just be raised, the placement tests and the level to be passed. At least one year of foreign literature might be .

The problem is more than a . The intermittent watchfulness of the Faculty has not brought forth a system, and a standing profitably survey the area. If a committee were created, it would probably include many members of the language departments who now the responsibility for the low instruction given in so many modern languages. This instruction helps make the language requirement worthless.

If an independent but vitally concerned body like the Committee on General Education were given jurisdiction over the requirement, and perhaps over the instruction as well, the language requirement might be translated into a useful contribution to Harvard education.

When Gen Ed was adopted it was not looked on as final and perfect, and there was a feeling that the program would need a reconsideration after some years of practice. Ten years then seemed a proper interval, and that would put the review any time after the next academic year, for General Education went into permanent status with 1949-50. Owen says that the committee would welcome such a review, but it seems that if such a study is to make sense, both the teaching of science and the place of languages should be carefully examined first. Excepting the unlikely eventualities of curricular or term-arrangement reform, these are the most pressing problems for Harvard education today.

Gen Ed a Success

Gen Ed has succeeded; one of President Pusey's major concerns when he came was seeing that "General Education engaged the full interest and support or senior Faculty members whose standing is as high as that of anyone in their departments." Under the vigorous leadership of Kenneth B. Murdock, General Education continues to do that. Three University Professors teach Gen Ed courses, and leading professors from two of the three areas contribute to the program.

There is much to be done. If one can ever sit back and relax about an educational problem, he cannot do it yet about Gen Ed. But there is room for a feeling of accomplishment. In the words of one professor of long standing, "General Education, for all its defects in execution, aims at a useful goal, and whatever its failings may have been, has had 'successes' which more than counter-balance them, 'successes' of a sort less commonly achieved when Gen Ed was not in existence."

Varities of Gen Ed

The practice of Gen Ed is not yet past childhood, though, and it certainly has not solved every problem--partly because it is young, and partly because it is so many different things:

Broad, lower level courses, which introduce the student to an area of knowledge.

A diverse assortment of upper-level courses on many topics, with little in common but a generally high quality of teaching, perphas the most meaningful bond of all.

For freshmen, Gen Ed also means a writing course which will never be too much fun, though it tends increasingly to teach them how to write.

For upperclassmen, Gen Ed is also a plan of distribution, a vague set of signposts suggesting where to scatter some courses outside one's major field.

And Gen Ed is, basically, a philosophy of education, whose aim President Conant outlined thus in 1943:

The primary concern of American education today is not the development of the appreciation of the 'good life' in young gentlemen born to the purple. It is the infusion of the liberal and humane tradition into our entire educational system. Our purpose is to cultivate in the largest number of our future citizens an appreciation of both the responsibilities and the benefits which come to them because they are Americans and are free.

This concern underlies General Education at Harvard, and its sense of national mission shines through the legendary "red book," General Education in a Free Society, the committee report whose publication in 1945 brought this concept to Harvard education.

This an essay on that concept, particularly on how it has worked and failed at Harvard. It cannot yet be assessed in relation to all American education, though it seems to have a widening impact on schools and colleges in the nation.

The basic aims have not changed much since 1943, but they seem all the more vital today in a post-war America that seems content with Herman Wouk or Anne Morrow Lindbergh as culture, or will sit by quietly as it is told that nuclear radiation is a) dangerous, b) harmless, c) over its head, or d) none of its business.

This radiation problem has a regrettable complement at Harvard, for the General Education hope that a citizen might have some comprehension of the problems of science and scientists is balked here. The sciences thwart General Education, which is pointless if it cannot teach the three areas of knowledge on a roughly equal level. Scientists in the University rarely agree to give Gen Ed courses, and the notable exceptions, men like Kemble, Cohen, Nash, Holton, and LeCorbeillier are left to keep on teaching the courses year in and year out.

This is the chief problem for General Education today, but there are other issues which must be faced.

The depth of the lower-level Humanities and Social Sciences is one problem. These courses have undeniable impact, for their reading lists are scarcely surpassed in the University and they are usually very well taught. But some people wonder if they do not try to do too much, to read too many books. Except Humanities 6, the lower-level Humanities courses read no fewer than eleven great books in a year, and often quite a few more.

General Education in a Free Society showed concern on this point:

There must be time for reflection or the familiarity will remain too verbal ... Probably,... a course which chose eight great books would be trying to do too much. A list from which a selection would be made might include Homer, one or two of the Greek tragedies, Plato, the Bible, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Tolstoy.

This is a problem that interests President Pusey, too. The matter of "reading in depth" was an important part of General Education at Lawrence College, where he taught a section of the required course on five or six "great books" during his presidency there. "You can't examine a text," he complains, "if simply getting through the number of pages exhausts you." Owen shares this concern, and one instructor recently suggested that a Gen Ed course might profitably take up only one or two books a term, delving into them for every possible meaning.

This might prove to be extreme, for not many section men could keep a single book exciting for eight weeks, even if the lecturer could. Yet the idea is an important one, and something could probably be done to relieve the sense of frantic pressure a freshman feels when handed a Humanities 3 or Social Sciences 5 reading list. Each of these courses is taught well, generally, and they are popular with students, but much of the time spent in sections is devoted to explaining the books which were hastily read if read at all.

