In Search of Harvard College

No one in University Hall seems to know what undergraduate education means any more. The tense polarization of the 60s left the University in a state of paralysis with faculty-student relations chilly, if not completely frozen, and somehow the purpose of undergraduate education got lost in the confusion and turbulence of the times, administrators say.

Perhaps hoping to turn the College's attention away from the harsh memories of the 60s and toward the future, Dean Rosovsky launched a reevaluation of undergraduate education in the spring of 1974, the first major review of undergraduate education at Harvard since the Redbook report of 1945.

At that time a 12-member committee detailed the failure of the College to provide a general education and offered a solution in the form of General Education courses whose structure remains basically unchanged today.

The so-called Yellow Book, Rosovsky's 22-page letter to the Faculty of October 1974, outlined his understanding of the issues peculiar to undergraduate education at Harvard.

Rosovsky described several undergraduate trouble areas: Just what the goal of undergraduate education is, what are to be the roles of General Education, counseling and advising, and whether there is a need to redirect all available resources. He suggested an investigation of the possibilities for a "wholly free elective system" and an evaluation of how Faculty resources freed by the shrinking size of the graduate school can be exploited for undergraduates.

Instead of delegating the responsibility for these investigations to a faculty committee, (as Yale and Princeton had done unsuccessfully several years earlier), Rosovsky chose a more informal approach. Seven task forces ranging in concern from "Pedagogical Improvement" to "Advising and Counseling," were selected last spring. Each is composed of half a dozen faculty members, two students and an administration staff assistant.

In choosing the members of the task forces, John B. Fox Jr. '59 says, an effort was made to assure that the "sum of each force" be "reasonably representative" of the different points of view of the Harvard community. University Hall may have to pay for such diversity: many of the groups may not reach unanimous conclusions.

One potentially disastrous outcome of the studies is that the seven forces could arrive at seven incongruent recommendations. Rosovsky has planned around such a failure, by coordinating checks and balances to make sure, as Fox says, that "we don't climb up the wrong trees together." Or, as Fox says, "The right hand has to know what the left hand is doing."

The task forces hope to report by the end of the academic year, although Rosovsky has set no deadline. The groups have all met at least once, but plan to begin periodical meetings this fall.

Only by considering the topics each task force will discuss can one appreciate the extent of the self-analysis the College will undergo.

Concentrations

"I see it as a thorough reevaluation--accepting no premises without thought," Ralph Gants '76, a student member of the concentrations task force, says. To date the group has considered three topics of discussion: a reevaluation of the restricted majors, to see if their elitist rationale can be defended; discussion of whether non-honors concentrations should be offered at all; and an analysis of the tutorial system. Paul C. Martin, professor of Physics and chairman of this task force, stresses that the group must first "grope with the logic of the existence of concentrations." One member can only remark--"Whether it's just fine-tuning the system or if radical change is coming remains to be seen."

Core Curriculum

Either great compromise or exceptional creativity will be necessary if this group is to arrive at a unanimous conclusion on the central issue: the need for a core curriculum, otherwise known as General Education and distribution requirements.

James Q. Wilson, Shattuck Professor of Government and chairman of the force, freely admits he has no idea if his group can "even come out on that." But he contents himself with the prospect of more specific recommendations--perhaps concerning the language requirement or the question of expository writing.

Robert V. Pound, Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics, says he is not enthusiastic about rules and regulations and does not support a highly-organized curriculum. He seeks a maximum of flexibility and options and would like to see "lots of things people see as ingredients of the core curriculum as options for students."

At almost the opposite extreme is Robert Nozick, professor of Philosophy, who says he favors a "relatively specific" core curriculum, with particular courses that all students must take, including a battery of offerings on western civilization.

One member of the group who chooses to remain anonymous says that at present most of the group seems receptive to the idea of a core curriculum tighter than the current gen ed requirements. The only certainty, however, is that the members are a long way from unanimity.

Pedagogy

Some people have very definite ideas on what is wrong with Harvard. Robert D. Lee '78 is one of them. Lee thinks the most important issue before his group is the student-Faculty relationship, and he believes that the task force will resolve in favor of a warmer attitude on the part of the Faculty.

The force will also deal with some more specific issues: course size, the need for more seminars, the predominance of lectures, the inequity of varying opportunities between different departments, and the role of teaching fellows.

Educational Resources

In a time of financial austerity, it is especially necessary to evaluate one's resources and determine how best to make use of them, and those are the concerns of this task force. The group must consider financial and physical resources, as well as the range of art and athletic programs. Perhaps a more specific recommendation is one made by Rosovsky recently--favoring some redistribution of the numbers of faculty among the various departments.

Advising and Counseling

The present advisory system is in a shambles. No one knows this better than the student who has had a problem and has spent unsuccessful hours trying to determine whom to talk to. Lack of organization is only the first problem--beyond that comes the more complex issue of what kinds of advising to offer.

The task force seems to agree that there is a need for more accessible advisers and a less-confusing system. Both academic and non-academic counseling must be available for all undergraduates.

One possible solution the committee has discussed is to place all counseling in one organization, in order more easily to inform students of their options. The group is also considering the prospects of employing more graduate students for advisory purposes and of increasing career counseling opportunities other than in medicine and law.

Giles Constable '50, Lea Professor of Medieval History, suggests that the corollary of increased academic liberty is often confusion. He thinks many students today need a more structured system of advising, which he considers a superior way of dealing with confusion to decreasing freedoms.

"From the very rich menu Harvard offers, it is important for students to seek out aid, to help them deal with it. And students seem to feel they are not getting advice to get the most of the College," Constable says.

Because of the obvious disorder of the present system, committee members say they hope they will be able to present some concrete suggestions at an early date, and that these might be implemented.

Student Body

Everyone at Harvard pretty much agrees that the student body should be as diverse as possible. Members of the task force on the composition of the student body know this but seem unsure of exactly how to accomplish it.

L. Fred Jewett '57, dean of Harvard and Radcliffe admissions, seems to have the firmest idea of the issues the group should consider. He wants the group to discuss what criteria should go into the selection of the class, especially considerations for "disadvantaged portions, minority groups, and an optimum balancing of men and women."

The committee does have more specific projects planned, which appear to presage more concrete recommendations. These include discussions of recruiting (minority in particular), the image Harvard projects through its literature, what kind of "advertising" it should do, and how to encourage students to accept admission.

College Life

The name "College Life" may be a little too nebulous. The committee has many ideas on what it would like to cover, but some of these notions appear to be included in the agendas of other groups.

Student-Faculty relations again seem to be the most important issue at hand. In addition, the group will consider placing sophomores in the Yard in order to centralize and improve counseling, granting credit for extracurricular activities at Harvard, improving the freshman year, and developing the arts and athletics