A New Way to Concentrate?

After last week’s release of the Harvard College Curricular Review (HCCR), the future of the concentration system looks bleak. The central suggestions found in Section V of the HCCR report prescribe a significant reform of the present structure that stands to compromise the academic experience of vast numbers of undergraduates—especially, and most unfortunately, for those currently engaged in the sort of international and interdisciplinary study the curricular review aspires to provide for every student. While the report provides commendable solutions for improvements within the existing departments, the College would do well to abandon plans to vastly alter the framework and content of concentrations from the outside.

The most significant recommendations outlined in the report are the deferment of concentration decisions until the end of the first semester of sophomore year and the institution of a presumptive cap on the number of courses that can be required for graduation at 12. Along with this cap comes the condensing of the current Honors and Basic tracks offered in all but 11 of the 40 concentrations to a single set of requirements, with the option to all concentrators to produce either a senior thesis or a “capstone project” for Honors consideration.

Summing up their motivations, the report’s authors write, “We wish to encourage students to range broadly, to follow their interests and curiosity, and to allow them the freedom to change their minds about the areas they wish to study.” As admirable as these goals may be, there is little indication that the proposed revisions would, in fact, accomplish these goals. Take the intention to emphasize interdisciplinary studies. Interdisciplinary concentrations will only be constrained by a cap on requirements—environmental science and public policy, for example, currently requires 16 courses for its Basic track alone—and, as a result, they will be forced to limit not only the number, but likely the scope of their courses.

This is not the only instance in which the curricular review’s proposals seem self-defeating. The delayed declaration date is intended to give students more time to consider their options before committing to a concentration. While the report correctly identifies that nearly one-third of undergraduates switch concentrations at least once, it mistakes the primary reason for such a move. Admittedly, some students may be converted by late exposure to an entirely different field, but many more discover their dislike for their concentration only upon becoming involved in serious study. For this majority, a later start date can only make switching fields a less feasible choice.

The proposed concentration reforms will also make it harder for the College to realize its goal of internationalization. Heavily distributing requirements over the spring of sophomore and entirety of junior year—especially problematic in concentrations such as history and literature and social studies that currently rely on a full-year sophomore tutorial to prepare students with the background knowledge they will need for further analysis over the course of their studies—will raise the costs of studying abroad for particularly those times when students are most likely to do so.

But perhaps most telling is the fact that currently just 18 of the 40 concentrations offer fewer than 12 graduation requirements, and only four of these include Honors tracks that remain consistent with the proposed cap. Clearly, the College’s standard for properly extensive academic work has been set higher than the cap would allow. The proposed limitations would undermine the quality of education the College provides, and even more so when paired with the possibility of producing a capstone project instead of a thesis. The undergraduate thesis offers a tried and true method for the development of the skills necessary for serious academic research and establishes a criterion by which to gauge individual excellence. With the exception of those fields where a traditional thesis is not possible, concentrations which allow an alternative senior effort are only making themselves vulnerable to those who would abuse the system.

This is not to suggest that the HCCR report contained nothing of value in reevaluating the current format of concentrations. The focus on increasing student-faculty interaction by establishing within each field the requirement for every student to participate in small, faculty-taught classes goes a long way in identifying and addressing one of the greatest problems with undergraduate education at Harvard. In addition, allowing students to voice feedback and concerns through the formation of an Undergraduate Studies Committee, composed of concentrators, within each department will provide valuable insights as to how the concentrations might be improved in the future.

Despite these highlights, however, it is clear that the College must allow the concentrations to independently address matters of such sweeping structural revision instead of imposing a clumsy, one-size-fits-all solution.