With these exceptions, the lower-level courses fulfill their function very well, for all but the exceptionally prepared freshmen who come to Harvard already generally educated in Western culture, ethical and political For a fairly large number from Eastern prep schools, these courses add little to the student's already generous background.

Without analyzing individual , it seems fair to say that means employed are suitable, once the validity of a system is admitted. All sorts of in the lecture-section exist.

Teachers at such institutions as Columbia may insist that discussions are better than lectures, but they assume that all discussions will be as good as the best ones. This cannot a bad discussion is probably worse than a bad lecture, for one cannot good book in a bad section meeting (his) attendance is often punitive quizzes.

The Committee's second group are less certain in purpose. "Classics of the Christian clearly cut or ignore departmental Many others, especially the courses under Social Sciences, as easily be given by a Originally these courses were an integral part of the distribution under General Education, and the which cut departmental lines in General Education in Society. Now any course in the is accepted for distribution, and the Committee feels that its courses must fill some holes. Consequently one can scarcely find a comparably fine courses in any department's listing interest and good teaching are important than inclusiveness.

Quality of Upper Courses

The quality of the courses of Gen Ed's greatest contributions to Harvard education. Unlike a the Committee has no use for the services of the great students. It can altar or course, and its repeated efforts to create an acceptable course in logical sciences form one would be hard to tell whether influence has yet spread to other , but it certainly affects teaching fellows the Committee the men who will climb the ladder to tenure in the department . This effect can certainly be expected to increase.

Writing clear English perplexes students everywhere, and learning how to do it is rarely interesting. General Education Ahf, Harvard writing course, faces the same problems as similar courses at other . One more it takes on risk of being disregarded by for as a full-year half-course it be pushed aside by freshmen. A essay can be written in half and many of them are. Harold C. director of General Education , "Many students do not same respect to this course as to .

Aside from teaching Ed Ahf provides two significant methods as examples for the Fifteen to sixteen per cent of its students are enrolled in honors sections, use only literary sources and more work of the students. Freshmen in these sections usually emerge with a better impression of the course than others, and Martin believes this segregation works more effectively in a writing course than in others, discussion in a Gen Ed Ahf section of great importance and therefore the best students off does not others.

Gen Ed Ahf's other unique practice is of general education for the staff of this course is drawn fields of study, not exclusively from graduate student ranks. small minority of the teachers next year's staff are graduate in English, and for the first is including some men from School.

reason for this is that he has English students excessively their approach to the course. a sort of philosophical to the idea, which faintly parallels the general education course at where instructors from all departments taught the basic Gen Ed course, the physics professors became the most teachers of Hamlet. The of this approach is worth thought, if only in terms of more .

Languages

Gen Ed now covers all but one of the requirements outside of . It ignores only the language , which is left to the presumably takes care of it is not busy with swimming .

The Faculty will probably rummage the subject of the language again next year, according to , and it seems likely that be pressure to tighten the so it will mean something.

has met the problem by competence in either a foreign language or in mathematics, and along this line might be put in there seems to be little current demand for more math instruction. The requirement might just be raised, the placement tests and the level to be passed. At least one year of foreign literature might be .

The problem is more than a . The intermittent watchfulness of the Faculty has not brought forth a system, and a standing profitably survey the area. If a committee were created, it would probably include many members of the language departments who now the responsibility for the low instruction given in so many modern languages. This instruction helps make the language requirement worthless.

If an independent but vitally concerned body like the Committee on General Education were given jurisdiction over the requirement, and perhaps over the instruction as well, the language requirement might be translated into a useful contribution to Harvard education.

When Gen Ed was adopted it was not looked on as final and perfect, and there was a feeling that the program would need a reconsideration after some years of practice. Ten years then seemed a proper interval, and that would put the review any time after the next academic year, for General Education went into permanent status with 1949-50. Owen says that the committee would welcome such a review, but it seems that if such a study is to make sense, both the teaching of science and the place of languages should be carefully examined first. Excepting the unlikely eventualities of curricular or term-arrangement reform, these are the most pressing problems for Harvard education today.

Gen Ed a Success

Gen Ed has succeeded; one of President Pusey's major concerns when he came was seeing that "General Education engaged the full interest and support or senior Faculty members whose standing is as high as that of anyone in their departments." Under the vigorous leadership of Kenneth B. Murdock, General Education continues to do that. Three University Professors teach Gen Ed courses, and leading professors from two of the three areas contribute to the program.

There is much to be done. If one can ever sit back and relax about an educational problem, he cannot do it yet about Gen Ed. But there is room for a feeling of accomplishment. In the words of one professor of long standing, "General Education, for all its defects in execution, aims at a useful goal, and whatever its failings may have been, has had 'successes' which more than counter-balance them, 'successes' of a sort less commonly achieved when Gen Ed was not in existence."

Teachers at such institutions as Columbia may insist that discussions are better than lectures, but they assume that all discussions will be as good as the best ones. This cannot a bad discussion is probably worse than a bad lecture, for one cannot good book in a bad section meeting (his) attendance is often punitive quizzes.

The Committee's second group are less certain in purpose. "Classics of the Christian clearly cut or ignore departmental Many others, especially the courses under Social Sciences, as easily be given by a Originally these courses were an integral part of the distribution under General Education, and the which cut departmental lines in General Education in Society. Now any course in the is accepted for distribution, and the Committee feels that its courses must fill some holes. Consequently one can scarcely find a comparably fine courses in any department's listing interest and good teaching are important than inclusiveness.

