Nasty, Brutish, And Obstinate

This week, over 100 sophomores who have enrolled in Social Studies 10a, the first half of what was a year-long tutorial, will crack open their copies of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan and learn that “during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre [sic].” And perhaps some will wonder whether the Committee on Degrees in Social Studies read their tutorial’s first assigned book themselves, for the concentration seems to rather lack a degree of awe for the common power governing all departments: the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS).

Last year, FAS voted to move the deadline for concentration choice to the end of students’ sophomore fall, effective for the Class of 2010 in an attempt to foster freer academic exploration and more informed concentration selection among undergraduates. Since then, most departments have been persuaded to modify their requirements in order to adapt to the new policy. One of the first casualties in virtually every department’s housecleaning was the sophomore fall tutorial: The days of the 97a’s are now but distant memories.

But somehow, Social Studies 10 managed to escape the chopping block. Instead, the full-year tutorial was separated into Social Studies 10a, a tutorial in everything but name, and Social Studies 10b, a tutorial in everything, name included. Even though Social Studies 10a is no longer officially a tutorial since students cannot formally declare their concentration choice until December 3, it is still a requirement for any student intending to apply to Social Studies, and remains virtually identical in structure to the older model. All other choices for prospective concentrators involve taking two or more social studies tutorials simultaneously in their junior years. Much like FAS’ renaming of the Core, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

For the sophomores buried in the heavy reading list of Social Studies 10a, it feels as if concentration choice has come early. (Social Studies is not the only culprit, just the most egregious; for example, Astronomy has a “strongly encouraged” full-year sophomore tutorial but, then again, it only has eight concentrators).

There is a lot to be said for the preservation of Social Studies 10. The tutorial has been alternately loved and loathed by generations of sophomores, many of whom describe the course as one of the most stimulating intellectual experiences of their academic careers. In addition, social studies’ six required semesters of tutorial provide a backbone that holds the interdisciplinary, department-less concentration together.

But decisions like the FAS vote to move back concentration choice inherently involve trade-offs, and in this case the sophomore fall tutorial is part of the price.

Not everyone should necessarily agree with the decision itself. As The Crimson argued in a staff editorial opposing the proposed change on April 26, 2006, maybe cutting fall sophomore tutorials is too steep a price to pay for increased choice. But regardless of one’s personal feelings on the merits of the delayed choice, is it preposterous to adopt a system pushing back concentration choices and then neglect to enforce it. If the Faculty wishes to preserve courses like Social Studies 10 in their current state, then it should revert to its previous policies; if it believes that delayed choice is important—and we believe it is—than it should ensure that all departments get in line.

When the College makes a commitment to greater academic flexibility, all departments, committees, and other bureaucratic inventions should abide by it. If they don’t, the Faculty should for once act decisively, and force them to. Should they need further advice on enforcement, surely Hobbes can provide it.



Pierpaolo Barbieri ’09, a Crimson associate editorial chair, is a History concentrator in Eliot House. Daniel E. Herz-Roiphe ’10, a Crimson editor, lives in Adams House.