The Mail

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The CRIMSON printed a series of three editorials criticizing the Doty Committee report. In these editorials, the CRIMSON (1) attacked the Doty Committee for its "vague definition of general education," (2) advocated that Gen Ed courses be defined as those which combine fields, and (3) proposed an alternative of "breadth" rather than "depth" in Gen Ed.

The roots of these improper criticisms lie in the CRIMSON's conception of the typical Harvard student. The CRIMSON would have us subscribe to the following image: the Harvard student is intellectually ambitious in many fields of enquiry. During his four years at Harvard, he should be exposed to as many "techniques" in as many different areas as possible. Content is relatively unimportant. When the student graduates he will immediately find time to fill in the content of all these academic fields. Furthermore, he will want to do so. Now the CRIMSON also makes the assumption that one academic year is long enough to teach these "techniques," in any field.

This all sounds quite fanciful because it is. So are the CRIMSON proposals. Not every Gen Ed course could or should be like Hum 6, Nat Sci 5, or Soc Sci 2. Nor should every Gen Ed course combine fields (these don't). In the natural sciences, Nat Sci 5 can exist because the models of DNA are conceptually much closer to the student's realm of experience and involve much less math than does, say, quantum mechanics. Devising a physics or chemistry course along the lines of Nat Sci 5 seems virtually impossible; the important modern problems are just too sophisticated for Gen Ed. Nor do I see how history or philosophy lends itself to a "methods" treatment. Until the CRIMSON outlines, in detail, a syllabus for these courses, I think it is presumptions for it to say all Gen Ed courses should be like Nat Sci 5, Hum 6, or Soc Sci 2.

Furthermore, I believe an argument can be made for a "content" course such as Hum 5 or Soc Sci 1. A large proportion of Harvard students were not exposed to this type of material in high school. In many fields it is assumed the student is familiar with Plato, Aristotle, or European history. Certainly the student should have the opportunity to acquaint himself with basic material of this sort, as well as basic techniques, in Gen Ed courses.

I find it presumptions for the CRIMSON to define Gen Ed courses as those which combine fields. Very often, combined fields are even more specialized than classical areas, requiring competence in the component fields before discussion even begins. Rather I think Gen Ed should be defined in terms of the attitude with which the course is taught. These courses should be taught with an awareness of the problems that relate its subject matter to other fields, so that the course will have meaning for the student not concentrating in that area. This is not combining fields.

Finally, I find the CRIMSON's contention that breadth should supersede depth an indication of the shallowness of its own thinking. One year is just not enough to discuss adequately on any level a topic as broad as those with which Gen. Ed. courses deal. Indeed, a Gen Ed course, by its very nature, should be more careful and detailed in its presentation of material than a departmental course. It should try to provide insights into its material and the way in which the scholar deals with it. It is ridiculous to assert that the student is benefited more by a shallow introduction to many fields, none of which he is likely to pursue farther, rather than a solid understanding of the basic content of a few fields that interest him.

As for the Doty Committee Report. I find it quite realistic and sound. The concept of Gen Ed is left vague because it doesn't lend itself to a good definition. A good Gen Ed program depends upon professors spending time energy and thought developing good courses. The courses created in this manner have been the ones that have been most successful. There is no need to restrict the professor to a certain image of a Gen Ed course. The important thing is that he spend time making it coherent and comprehensible to its audience while still covering the material in a way meaningful to his discipline. The way to get this job done is to provide incentives for the professor to do it. And this is precisely what the Doty Committee proposes to do. As the years, following the Redbook showed, Gen Ed is defined by the courses taught and not by a guiding definition of what a Gen Ed course should be.