In Defense of Gen Eds

Everyone loves to hate General Education — but we’re disparaging an indispensable part of Harvard’s curriculum.

Deliberately designed to expose students to a myriad of disciplines, Gen Eds serve as a push — albeit a forceful one — to step out of the bounds of your concentration into unchartered territories. These classes attempt to equip us with a breadth of knowledge our fields of study alone cannot provide.

But as we all know, that’s not how most Harvard students see them. More often than not, students view Gen Eds as easy A’s or nuisances to complete, not as opportunities to meaningfully expand our knowledge. True, Gen Eds often focus on niche topics, and it’s tempting to skip readings when an A is all but guaranteed, but they’re the last real vestige of liberal arts at Harvard. Though they may feel cumbersome at times, students should acknowledge — and appreciate — the value of Gen Eds.

The Gen Ed program requires Harvard students to take courses across four categories on a range of concepts, endowing students with skills to find solutions beyond one linear answer. Topics are dismantled to reassess how we engage with our society at large through an ethical to scientific lens to produce solutions to complex ideas.

Gen Eds provide numerous, unique benefits that extend beyond the classroom. As one professor said, Gen Eds ought to be the “crown jewel” of a Harvard education. The program nudges students to step out of our comfort zones into domains that may be foreign, which is crucial to expand our perspectives. When we’re challenged to broaden our outlook, we interpret problems more thoroughly, a skill easily transferable to the workplace.

Additionally, having the opportunity to navigate issues by challenging our assumptions and thinking critically fosters our personal and professional growth. And when we graduate, being equipped with a foundation of soft skills is essential for career advancement and success.

These skills are further honed by the range of perspectives brought to class. Gen Eds unite undergraduates from all grade levels and concentrations, providing a space that brings multiple viewpoints and interpretations to the table.

As a freshman, I relish seeing a topic I viewed superficially in a new light thanks to the insights of my peers. Perspectives I never would have given much thought to suddenly become salient, and I allow myself to lean into questioning my own thinking. It’s been said, ironically or not, that Harvard is home to the most brilliant minds of our generation — having a space to hear from more of them is a privilege I cannot help but laud.

Divisional Distribution courses similarly require students to complete credits in different departments, exposing us to various disciplines much like Gen Eds. But the Divisional Distribution alone can only go so far in providing more diversity within a schedule, especially given students are only required to take one course in each division.

It is imperative that we do not end up being consumed entirely by one discipline, and Gen Eds prevent that. Gen Eds deliberately lack prerequisites, providing a less daunting opportunity to step outside of one’s comfort zone — unlike classes taken to fulfill Divisional Distribution requirements, which can be at any level within a department.

The requisite nature of Gen Eds, however, dissuades students from feeling a deeper connection to these courses. Students often brush aside Gen Eds on their schedule, regarding them as easy A classes that efficiently check their requirement box. But viewing Gen Eds as another burden needed to satisfy credits misunderstands the purpose of these classes. The liberal arts are not obsolete — they’re what establish a foundation for intellect.

To fulfill their purpose, Harvard must strengthen academic rigor within these courses. And to ensure students have a breadth of viewpoints, Harvard should continue expanding its Gen Ed offerings, providing more diversity within the program. Gen Eds do typically take up one-eighth of a student’s undergraduate courses, so the available options should explicitly reflect their relevancy — not so niche that they can be cast aside as a waste of time.

With the option to fulfill one Gen Ed pass-fail eliminated, rigor is slowly making its return back to the classroom. As the debate over grade inflation, particularly in Gen Eds, has grown, requiring these classes to be taken for letter grades ensures we approach them earnestly. For students in the class of 2029 on, removing pass-fail is a step to prioritize the program.

For the Gen Ed system to be effective, however, students have to be bought-in. To make the most of these courses, we should reconsider how we engage with them — not just as boxes to tick, but as opportunities to foster more rigorous and well-rounded thinking.

Gen Eds don’t deserve being diminished to solely a requirement — they are what we need to keep our curiosity afloat beyond concentration lines. We should treat them as such.

Olivia R. Nelson ’29, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Hurlbut Hall.