Liberating the Liberal Arts

Long, long ago (circa 1979) an institution was born at Harvard College. It was named “The Core,” and its coming was prophesized to herald a golden age in the education of collegiate pupils. Under its benevolent rule, simple undergraduates would be transformed from ignorant savages into enlightened cosmopolitans who no longer sought to gain the easy A, but rather to enrich their existence with knowledge of the ages. All that was needed was absolute submission…

Of course it failed. The kindly philosopher-king quickly turned into a petty bureaucratic dictator, and a period of darkness fell over the realm of Harvard College. Students were imprisoned in hyper-specific studies of obscure topics. Cramped in overpopulated and under-taught classes, wails of bondage arose from the people. Finally, University Hall lent a kindly ear to the cries of the oppressed. And after years of internal debate, they released a grand plan to usurp the tyrant. “Let them have civics,” they cried, in a tone befitting Marie Antoinette.

*Sigh*

The problem with the general education report released earlier this month is that it fails to confront the major fault of the Core Curriculum: the lack of student choice. A philosophical change from “ways of learning” to “application of learning” doesn’t solve the fact that only about one-eighth of the courses in the history department fulfill the Historical Studies requirement, and only one class in the entire philosophy department fulfills Moral Reasoning. Quibbling over methodological approaches and requirement names will only replace one repressive system with another.

To save the liberal arts, University Hall must remember why Harvard teaches the liberal arts. It is not so that students leave knowing skill-sets or canons of materials, but rather that they leave knowing some and thirsting for more. Knowledge for knowledge’s sake is neither a pedagogical method nor a vocational skill; it is a metaphysical belief asserting that studying the universe enriches the lives of those who try. The power to decide the pathway to this goal must be released from the bureaucratic rule of committee and given to the individual student.

The common objection is that student choice will digress into a mindless pursuit of an easy A. This claim is ill-founded. Students already seek out easy core classes, and lower workloads do not necessarily translate into inferior classes. An extra chapter of reading or a problem set per week doesn’t mean that the course will affect the way the student views the world in a greater way.

Instead of more bureaucratic distinction-making, the College should keep the general education requirement divided into eleven core areas but stop dictating a small list of classes that fulfill them. A class that examines literature should count for Literature and Arts A; likewise, a class that studies the behavior of people and institutions should count as Social Analysis. The Core was created for students, not students for the Core. Ultimately, only students have a stake in their own liberal education, and because of this, it should be the students who have the power.



Steven T. Cupps ’09, a Crimson editorial editor, is an anthropology and economics concentrator in Lowell House.