NEWS ANALYSIS: GenEd Report Reveals Tensions

At a 2003 Commencement address, University President Lawrence H. Summers acknowledged the “contradictory themes” driving the then-fledgling Harvard College Curricular Review. He pointed to a fundamental tension between the desire to give students “greater flexibility in choosing courses” and the goal of providing them with foundational knowledge in topics such as history, literature, and science.

More than two years later, the final report of the review’s Committee on General Education indicates that this clash has yet to be completely resolved.

While the report extensively justifies the importance of certain types of classes such as those in moral reasoning, quantitative analysis, and foundational knowledge, the recommendations themselves stop short of requiring these components.

The proposed system of general education would enable driven students to select the broad education that fits them best, but has the inherent danger of enabling some students to avoid challenging or unfamiliar academic territory. The extent to which the Faculty would be willing to risk such flexibility stands as the greatest question surrounding general education’s future at Harvard.



FOUNDATION OR FLEXIBILITY?

Since the curricular review began in 2003, reports and public statements have indicated a desire to create foundational courses on broad topics such as Western history. Yet that goal has been nagged by a clear uncertainty about how to reconcile these courses with the principle of allowing students the flexibility to fulfill their general education requirements through departmental courses.

An April 2004 report, the first major update on the status of the review released to the public, suggested that foundational courses should be a “central component” of the new general education requirement. The report, however, recommended that students be able to rely on departmental courses to fulfill all of their requirements if they wished, in contradiction with the “central” nature of the foundational courses­—which would be offered outside of departments.

Almost one year later, the March 2005 “Draft Final Report” from the Committee on General Education suggested introducing a requirement that all students take two foundational courses, called “Harvard College Courses.”

That requirement does not appear in last week’s report.



OPPORTUNITY OVER REQUIREMENT

The April 2004 report abstained from recommending a firm curriculum and the March 2005 draft report laid out recommendations with very little discussion of their justification.

In contrast, the recent report from the Committee on General Education attempts to satisfy the supporters of both foundational knowledge and a flexible curriculum through the use of subtly varying levels of requirement, recommendation, and opportunity.

At its core, the report is not about the courses that a student must take—it is about the courses that a student should take.

For example, the report “strongly recommends” that students take courses in moral reasoning and in quantitative analysis, and goes to great length to justify the importance of these courses, but does not advocate making such courses a mandatory part of a Harvard education.

The report also calls for the creation of full-year foundational “Courses in General Education.” It stresses “the importance of providing students access to courses that counter the fragmentation of knowledge” by looking at issues beyond the scope of any one particular course. But the report calls for these courses as well to be optional, not required.

The committee had a “desire to set out a curriculum that expands opportunities­—not requirements—for students,” the report states in explanation for its refusal to mandate these classes. “The committee did not feel comfortable proposing, as [a replacement to the Core, a system] that would provide even less choice.”

Yet, as with April 2004 report’s optional “central component,” the final report of the Committee on General Education struggles to reconcile the perceived importance of these courses with the desire for flexibility.

Even the report’s sometimes-contradictory terminology reflects this struggle­—the broad general education courses are to be “integral, but optional.”



DIVERGENT PATHS

The report’s recommendations, should the Faculty enact them, would give students the ability to take greatly divergent paths in their plan of general education.

A physics concentrator, for example, could take a full year foundational course on Western history, a full year foundational course on European books, and courses on moral reasoning and globalization to complete his general education requirements under the report’s proposal.

But another physics concentrator could complete the same broad requirements through three narrowly-focused courses each in government and music.

The suggested framework for general education will provide undergraduates with far greater ownership over shaping their academic experience and the opportunity to create a personalized curriculum drawing classes from the entire course catalog. But with fewer requirements to ensure breadth of study, that physics concentrator risks missing out on many areas of the academic spectrum normally afforded by a liberal arts education.

—Staff writer Evan H. Jacobs can be reached at ehjacobs@fas.harvard.edu.