GSAS May Enter Era of Change

Sally Falk Moore and John B. Fox Jr. '59 have their work cut out for them. The new deans of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences don't take up residence in Byerly Hall until Thursday, but a detailed agenda already awaits their attention.

Last April, after more than eight months of research, a committee of 10 professors completed the first major review of Harvard's graduate program since 1969.

The study, commissioned by former Dean of the Faculty Henry Rosovsky and directed by Leverett Professor of Physics Karl Strauch, identified growing problems at the graduate school and recommended broad changes in its organization and educational policy.

The so-called Strauch Report, a 40-page summary of the committee's findings, is slated for discussion by the full Faculty this fall. Early signals suggest that it could serve as a blueprint for Dean of the Faculty A. Michael Spence's young administration.

If that's the case, the long-awaited appointment of permanent leadership could usher in a period of reform at the GSAS, which many professors say has suffered from neglect in recent years.

The Strauch Committee's report addresses almost every aspect of the graduate program, but all of its conclusions feature a familiar refrain: a need for drastically increased funding.

If Moore and Fox ultimately choose to follow its recommendations, their most difficult task may be raising the necessary sums--or competing with the College for a larger share of the Faculty's budget.

The first of the Strauch Committee's recommendations became reality yesterday when Spence announced the appointment of two GSAS deans, one for academics and one for administration.

The Committee urged the creation of the administrative post as part of a larger effort to centralize authority, which has traditionally rested with the school's individual departments. Spence's decision to fill the post with Fox, a veteran fundraiser, further suggests a long-term plan consistent with the Committee's conclusions.

The Strauch Committee's other recommendations will be implemented more slowly, if at all. They would require broader Faculty consensus, complicated financing, and in many cases, time to evolve. They include the following:

1. A modest increase in student enrollment.

Between 1968 and 1979, the number of graduate students entering Harvard each year declined by 60 percent. Meanwhile, the number of professors teaching in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences rose dramatically, from 467 in 1967 to 552 in 1984.

Student enrollments have shown a slight upturn in the past few years, but the student-faculty ratio remains low. Some departments complain that they have too few students to sustain their research and seminars, the Strauch Committee reported. In order to remedy the imbalance, the committee recommended an increase in student admissions.

However, the committee qualified its position, cautioning that some graduate students already receive inadequate attention from the Faculty. The committee also warned that today's scholars face "uncertain employment prospects."

The bottom line lies somewhere in the red: any rise in enrollment would require a larger financial aid budget.

2. Reduced graduate student teaching loads.

The Strauch Committee reported that most students take too long to complete their graduate work, mainly because they are expected to spend large amounts of time teaching undergraduates.

"An overload of teaching can, and frequently does, slow down the completion of the PhD degree excessively," the committee wrote. "The major activities of a graduate student should be scholarship and research, culminating in the writing and completion of the thesis.

"Other activities, such as teaching, should not become the major concern."

Imposing limits on graduate student teaching loads, however would be an expensive proposition Students--who currently depend on teaching stipends would require additional financial aid. At the same time, the Faculty would be forced to hire more professors to replace the lost teaching fellows.

3. Student research grants.

High on the Strauch Committee's wish list is a program of grants to support research by graduate students. The committee proposed the establishment of special "Dissertation Development Grants" to support thesis work by humanities students in particular, who has alternative funding sources.

The committee called on the deans of the Faculty and the graduate school to mount "a major drive" to raise funds for the program.

4. Sustained financial aid.

Unlike the College, the GSAS has no "aid blind" admissions policy. It bases admissions decisions in part on the applicant's financial situation, and it does not promise to make graduate work financially possible for every student who is admitted.

In one of its more fiscally conservative moves; the Strauch Committee endorsed the current policy of admitting only students "who will receive or can demonstrate sufficient financial resources."

The committee also endorsed an existing requirement that financial aid applicants disclose their parents' incomes. That requirement met opposition at a spring Faculty meeting, where some professors argued that parents should not be expected to support their children's graduate study.

On a more liberal note, the committee recommended the retention of so-called merit awards designed to lure top students to Harvard. In addition, it urged that the GSAS continue to guarantee support for second year students at the same level provided in their first year.

The result is a hefty price tag. The Strauch Committee estimated that the GSAS would require a 15 percent real increase in its financial aid budget to maintain its current aid policy--without an increase in the number of students enrolled.

5. Inclusion of graduate students in the undergraduate Houses.

when it comes to housing and non-academic life, undergraduates and graduate student face a double standard, the Strauch Committee argued Graduate are left to fend for themselves, deprived of a residential community.

To most the graduate experience less arduous, the Strauch Committee recommended that graduate students be affiliated with undergraduate. House on an experimental, non-residential basis. The committee also called on the University to make more campus and to construct additional housing if possible.

6. Quality control.

Education at the graduate school centers in the individual departments, and the Strauch Committee recommended a variety of measures to ensure quality and consistency across the board.

First, the Committee recommended that the dean enlist experts from outside Harvard to review each department's dean program every six years.

In addition, prompted in part by student complaints, the committee mapped out an improved advising system for use by all departments.

* * *

Although Fox is technically Moore's subordinate, the responsibility for implementing much of the Strauch agenda would fall on his shoulders. With almost 15 years of experience in the University administration, he should be prepared for the challenges that lie ahead.

Moore, a relative newcomer to Harvard, remains untested in her new capacity. Her job is less sharply defined but more sensitive than Fox's.

Beyond its admonitions about graduate student teaching and research, the Strauch Report offers no prescriptions for educational policy at the GSAS. Moore will have to chart her own course if she wishes to abandon the laissez faire style of her predecessors and assert herself in the school's academic mission.

Whatever course she chooses, the charting will likely prove smoother than the actual sailing. It Moore is to guide the GSAS to its appointed destination, she will have to negotiate choppy waters against the current of strong-willed departments, professors, and her own boss--the dean of the College