Quality of Upper Courses

The quality of the courses of Gen Ed's greatest contributions to Harvard education. Unlike a the Committee has no use for the services of the great students. It can altar or course, and its repeated efforts to create an acceptable course in logical sciences form one would be hard to tell whether influence has yet spread to other , but it certainly affects teaching fellows the Committee the men who will climb the ladder to tenure in the department . This effect can certainly be expected to increase.

Writing clear English perplexes students everywhere, and learning how to do it is rarely interesting. General Education Ahf, Harvard writing course, faces the same problems as similar courses at other . One more it takes on risk of being disregarded by for as a full-year half-course it be pushed aside by freshmen. A essay can be written in half and many of them are. Harold C. director of General Education , "Many students do not same respect to this course as to .

Aside from teaching Ed Ahf provides two significant methods as examples for the Fifteen to sixteen per cent of its students are enrolled in honors sections, use only literary sources and more work of the students. Freshmen in these sections usually emerge with a better impression of the course than others, and Martin believes this segregation works more effectively in a writing course than in others, discussion in a Gen Ed Ahf section of great importance and therefore the best students off does not others.

Gen Ed Ahf's other unique practice is of general education for the staff of this course is drawn fields of study, not exclusively from graduate student ranks. small minority of the teachers next year's staff are graduate in English, and for the first is including some men from School.

reason for this is that he has English students excessively their approach to the course. a sort of philosophical to the idea, which faintly parallels the general education course at where instructors from all departments taught the basic Gen Ed course, the physics professors became the most teachers of Hamlet. The of this approach is worth thought, if only in terms of more .

Languages

Gen Ed now covers all but one of the requirements outside of . It ignores only the language , which is left to the presumably takes care of it is not busy with swimming .

The Faculty will probably rummage the subject of the language again next year, according to , and it seems likely that be pressure to tighten the so it will mean something.

has met the problem by competence in either a foreign language or in mathematics, and along this line might be put in there seems to be little current demand for more math instruction. The requirement might just be raised, the placement tests and the level to be passed. At least one year of foreign literature might be .

The problem is more than a . The intermittent watchfulness of the Faculty has not brought forth a system, and a standing profitably survey the area. If a committee were created, it would probably include many members of the language departments who now the responsibility for the low instruction given in so many modern languages. This instruction helps make the language requirement worthless.

If an independent but vitally concerned body like the Committee on General Education were given jurisdiction over the requirement, and perhaps over the instruction as well, the language requirement might be translated into a useful contribution to Harvard education.

When Gen Ed was adopted it was not looked on as final and perfect, and there was a feeling that the program would need a reconsideration after some years of practice. Ten years then seemed a proper interval, and that would put the review any time after the next academic year, for General Education went into permanent status with 1949-50. Owen says that the committee would welcome such a review, but it seems that if such a study is to make sense, both the teaching of science and the place of languages should be carefully examined first. Excepting the unlikely eventualities of curricular or term-arrangement reform, these are the most pressing problems for Harvard education today.

Gen Ed a Success

Gen Ed has succeeded; one of President Pusey's major concerns when he came was seeing that "General Education engaged the full interest and support or senior Faculty members whose standing is as high as that of anyone in their departments." Under the vigorous leadership of Kenneth B. Murdock, General Education continues to do that. Three University Professors teach Gen Ed courses, and leading professors from two of the three areas contribute to the program.

There is much to be done. If one can ever sit back and relax about an educational problem, he cannot do it yet about Gen Ed. But there is room for a feeling of accomplishment. In the words of one professor of long standing, "General Education, for all its defects in execution, aims at a useful goal, and whatever its failings may have been, has had 'successes' which more than counter-balance them, 'successes' of a sort less commonly achieved when Gen Ed was not in existence."

The Committee's second group are less certain in purpose. "Classics of the Christian clearly cut or ignore departmental Many others, especially the courses under Social Sciences, as easily be given by a Originally these courses were an integral part of the distribution under General Education, and the which cut departmental lines in General Education in Society. Now any course in the is accepted for distribution, and the Committee feels that its courses must fill some holes. Consequently one can scarcely find a comparably fine courses in any department's listing interest and good teaching are important than inclusiveness.

Quality of Upper Courses

The quality of the courses of Gen Ed's greatest contributions to Harvard education. Unlike a the Committee has no use for the services of the great students. It can altar or course, and its repeated efforts to create an acceptable course in logical sciences form one would be hard to tell whether influence has yet spread to other , but it certainly affects teaching fellows the Committee the men who will climb the ladder to tenure in the department . This effect can certainly be expected to increase.

Writing clear English perplexes students everywhere, and learning how to do it is rarely interesting. General Education Ahf, Harvard writing course, faces the same problems as similar courses at other . One more it takes on risk of being disregarded by for as a full-year half-course it be pushed aside by freshmen. A essay can be written in half and many of them are. Harold C. director of General Education , "Many students do not same respect to this course as to .

Aside from teaching Ed Ahf provides two significant methods as examples for the Fifteen to sixteen per cent of its students are enrolled in honors sections, use only literary sources and more work of the students. Freshmen in these sections usually emerge with a better impression of the course than others, and Martin believes this segregation works more effectively in a writing course than in others, discussion in a Gen Ed Ahf section of great importance and therefore the best students off does not others.

