One reason for this is that he has found some English students excessively literary in their approach to the course. Another is a sort of philosophical commitment to the idea, which faintly parallels the general education course at Lawrence, where instructors from all departments taught the basic Gen Ed course, and Physics professors became the mostenthusiastic teachers of Hamlet. The stimulation of this approach is worth further thought, if only in terms of moreguest lectures.
The Languages
Gen Ed now covers all but one of the educational requirements outside of concentration. It ignores only the language requirement, which is left to the Registrar, who presumably takes care of it when he is not busy with swimmingtests.
The Faculty will probably rummage through the subject of the language requirement again next year, according to Dean Bundy, and it seems likely that there will be pressure to tighten the requirement so it will mean something.
Princeton has met the problem by requiring real competence in either a foreign language or in mathematics, and something along this line might be put in here, though there seems to be little current demand for more math instruction. Or the requirement might just be raised, on both the placement tests and the level of course to be passed. At least one year of a foreign literature might be demanded.
But the problem is more than a numerical one. The intermittent watchfulness of the Faculty has not brought forth a sensible system, and a standing committee might profitably survey the area. But if a committee were created, it would probably include many members of the language departments who now must bear the responsibility for the low quality of instruction given in so many modern languages. This instruction helps make the language requirement worthless.
If an independent but vitally concerned body like the Committee on General Education were given jurisdiction over the requirement, and perhaps over the instruction as well, the language requirement might be translated into a useful contribution to Harvard education.
When Gen Ed was adopted it was not looked on as final and perfect, and there was a feeling that the program would need a reconsideration after some years of practice. Ten years then seemed a proper interval, and that would put the review any time after the next academic year, for General Education went into permanent status with 1949-50. Owen says that the committee would welcome such a review, but it seems that if such a study is to make sense, both the teaching of science and the place of languages should be carefully examined first. Excepting the unlikely eventualities of curricular or term-arrangement reform, these are the most pressing problemsfor Harvard education today.
Gen Ed a Success
Gen Ed has succeeded; one of President Pusey's major concerns when he came was seeing that "General Education engaged the full interest and support or senior Faculty members whose standing is as high as that of anyone in their departments." Under the vigorous leadership of Kenneth B. Murdock, General Education continues to do that. Three University Professors teach Gen Ed courses, and leading professors from two of the three areas contribute to the program.
There is much to be done. If one can ever sit back and relax about an educational problem, he cannot do it yet aboutGen Ed. But there is room for a feeling of accomplishment. In the words of one professor of long standing, "General Education, for all its defects in execution, aims at a useful goal, and whatever its failings may have been, has had 'successes' which more than counter-balance them, 'successes' of a sort less commonly achieved when Gen Ed was not in existence."