Meet Student Course Demands

Each year, at its annual introductory meeting for freshmen, the Department of Philosophy unapologetically announces that it practices only analytic philosophy. If you want to learn, for example, what Continental philosophers say, or if you want to ask philosophical questions in a less empirically rigorous way than the analytic school permits, you’ll just have to go somewhere else.

This is not to say that philosophy professors do not care about students, nor is it to point fingers at a single department. In fact, the philosophy department has done a better job than most of recruiting visiting professors to fill gaps in its curriculum. But the department’s refusal to view its mission in terms of providing full exposure to a field is indicative of a deeply ingrained and problematic mindset both at Harvard and at other research universities; it is unquestioned law that faculty teach the courses they want to teach, regardless of whether those are the courses students need or want. In determining what courses to offer, departments and professors must bear in mind that the primary goal of courses is to educate students, not simply replicate the research interests of faculty. Departments, therefore, must take student demands into account when deciding which courses to offer.

Former Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis ’68 agrees that the basic mission of undergraduate education must be geared toward educating students rather than satisfying professors’ teaching desires. “Our students are our basic reason for being in business at all,” he wrote in an op-ed in The Crimson in 2003. “Strangely, the curriculum is determined almost entirely by what faculty feel comfortable teaching rather than by what students want to learn.”

Even for the hundreds upon hundreds of courses available to Harvard undergraduates, it is no secret that many Harvard students are not satisfied with the many educational offerings—and rightfully so. And yawning gaps in particular sub-areas (like Continental philosophy) are only part of the problem. At the department level, the slate of courses offered reflects faculty interests in particular areas instead of a coherent vision of what a complete undergraduate education in a particular concentration ought to cover. This is not to say that departments hastily organize their undergraduate requirements; it is clear that concentration requirements are thoughtfully planned given the courses available. But it is impossible to offer undergraduates a full exposure to a particular field if certain subfields are not represented in the first place.

Academic departments already review their course offerings and their strengths and weaknesses in various subfields, and some departments are already aware of the gaps in their offerings (as in the example of the philosophy department). But we feel that many departments could benefit from additional feedback from College administrators, a small handful of informed faculty from other departments, and, in particular, from Harvard undergraduates. An institutionalized feedback mechanism is vital if the College is to succeed in providing its students with more complete exposure to a particular field. We do not believe that students should have anywhere near full control over a department’s decisions of which courses to teach; rather, when there is consistent and reasonable student demand for additional course offerings, departments must listen.

The College should provide incentives for good faculty members to teach these courses. When there are no such faculty, Harvard has a responsibility to make more liberal use of visiting professors and new hires to fill gaps. In particular, student input on course demand should be an important factor in faculty hiring decisions. This is a notable break from the way that faculty hiring generally takes place at Harvard and other research universities—traditionally, prospective faculty have been evaluated on the merits of their research alone. But if one believes, as we do, that Harvard ought to use teaching ability as a consideration in faculty hires, it only makes sense for Harvard to also consider what courses prospective faculty might teach.

Today, the problem of insufficient course offerings applies not only to more advanced departmental courses but also to general education at Harvard. We are confident that the newly proposed Courses in General Education—broad, rigorous, trans-departmental, foundational classes—will serve as a significant step forward in providing students with the opportunity to gain comprehensive knowledge in a wide academic domain.

We do not at all wish to discourage faculty from teaching courses related to their research interests. Often times they are the best courses at Harvard. We still believe that departments’ primary consideration in hiring professors should be the quality of a scholar’s work. But departments must bear in mind that the primary mission of the College is to educate its undergraduates. Where gaps need to be filled, the College and individual departments must react accordingly.