Gen Ed Ahf's other unique practice is of general education for the staff of this course is drawn fields of study, not exclusively from graduate student ranks. small minority of the teachers next year's staff are graduate in English, and for the first is including some men from School.

reason for this is that he has English students excessively their approach to the course. a sort of philosophical to the idea, which faintly parallels the general education course at where instructors from all departments taught the basic Gen Ed course, the physics professors became the most teachers of Hamlet. The of this approach is worth thought, if only in terms of more .

Languages

Gen Ed now covers all but one of the requirements outside of . It ignores only the language , which is left to the presumably takes care of it is not busy with swimming .

The Faculty will probably rummage the subject of the language again next year, according to , and it seems likely that be pressure to tighten the so it will mean something.

has met the problem by competence in either a foreign language or in mathematics, and along this line might be put in there seems to be little current demand for more math instruction. The requirement might just be raised, the placement tests and the level to be passed. At least one year of foreign literature might be .

The problem is more than a . The intermittent watchfulness of the Faculty has not brought forth a system, and a standing profitably survey the area. If a committee were created, it would probably include many members of the language departments who now the responsibility for the low instruction given in so many modern languages. This instruction helps make the language requirement worthless.

If an independent but vitally concerned body like the Committee on General Education were given jurisdiction over the requirement, and perhaps over the instruction as well, the language requirement might be translated into a useful contribution to Harvard education.

When Gen Ed was adopted it was not looked on as final and perfect, and there was a feeling that the program would need a reconsideration after some years of practice. Ten years then seemed a proper interval, and that would put the review any time after the next academic year, for General Education went into permanent status with 1949-50. Owen says that the committee would welcome such a review, but it seems that if such a study is to make sense, both the teaching of science and the place of languages should be carefully examined first. Excepting the unlikely eventualities of curricular or term-arrangement reform, these are the most pressing problems for Harvard education today.

Gen Ed a Success

Gen Ed has succeeded; one of President Pusey's major concerns when he came was seeing that "General Education engaged the full interest and support or senior Faculty members whose standing is as high as that of anyone in their departments." Under the vigorous leadership of Kenneth B. Murdock, General Education continues to do that. Three University Professors teach Gen Ed courses, and leading professors from two of the three areas contribute to the program.

There is much to be done. If one can ever sit back and relax about an educational problem, he cannot do it yet about Gen Ed. But there is room for a feeling of accomplishment. In the words of one professor of long standing, "General Education, for all its defects in execution, aims at a useful goal, and whatever its failings may have been, has had 'successes' which more than counter-balance them, 'successes' of a sort less commonly achieved when Gen Ed was not in existence."

Quality of Upper Courses

The quality of the courses of Gen Ed's greatest contributions to Harvard education. Unlike a the Committee has no use for the services of the great students. It can altar or course, and its repeated efforts to create an acceptable course in logical sciences form one would be hard to tell whether influence has yet spread to other , but it certainly affects teaching fellows the Committee the men who will climb the ladder to tenure in the department . This effect can certainly be expected to increase.

Writing clear English perplexes students everywhere, and learning how to do it is rarely interesting. General Education Ahf, Harvard writing course, faces the same problems as similar courses at other . One more it takes on risk of being disregarded by for as a full-year half-course it be pushed aside by freshmen. A essay can be written in half and many of them are. Harold C. director of General Education , "Many students do not same respect to this course as to .

Aside from teaching Ed Ahf provides two significant methods as examples for the Fifteen to sixteen per cent of its students are enrolled in honors sections, use only literary sources and more work of the students. Freshmen in these sections usually emerge with a better impression of the course than others, and Martin believes this segregation works more effectively in a writing course than in others, discussion in a Gen Ed Ahf section of great importance and therefore the best students off does not others.

Gen Ed Ahf's other unique practice is of general education for the staff of this course is drawn fields of study, not exclusively from graduate student ranks. small minority of the teachers next year's staff are graduate in English, and for the first is including some men from School.

reason for this is that he has English students excessively their approach to the course. a sort of philosophical to the idea, which faintly parallels the general education course at where instructors from all departments taught the basic Gen Ed course, the physics professors became the most teachers of Hamlet. The of this approach is worth thought, if only in terms of more .

Languages

Gen Ed now covers all but one of the requirements outside of . It ignores only the language , which is left to the presumably takes care of it is not busy with swimming .

The Faculty will probably rummage the subject of the language again next year, according to , and it seems likely that be pressure to tighten the so it will mean something.

has met the problem by competence in either a foreign language or in mathematics, and along this line might be put in there seems to be little current demand for more math instruction. The requirement might just be raised, the placement tests and the level to be passed. At least one year of foreign literature might be .

The problem is more than a . The intermittent watchfulness of the Faculty has not brought forth a system, and a standing profitably survey the area. If a committee were created, it would probably include many members of the language departments who now the responsibility for the low instruction given in so many modern languages. This instruction helps make the language requirement worthless.

If an independent but vitally concerned body like the Committee on General Education were given jurisdiction over the requirement, and perhaps over the instruction as well, the language requirement might be translated into a useful contribution to Harvard education.

When Gen Ed was adopted it was not looked on as final and perfect, and there was a feeling that the program would need a reconsideration after some years of practice. Ten years then seemed a proper interval, and that would put the review any time after the next academic year, for General Education went into permanent status with 1949-50. Owen says that the committee would welcome such a review, but it seems that if such a study is to make sense, both the teaching of science and the place of languages should be carefully examined first. Excepting the unlikely eventualities of curricular or term-arrangement reform, these are the most pressing problems for Harvard education today.

