Expos 10, 20, 30...

When first-years arrive on campus each fall, they are beset with a variety of placement tests to determine the nature and extent of their background preparation in fields such as mathematics, writing, and foreign languages.

Placement in most subjects reflects the tremendous diversity of backgrounds that Harvard students bring to campus. The math geniuses take Math 55, the semi-geniuses take Math 25, and down the ladder to those with less background who enroll in Math Xa. People who speak fluent French are not placed in the same level as people with a smattering of it from high school. This all seems fairly intuitive, does it not?

My question, then, is this: why not track expository writing as well? Why not divide Expos 20—the standard writing class that every Harvard student must pass—into sections that reflect the tremendous diversity of writing ability that exists within any given first-year class.

Tracking Expos would be beneficial for all parties involved; it would be better for students at all writing levels, and would allow the preceptors to tailor their lessons more specifically to the students in their section, who would all possess similar writing abilities.

It’s true that there is a remedial Expos section, Expos 10, available for students who come to Harvard with less writing background than most. There is also an advanced section, Expos 52, for students who wish to hone their prose with an extra semester of intensive work.

But the presence of these two options does little to benefit the vast majority of Harvard undergraduates who never take them. To this end, it is Expos 20, the standard writing class taken by all first-years, which requires attention.

In an e-mail to me, senior Expos preceptor Gordon Harvey outlined some reasons why Expos 20 is not sectioned according to ability or experience: “I guess I’d say that the potential advantages don’t seem worth the difficulties and drawbacks.”

I think it’s time to reexamine this cost-benefit analysis. Among the potential drawbacks to a tracked expos system, Harvey suggested that because Expos is intended to impart a “body of basic concepts and values pertaining to academic writing at the college level,” it would be “unclear what would decisively distinguish a higher level course” from a lower one. He notes, moreover, that “it’s not as easy to define a harder or higher level writing assignment as it is a math problem.”

These points are all well taken. But the true value of a tracked Expos classes would not come from harder or easier assignments, but rather from the benefit of being grouped with peers close to one’s own background level. The Expos program prides itself on encouraging—indeed, mandating—extensive peer review and group work, and a tracked program would allow the stronger writers to make faster progress, while also permitting the students with less experience to receive teaching more specifically tailored for their needs.

On this subject, Harvey contends, “It’s not clear that whatever was gained by this would justify the damage (anxiety, typecasting, etc.) done by setting up this sort of Eagles vs. Snails hierarchy.”

“This is especially so,” he continues, “since there’s no really good way—or we don’t at the moment know of one—to decide who gets to be an Eagle.”

I have a suggestion. Why not let students self-select? This would minimize, if not eliminate, any anxiety or typecasting, but would also, if done properly, be a highly effective way of dividing students. Based on the results of the placement test, and perhaps a writing sample of the student’s choice, the Expos program could make an initial, non-compulsory recommendation of what level each student should be placed into. In the first weeks of class, students could get a sense of their section and what is going to be expected of them, and switch into higher or lower sections accordingly.

There is, in fact, just this sort of system in place in the mathematics department for determining who takes Math 55, Math 25 and so on—and it seems to work extremely well. There is no reason why a modified version of the mathematics department’s combination of meetings, advising and placement tests would not be viable in placing students in different levels of Expos.

As it stands, I think Expos is a fine program—and I personally had an enjoyable experience with it. But like all things, it’s not perfect, and indeed I have many acquaintances who felt like their experience in Expos—to put it mildly—left something to be desired.

One oft-aired complaint is that Expos preceptors, in spite of themselves, tend to play favorites and pigeonhole students based on their performance early in the term. I often hear from stronger writers who feel that Expos was somewhat of a waste of their time, and I’ve also heard the opposite gripe from students who’ve felt that their section was geared toward students at a higher ability level than their own.

Some of these problems are inherent in any classroom and do not result from the current structure of Expos 20, but all of them could be mitigated by creating a tracked system.

With the College undergoing a broad, even comprehensive, evaluation of undergraduate education, there has been no better time in recent years to attempt to improve the one class that all undergraduates must take.

Tracking Expos 20 according to ability and background is, in my view, an obvious step that would solve many more problems than it would create. There is no good reason why it should not, at the very least, be given a try. Its potential costs are small, and its potential benefits are enormous.

Zachary S. Podolsky is a classics concentrator in Currier House. His column appears on alternate Thursdays.