Two Views of the Core

Linda J. Bilmes '80 is a Government concentrator living in Lowell House.

Harvard aspires to provide every undergraduate with a broad liberal arts education. This noble goal has been the driving force behind recent efforts to replace the unwieldly General Education system with a rigidly defined Core Curriculum. The impetus for the Core came from the realization that Gen Ed has failed to expose students to important areas of knowledge. Few would dispute the inadequacy of the Gen Ed system. The Core, however, is not the answer to our problems.

Proponents claim the Core guarantees students a broad liberal arts aducation, by requiring them to take courses in certain selected disciplines. They say the Core will supply students with a much needed guideline for selecting among the thousands of courses offered. Supporters also view the Core as a measure to prevent pre-professionalism from dictating a narrow course of study to students.

Unfortunately, the Core fails to accomplish these objectives; moreover, it poses serious impediments to the personal growth and development of undergraduates.

The Core does not insure a broad liberal education by merely requiring that students enroll in certain courses. Students cannot be forced to attain competency in a subject in which they lack interest or talent. There is no way to guarantee competency in a discipline without the support and receptivity of the student. Furthermore, the Core could not provide students with broad exposure to a number of disciplines without requiring a ridiculously heavy course load. Many Nat Sci professors object strenuously to the Core because they feel students cannot develop scientific understanding without taking a much larger number of science courses than the core includes.

Another major problem with the Core is the arbitrary selection of certain disciplines to constitute the core requirements for a liberal arts education. By designating certain areas of study as more important than others, the Core runs against the grain of a diverse student body, whose members pursue unusual subjects in depth. Forcing students to homogenize through the Core would alter the character of Harvard.

The Core also sadly fails to meet the challenge of guiding student course selection. The core requirements deemphasize the personal goals of the student, and instead stress the overall objectives of the University. Yes, students need guidance badly, but a comprehensive counseling system is needed to maximize each student's potential. Yes, students need a liberal arts education, but counselors who understand the principles of such education can help us design suitable programs from the many courses already offered. Gen Ed failed because it did not help each student develop a curriculum tailored to his or her needs, talents and aspirations. We need to move in this direction, not towards a Core version of Gen Ed.

It is possible to reconcile the goals of maximizing individual student potential and providing a liberal education. Several proposals before the Faculty attempt to do this. The plan proposed by William H. Bossert '59, McKay Professor of Applied Mathematics, would insure that each student is fully proficient in two separate areas of study, thus allowing students to select their own interests and eliminating narrow pre-professionalism. Frederick H. Abernathy, McKay Professor of Mechanical Engineering, has proposed a plan that would offer students the guidance of the Core without depriving them of the freedom to design their own curriculum. Other Faculty suggestions include expanding the counseling program, providing more introductory-level courses for non-concentrators, and making the Core more flexible.

We should consider the Core Curriculum as but one of many proposed solutions to the failure of Gen Ed. It deservedly points out the need for guidance, structure and broad education at Harvard. But we should not adopt a plan that is fundamentally objectionable. A plan the coerces students, instead of leading them, is more likely to foster resentment than academic enthusiasm. The Faculty should reject the Core and renew its search for a Gen Ed replacement.