Harvard Educated Eight Presidents — Why not a Philosopher King?

Harvard has failed to educate the next generation of philosopher kings. That’s probably a good thing, but great leaders do need more than great hard skills.

A quick search on my.harvard reveals that, of the 70 courses in Harvard’s Department of Government during the Spring of 2025, only eight count for the department’s “theory subfield” requirement. Students must take only one course in political theory to earn a degree in Government.

These data points are reflective of a broader tendency to overemphasize quantitative knowledge in the way Harvard educates future leaders.

Of course, there remain eminent scholars of political thought in the Departments of Government. But political scientists — at Harvard and elsewhere — have long had a growing preference for quantitative over theoretical work. Articles decrying “the decline of political theory” are present in journals as far back as the 1950s.

Since then, a scientific approach is only becoming more prominent at Harvard. For instance, in recent years the Government Department introduced “Tech Science” and “Data Science” tracks to ameliorate the concentration’s decline in popularity among undergraduates.

A focus on quantitative skills is understandable given the career choices of Harvard graduates. Fifty percent of the class of 2024 entering the workforce chose to work in consulting, finance, or tech after graduating, according to The Crimson’s Senior Survey.

Even though many students concentrate in Government, it’s likely not with public service in mind. In 2023-24 there were almost 500 students concentrating in Government. But only six percent of the class of 2023 entering the workforce actually graduated into careers in government and public service.

But trends among students do not necessarily track intellectual best practices. Needless to say, we want our leaders to be knowledgeable about the skills and technology that define modern life. But these useful tools are just that — tools.

If we allow technical proficiency to overshadow humanistic knowledge, we run the risk of forgetting what ends leadership should serve. This is especially salient when the “leaders” of which we speak are those practicing governance in the United States and abroad.

Although I am a philosophy concentrator, I know it would be foolish to paint philosophy as a panacea for the world’s woes. However, training leaders without a strong eye towards humanistic and normative inquiry is a dangerous prospect. We risk creating leaders focused more on empirical efficiency than human flourishing.

If Harvard truly believes in the mission of educating future leaders — members of Congress, senators, and even presidents, then we should want the study of government at Harvard to prepare students to understand more than empirical questions about how politics works. We need to expose students to normative questions consistently and rigorously.

The critique of the purely quantitative approach to politics has long been made on the political right. Recently-retired Harvard professor Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr. ’53, a rare conservative voice among the faculty, has warned that an overly scientific perspective on politics leads to an approach that “ignores the question of importance.” Though this critique is conservative insofar as it advocates a return to earlier practices, it need not be solely levied by the right.

We should all support the endeavor to ensure that tomorrow’s leaders are keenly aware of what is at stake in public life from a human and moral standpoint.

Harvard does not entirely neglect the importance of ethical reasoning, even in other more purely quantitative fields. The University’s Embedded EthiCS program works to include moral philosophy in computer science coursework to ensure that soon-to-be programmers and computer scientists understand the human implications of technology.

The theory requirement for Government concentrators seems to play a similar role, the thought being that it is good for students of political science to have exposure to both normative and descriptive reasoning — not to mention that political theory is an important branch of the discipline.

The current approach is not enough. Harvard’s self-proclaimed mission is “to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society.” Educating future leaders requires building more than top-notch hard skills.

We do not need to believe in Platonic philosopher-kings to believe that it is good for our leaders to be equipped with the tools of moral philosophy. Those making decisions that impact the lives of their fellow citizens should understand both the empirical and ethical import of their actions.

Allison P. Farrell ’26, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Philosophy concentrator in Leverett House.