Gen Ed a Success

Gen Ed has succeeded; one of President Pusey's major concerns when he came was seeing that "General Education engaged the full interest and support or senior Faculty members whose standing is as high as that of anyone in their departments." Under the vigorous leadership of Kenneth B. Murdock, General Education continues to do that. Three University Professors teach Gen Ed courses, and leading professors from two of the three areas contribute to the program.

There is much to be done. If one can ever sit back and relax about an educational problem, he cannot do it yet about Gen Ed. But there is room for a feeling of accomplishment. In the words of one professor of long standing, "General Education, for all its defects in execution, aims at a useful goal, and whatever its failings may have been, has had 'successes' which more than counter-balance them, 'successes' of a sort less commonly achieved when Gen Ed was not in existence."

Writing clear English perplexes students everywhere, and learning how to do it is rarely interesting. General Education Ahf, Harvard writing course, faces the same problems as similar courses at other . One more it takes on risk of being disregarded by for as a full-year half-course it be pushed aside by freshmen. A essay can be written in half and many of them are. Harold C. director of General Education , "Many students do not same respect to this course as to .

Aside from teaching Ed Ahf provides two significant methods as examples for the Fifteen to sixteen per cent of its students are enrolled in honors sections, use only literary sources and more work of the students. Freshmen in these sections usually emerge with a better impression of the course than others, and Martin believes this segregation works more effectively in a writing course than in others, discussion in a Gen Ed Ahf section of great importance and therefore the best students off does not others.

Gen Ed Ahf's other unique practice is of general education for the staff of this course is drawn fields of study, not exclusively from graduate student ranks. small minority of the teachers next year's staff are graduate in English, and for the first is including some men from School.

reason for this is that he has English students excessively their approach to the course. a sort of philosophical to the idea, which faintly parallels the general education course at where instructors from all departments taught the basic Gen Ed course, the physics professors became the most teachers of Hamlet. The of this approach is worth thought, if only in terms of more .

Languages

Gen Ed now covers all but one of the requirements outside of . It ignores only the language , which is left to the presumably takes care of it is not busy with swimming .

The Faculty will probably rummage the subject of the language again next year, according to , and it seems likely that be pressure to tighten the so it will mean something.

has met the problem by competence in either a foreign language or in mathematics, and along this line might be put in there seems to be little current demand for more math instruction. The requirement might just be raised, the placement tests and the level to be passed. At least one year of foreign literature might be .

The problem is more than a . The intermittent watchfulness of the Faculty has not brought forth a system, and a standing profitably survey the area. If a committee were created, it would probably include many members of the language departments who now the responsibility for the low instruction given in so many modern languages. This instruction helps make the language requirement worthless.

If an independent but vitally concerned body like the Committee on General Education were given jurisdiction over the requirement, and perhaps over the instruction as well, the language requirement might be translated into a useful contribution to Harvard education.

When Gen Ed was adopted it was not looked on as final and perfect, and there was a feeling that the program would need a reconsideration after some years of practice. Ten years then seemed a proper interval, and that would put the review any time after the next academic year, for General Education went into permanent status with 1949-50. Owen says that the committee would welcome such a review, but it seems that if such a study is to make sense, both the teaching of science and the place of languages should be carefully examined first. Excepting the unlikely eventualities of curricular or term-arrangement reform, these are the most pressing problems for Harvard education today.

Gen Ed a Success

Gen Ed has succeeded; one of President Pusey's major concerns when he came was seeing that "General Education engaged the full interest and support or senior Faculty members whose standing is as high as that of anyone in their departments." Under the vigorous leadership of Kenneth B. Murdock, General Education continues to do that. Three University Professors teach Gen Ed courses, and leading professors from two of the three areas contribute to the program.

There is much to be done. If one can ever sit back and relax about an educational problem, he cannot do it yet about Gen Ed. But there is room for a feeling of accomplishment. In the words of one professor of long standing, "General Education, for all its defects in execution, aims at a useful goal, and whatever its failings may have been, has had 'successes' which more than counter-balance them, 'successes' of a sort less commonly achieved when Gen Ed was not in existence."

Aside from teaching Ed Ahf provides two significant methods as examples for the Fifteen to sixteen per cent of its students are enrolled in honors sections, use only literary sources and more work of the students. Freshmen in these sections usually emerge with a better impression of the course than others, and Martin believes this segregation works more effectively in a writing course than in others, discussion in a Gen Ed Ahf section of great importance and therefore the best students off does not others.

Gen Ed Ahf's other unique practice is of general education for the staff of this course is drawn fields of study, not exclusively from graduate student ranks. small minority of the teachers next year's staff are graduate in English, and for the first is including some men from School.

reason for this is that he has English students excessively their approach to the course. a sort of philosophical to the idea, which faintly parallels the general education course at where instructors from all departments taught the basic Gen Ed course, the physics professors became the most teachers of Hamlet. The of this approach is worth thought, if only in terms of more .

Languages

Gen Ed now covers all but one of the requirements outside of . It ignores only the language , which is left to the presumably takes care of it is not busy with swimming .

