Kirby Tables Preregistration Proposal

In a surprising about-face, Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby told The Crimson yesterday he has decided to abandon his push to implement undergraduate preregistration.

The proposal for preregistration—Kirby’s first major policy initiative as dean—will not be presented to the full Faculty for a vote this spring, he said.

Instead, the Faculty will focus its attention on addressing the underlying concerns that he said led to the proposal in the first place, including advising, course lotteries and the quality of undergraduate instruction.

“Perhaps we tried to do too much, too quickly,” he said. “It was meant to address real problems.”

Kirby’s decision comes just days after an unusually tempestuous Faculty meeting at which several prominent professors harshly criticized the proposal.

That meeting marked the first major demonstration of any Faculty resistance to the notion of preregistration.

The proposal had previously passed through two Faculty committees, the Committee on Undergraduate Education and the Faculty Council, where it was revised slightly but faced no substantial opposition from professors.

Prior to Tuesday’s meeting, it seemed almost certain that some form of preregistration would be in place by next fall.

But after hearing the criticisms expressed at that meeting—and in angry e-mails sent the following day—Kirby backed down.

By yesterday morning, he had informed Dean of Undergraduate Education Benedict H. Gross ’71 and Associate Dean of Undergraduate Education Jeffrey Wolcowitz of his decision.

But neither Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis ’68 nor any of the Faculty members contacted yesterday by The Crimson had been notified of the dean’s change of heart.

However, by early last night, Undergraduate Council President Rohit Chopra ’04 had posted the breaking news to the council’s e-mail list.

Chopra, who said he had been notified by Wolcowitz, noted that he was pleased that students had been able to sway Faculty opinion on this issue.

Student opposition was a significant factor in the decision to reconsider his plans, according to Kirby.

“There is no point in going ahead if [preregistration] is so unpopular with our students,” he said.

“It is much better to do this right than to do this fast,” he added.

But Kirby was not swayed earlier this year when he was presented with a petition bearing the names of 1,200 students opposed to preregistration.

Though he invited the petition organizers to the Faculty Council last week to make their case, those students’ concerns were not factored into the proposal that was presented to he Faculty for discussion on Tuesday.

The Underlying Issues

Despite his revised stance, Kirby asserted yesterday that there remain several problems in the process of course selection that have yet to be resolved, such as ways to reduce lotteries for courses and better prepare professors and teaching fellows.

“Preregistration is only one part of it,” Kirby said.

Revamping Harvard’s advising system and determining the possibility of estimating course enrollment numbers using preexisting data are chief among Kirby’s goals.

“I am open to any plausible solution to the problems that we face,” Kirby said. “What we cannot do is pretend that there are no problems.”

Wolcowitz said yesterday that he and Kirby hoped that the two remaining Faculty meetings this semester would be devoted to discussing the broader issues.

“In light of Tuesday’s Faculty meeting, in makes sense to step back a bit and look at the problems and question whether preregistration is the best way to go forward,” Wolcowitz said.

—Staff writer Rebecca D. O’Brien can be reached at robrien@fas.harvard.edu.