Homebound Harvard

Homebound Harvard

Rights and Wrongs

By Lauren E. Baer

Next Friday, amidst myriad application deadlines that besiege students during the spring term, the deadline for petitions to study abroad will come and pass. However, unlike more renowned deadlines, the study abroad deadline will elapse with little fanfare.

Of the more than 6,400 undergraduates that attend Harvard College, only approximately 170-or slightly more than 2 percent-choose to study abroad each year. In comparison with other universities, this number is unusually low. Indeed, Harvard students are remarkably homebound.

College officials give the impression that Harvard strongly supports study abroad and that petitioning for academic credit is relatively painless. Josephine Jane Pavese, Director of the International Experience Program at OCS, states that she has "encountered only positive responses [from] faculty and staff in the departments and administration," and Dean of Undergraduate Education Susan Pedersen claims that the "processes of arranging for credit is not terribly difficult." Indeed, based on administrators' comments it might appear that Harvard's low rate of study abroad is simply a matter of student preference.

However, despite College rhetoric, students complain of numerous obstacles to studying abroad for credit. Unlike many colleges, Harvard does not sponsor its own study abroad programs. According to Pavese, this policy is intended to increase student choice. "Harvard believes that no one program can meet the individual needs of students who want to study in a particular country." Consequently, Harvard allows students to choose amongst "the extraordinary range of institutions of higher education in the world and [the] many study abroad programs sponsored by other U.S. universities and educational institutions."

Students note, however, that the impression of infinite choices is illusory. Because Harvard does not sponsor its own program there is no guarantee of academic credit for study abroad. Although OCS publishes a list of programs that have been accepted for credit in the past, it offers no assurance that these programs will be accepted in the future. Like Harvard's other notorious petition processes, many students find the study abroad petition processes to be intimidating and hostile towards programs that deviate from the academic norm.

Moreover, extensive academic requirements make it difficult for many students to study abroad. Some concentrations require as many as 16 half courses for graduation in addition to the 8 core courses required of all students. When combined with the fact that many departments are reluctant to grant concentration credit for study abroad, and the fact that the College refuses to grant core credit for foreign courses (except occasionally in foreign cultures), study abroad becomes infeasible for many students. A student who has to treat study abroad courses entirely as electives must carefully plot his schedule from the beginning of his freshman year, long before most students know their concentration let alone their intention to study abroad.

Given these difficulties, the College ought to step back from its rhetoric and take tangible steps to align its policies with its stated commitment to making study abroad accessible to all students. The college should establish its own study abroad programs in those countries where foreign study is most popular. At the same time, the College should leave open the option for students to study at non-Harvard programs. However, unlike the current system, Harvard should accredit those programs where students have successfully studied in the past, leaving the burdensome petition process to unknown programs. Such changes would make it easier for students to earn concentration credit by alleviating the concerns of department heads that are reluctant to grant credit for courses and programs that may not be up to Harvard's academic standards. And, at the same time, such changes would preserve student choice.

Additionally, Harvard should remove smaller barriers and disincentives to foreign study. Harvard should allow study abroad classes to count for core credit if they meet Core Committee standards. It also ought to suspend the illogical rule that electives taken abroad decrease the number of independent study courses that one can take at Harvard. Moreover, Harvard should ease restrictions on the types of experiences that can be counted for academic credit. If Sociology 96: "Individual Community Research Internships" can count for credit at Harvard, there is no reason why a foreign internship should not be able to count as part of the academic credit that a student earns while abroad.

Finally, Harvard must make students aware of their study abroad options earlier in their Harvard careers. Although OCS literature encourages students to start thinking about study abroad during their freshman year, many first-years do not know that OCS, or this literature, exists. Information sessions geared specifically for first-years would arm students with the knowledge that they need to plan ahead and make study abroad a reality.

According to Pavese, "the world is really open to students." However, until Harvard reforms its study abroad policies, opportunities beyond Johnston Gate will continue to remain closed to most Harvard students.

Lauren E. Baer '02 is a social studies concentrator in Dunster House. Her column appears on alternate Wednesdays.