The Faculty will probably rummage the subject of the language again next year, according to , and it seems likely that be pressure to tighten the so it will mean something.

has met the problem by competence in either a foreign language or in mathematics, and along this line might be put in there seems to be little current demand for more math instruction. The requirement might just be raised, the placement tests and the level to be passed. At least one year of foreign literature might be .

The problem is more than a . The intermittent watchfulness of the Faculty has not brought forth a system, and a standing profitably survey the area. If a committee were created, it would probably include many members of the language departments who now the responsibility for the low instruction given in so many modern languages. This instruction helps make the language requirement worthless.

If an independent but vitally concerned body like the Committee on General Education were given jurisdiction over the requirement, and perhaps over the instruction as well, the language requirement might be translated into a useful contribution to Harvard education.

When Gen Ed was adopted it was not looked on as final and perfect, and there was a feeling that the program would need a reconsideration after some years of practice. Ten years then seemed a proper interval, and that would put the review any time after the next academic year, for General Education went into permanent status with 1949-50. Owen says that the committee would welcome such a review, but it seems that if such a study is to make sense, both the teaching of science and the place of languages should be carefully examined first. Excepting the unlikely eventualities of curricular or term-arrangement reform, these are the most pressing problems for Harvard education today.

Gen Ed a Success

Gen Ed has succeeded; one of President Pusey's major concerns when he came was seeing that "General Education engaged the full interest and support or senior Faculty members whose standing is as high as that of anyone in their departments." Under the vigorous leadership of Kenneth B. Murdock, General Education continues to do that. Three University Professors teach Gen Ed courses, and leading professors from two of the three areas contribute to the program.

There is much to be done. If one can ever sit back and relax about an educational problem, he cannot do it yet about Gen Ed. But there is room for a feeling of accomplishment. In the words of one professor of long standing, "General Education, for all its defects in execution, aims at a useful goal, and whatever its failings may have been, has had 'successes' which more than counter-balance them, 'successes' of a sort less commonly achieved when Gen Ed was not in existence."

Gen Ed Ahf's other unique practice is of general education for the staff of this course is drawn fields of study, not exclusively from graduate student ranks. small minority of the teachers next year's staff are graduate in English, and for the first is including some men from School.

reason for this is that he has English students excessively their approach to the course. a sort of philosophical to the idea, which faintly parallels the general education course at where instructors from all departments taught the basic Gen Ed course, the physics professors became the most teachers of Hamlet. The of this approach is worth thought, if only in terms of more .

Languages

Gen Ed now covers all but one of the requirements outside of . It ignores only the language , which is left to the presumably takes care of it is not busy with swimming .

The Faculty will probably rummage the subject of the language again next year, according to , and it seems likely that be pressure to tighten the so it will mean something.

has met the problem by competence in either a foreign language or in mathematics, and along this line might be put in there seems to be little current demand for more math instruction. The requirement might just be raised, the placement tests and the level to be passed. At least one year of foreign literature might be .

The problem is more than a . The intermittent watchfulness of the Faculty has not brought forth a system, and a standing profitably survey the area. If a committee were created, it would probably include many members of the language departments who now the responsibility for the low instruction given in so many modern languages. This instruction helps make the language requirement worthless.

If an independent but vitally concerned body like the Committee on General Education were given jurisdiction over the requirement, and perhaps over the instruction as well, the language requirement might be translated into a useful contribution to Harvard education.

When Gen Ed was adopted it was not looked on as final and perfect, and there was a feeling that the program would need a reconsideration after some years of practice. Ten years then seemed a proper interval, and that would put the review any time after the next academic year, for General Education went into permanent status with 1949-50. Owen says that the committee would welcome such a review, but it seems that if such a study is to make sense, both the teaching of science and the place of languages should be carefully examined first. Excepting the unlikely eventualities of curricular or term-arrangement reform, these are the most pressing problems for Harvard education today.

Gen Ed a Success

Gen Ed has succeeded; one of President Pusey's major concerns when he came was seeing that "General Education engaged the full interest and support or senior Faculty members whose standing is as high as that of anyone in their departments." Under the vigorous leadership of Kenneth B. Murdock, General Education continues to do that. Three University Professors teach Gen Ed courses, and leading professors from two of the three areas contribute to the program.

There is much to be done. If one can ever sit back and relax about an educational problem, he cannot do it yet about Gen Ed. But there is room for a feeling of accomplishment. In the words of one professor of long standing, "General Education, for all its defects in execution, aims at a useful goal, and whatever its failings may have been, has had 'successes' which more than counter-balance them, 'successes' of a sort less commonly achieved when Gen Ed was not in existence."

reason for this is that he has English students excessively their approach to the course. a sort of philosophical to the idea, which faintly parallels the general education course at where instructors from all departments taught the basic Gen Ed course, the physics professors became the most teachers of Hamlet. The of this approach is worth thought, if only in terms of more .

Languages

Gen Ed now covers all but one of the requirements outside of . It ignores only the language , which is left to the presumably takes care of it is not busy with swimming .

The Faculty will probably rummage the subject of the language again next year, according to , and it seems likely that be pressure to tighten the so it will mean something.

has met the problem by competence in either a foreign language or in mathematics, and along this line might be put in there seems to be little current demand for more math instruction. The requirement might just be raised, the placement tests and the level to be passed. At least one year of foreign literature might be .

The problem is more than a . The intermittent watchfulness of the Faculty has not brought forth a system, and a standing profitably survey the area. If a committee were created, it would probably include many members of the language departments who now the responsibility for the low instruction given in so many modern languages. This instruction helps make the language requirement worthless.

If an independent but vitally concerned body like the Committee on General Education were given jurisdiction over the requirement, and perhaps over the instruction as well, the language requirement might be translated into a useful contribution to Harvard education.

When Gen Ed was adopted it was not looked on as final and perfect, and there was a feeling that the program would need a reconsideration after some years of practice. Ten years then seemed a proper interval, and that would put the review any time after the next academic year, for General Education went into permanent status with 1949-50. Owen says that the committee would welcome such a review, but it seems that if such a study is to make sense, both the teaching of science and the place of languages should be carefully examined first. Excepting the unlikely eventualities of curricular or term-arrangement reform, these are the most pressing problems for Harvard education today.

Gen Ed a Success

Gen Ed has succeeded; one of President Pusey's major concerns when he came was seeing that "General Education engaged the full interest and support or senior Faculty members whose standing is as high as that of anyone in their departments." Under the vigorous leadership of Kenneth B. Murdock, General Education continues to do that. Three University Professors teach Gen Ed courses, and leading professors from two of the three areas contribute to the program.

There is much to be done. If one can ever sit back and relax about an educational problem, he cannot do it yet about Gen Ed. But there is room for a feeling of accomplishment. In the words of one professor of long standing, "General Education, for all its defects in execution, aims at a useful goal, and whatever its failings may have been, has had 'successes' which more than counter-balance them, 'successes' of a sort less commonly achieved when Gen Ed was not in existence."

Languages

Gen Ed now covers all but one of the requirements outside of . It ignores only the language , which is left to the presumably takes care of it is not busy with swimming .

The Faculty will probably rummage the subject of the language again next year, according to , and it seems likely that be pressure to tighten the so it will mean something.

has met the problem by competence in either a foreign language or in mathematics, and along this line might be put in there seems to be little current demand for more math instruction. The requirement might just be raised, the placement tests and the level to be passed. At least one year of foreign literature might be .

The problem is more than a . The intermittent watchfulness of the Faculty has not brought forth a system, and a standing profitably survey the area. If a committee were created, it would probably include many members of the language departments who now the responsibility for the low instruction given in so many modern languages. This instruction helps make the language requirement worthless.

If an independent but vitally concerned body like the Committee on General Education were given jurisdiction over the requirement, and perhaps over the instruction as well, the language requirement might be translated into a useful contribution to Harvard education.

When Gen Ed was adopted it was not looked on as final and perfect, and there was a feeling that the program would need a reconsideration after some years of practice. Ten years then seemed a proper interval, and that would put the review any time after the next academic year, for General Education went into permanent status with 1949-50. Owen says that the committee would welcome such a review, but it seems that if such a study is to make sense, both the teaching of science and the place of languages should be carefully examined first. Excepting the unlikely eventualities of curricular or term-arrangement reform, these are the most pressing problems for Harvard education today.

Gen Ed a Success

Gen Ed has succeeded; one of President Pusey's major concerns when he came was seeing that "General Education engaged the full interest and support or senior Faculty members whose standing is as high as that of anyone in their departments." Under the vigorous leadership of Kenneth B. Murdock, General Education continues to do that. Three University Professors teach Gen Ed courses, and leading professors from two of the three areas contribute to the program.

There is much to be done. If one can ever sit back and relax about an educational problem, he cannot do it yet about Gen Ed. But there is room for a feeling of accomplishment. In the words of one professor of long standing, "General Education, for all its defects in execution, aims at a useful goal, and whatever its failings may have been, has had 'successes' which more than counter-balance them, 'successes' of a sort less commonly achieved when Gen Ed was not in existence."

The Faculty will probably rummage the subject of the language again next year, according to , and it seems likely that be pressure to tighten the so it will mean something.

has met the problem by competence in either a foreign language or in mathematics, and along this line might be put in there seems to be little current demand for more math instruction. The requirement might just be raised, the placement tests and the level to be passed. At least one year of foreign literature might be .

The problem is more than a . The intermittent watchfulness of the Faculty has not brought forth a system, and a standing profitably survey the area. If a committee were created, it would probably include many members of the language departments who now the responsibility for the low instruction given in so many modern languages. This instruction helps make the language requirement worthless.

If an independent but vitally concerned body like the Committee on General Education were given jurisdiction over the requirement, and perhaps over the instruction as well, the language requirement might be translated into a useful contribution to Harvard education.

When Gen Ed was adopted it was not looked on as final and perfect, and there was a feeling that the program would need a reconsideration after some years of practice. Ten years then seemed a proper interval, and that would put the review any time after the next academic year, for General Education went into permanent status with 1949-50. Owen says that the committee would welcome such a review, but it seems that if such a study is to make sense, both the teaching of science and the place of languages should be carefully examined first. Excepting the unlikely eventualities of curricular or term-arrangement reform, these are the most pressing problems for Harvard education today.

Gen Ed a Success

Gen Ed has succeeded; one of President Pusey's major concerns when he came was seeing that "General Education engaged the full interest and support or senior Faculty members whose standing is as high as that of anyone in their departments." Under the vigorous leadership of Kenneth B. Murdock, General Education continues to do that. Three University Professors teach Gen Ed courses, and leading professors from two of the three areas contribute to the program.

There is much to be done. If one can ever sit back and relax about an educational problem, he cannot do it yet about Gen Ed. But there is room for a feeling of accomplishment. In the words of one professor of long standing, "General Education, for all its defects in execution, aims at a useful goal, and whatever its failings may have been, has had 'successes' which more than counter-balance them, 'successes' of a sort less commonly achieved when Gen Ed was not in existence."

has met the problem by competence in either a foreign language or in mathematics, and along this line might be put in there seems to be little current demand for more math instruction. The requirement might just be raised, the placement tests and the level to be passed. At least one year of foreign literature might be .

The problem is more than a . The intermittent watchfulness of the Faculty has not brought forth a system, and a standing profitably survey the area. If a committee were created, it would probably include many members of the language departments who now the responsibility for the low instruction given in so many modern languages. This instruction helps make the language requirement worthless.

If an independent but vitally concerned body like the Committee on General Education were given jurisdiction over the requirement, and perhaps over the instruction as well, the language requirement might be translated into a useful contribution to Harvard education.

When Gen Ed was adopted it was not looked on as final and perfect, and there was a feeling that the program would need a reconsideration after some years of practice. Ten years then seemed a proper interval, and that would put the review any time after the next academic year, for General Education went into permanent status with 1949-50. Owen says that the committee would welcome such a review, but it seems that if such a study is to make sense, both the teaching of science and the place of languages should be carefully examined first. Excepting the unlikely eventualities of curricular or term-arrangement reform, these are the most pressing problems for Harvard education today.

Gen Ed a Success

Gen Ed has succeeded; one of President Pusey's major concerns when he came was seeing that "General Education engaged the full interest and support or senior Faculty members whose standing is as high as that of anyone in their departments." Under the vigorous leadership of Kenneth B. Murdock, General Education continues to do that. Three University Professors teach Gen Ed courses, and leading professors from two of the three areas contribute to the program.

There is much to be done. If one can ever sit back and relax about an educational problem, he cannot do it yet about Gen Ed. But there is room for a feeling of accomplishment. In the words of one professor of long standing, "General Education, for all its defects in execution, aims at a useful goal, and whatever its failings may have been, has had 'successes' which more than counter-balance them, 'successes' of a sort less commonly achieved when Gen Ed was not in existence."

The problem is more than a . The intermittent watchfulness of the Faculty has not brought forth a system, and a standing profitably survey the area. If a committee were created, it would probably include many members of the language departments who now the responsibility for the low instruction given in so many modern languages. This instruction helps make the language requirement worthless.

If an independent but vitally concerned body like the Committee on General Education were given jurisdiction over the requirement, and perhaps over the instruction as well, the language requirement might be translated into a useful contribution to Harvard education.

When Gen Ed was adopted it was not looked on as final and perfect, and there was a feeling that the program would need a reconsideration after some years of practice. Ten years then seemed a proper interval, and that would put the review any time after the next academic year, for General Education went into permanent status with 1949-50. Owen says that the committee would welcome such a review, but it seems that if such a study is to make sense, both the teaching of science and the place of languages should be carefully examined first. Excepting the unlikely eventualities of curricular or term-arrangement reform, these are the most pressing problems for Harvard education today.

Gen Ed a Success

Gen Ed has succeeded; one of President Pusey's major concerns when he came was seeing that "General Education engaged the full interest and support or senior Faculty members whose standing is as high as that of anyone in their departments." Under the vigorous leadership of Kenneth B. Murdock, General Education continues to do that. Three University Professors teach Gen Ed courses, and leading professors from two of the three areas contribute to the program.

There is much to be done. If one can ever sit back and relax about an educational problem, he cannot do it yet about Gen Ed. But there is room for a feeling of accomplishment. In the words of one professor of long standing, "General Education, for all its defects in execution, aims at a useful goal, and whatever its failings may have been, has had 'successes' which more than counter-balance them, 'successes' of a sort less commonly achieved when Gen Ed was not in existence."

If an independent but vitally concerned body like the Committee on General Education were given jurisdiction over the requirement, and perhaps over the instruction as well, the language requirement might be translated into a useful contribution to Harvard education.

When Gen Ed was adopted it was not looked on as final and perfect, and there was a feeling that the program would need a reconsideration after some years of practice. Ten years then seemed a proper interval, and that would put the review any time after the next academic year, for General Education went into permanent status with 1949-50. Owen says that the committee would welcome such a review, but it seems that if such a study is to make sense, both the teaching of science and the place of languages should be carefully examined first. Excepting the unlikely eventualities of curricular or term-arrangement reform, these are the most pressing problems for Harvard education today.

Gen Ed a Success

Gen Ed has succeeded; one of President Pusey's major concerns when he came was seeing that "General Education engaged the full interest and support or senior Faculty members whose standing is as high as that of anyone in their departments." Under the vigorous leadership of Kenneth B. Murdock, General Education continues to do that. Three University Professors teach Gen Ed courses, and leading professors from two of the three areas contribute to the program.

There is much to be done. If one can ever sit back and relax about an educational problem, he cannot do it yet about Gen Ed. But there is room for a feeling of accomplishment. In the words of one professor of long standing, "General Education, for all its defects in execution, aims at a useful goal, and whatever its failings may have been, has had 'successes' which more than counter-balance them, 'successes' of a sort less commonly achieved when Gen Ed was not in existence."