In short, the Doty Committee wants students both to cover a wide range of topics and to pursue special interests in depth at the same time. These contradictory goals cannot be accomplished without increasing the total Gen Ed course load. We strongly agree with the Doty Committee that the total requirements should not be increased. But we believe that the contradiction can be resolved by choosing between the alternatives of depth and breadth.
III
BREADTH OVER DEPTH--Although the implicit ambiguities in the Committee's various statements of purpose cannot be corrected in a single sentence, the Report makes clear which alternative should have precedence in the Committee's opinion: "If as a committee we are forced to choose between breadth and depth--we shall choose depth and risk the danger of overspecialization in Gen Ed." This is indeed strange language for a report on general education; it seems the Committee has reversed the proper order of priorities. We contend that breadth in General Education is more important than depth, which is clearly the responsibility of the individual departments.
Of course we must return to problems of definition, since we do not think a broad General Education means a series of survey courses (in the worst sense of that phrase) spread over a variety of topics. We share fully the Committee's desire to avoid superficiality in Gen Ed. But who does not? To solve the dilemma of breadth versus depth is inevitably to settle on basic definitions of the General Education. But this is not easy.
Because the report's definition of the goals of Gen Ed is so vague, its findings could be used either to support or oppose "specialization" in Gen Ed. Moreover (and perhaps more damning), the Doty Committee does not discuss the meaning of its oft-used phrase, "the better prepared student." This is a critical failure, since this student is the one for whom the option of a General Education in depth is being created. But the Report never describes in what sense the student is "prepared." It does not say whether he might, in fact, be exempted from Gen Ed requirements.
Only when one expands the committee's definition of General Education and makes clear the nature of a Gen Ed course as well as the nature of the broad Gen Ed "experience" does the case for putting primary emphasis on breadth become apparent. If the basic Gen Ed course is to give the student the ability to speak and work in one of four broad areas of knowledge, Natural Sciences, Behavioral Sciences, Historical Studies (including History and Government), and Humanities, it follows that the primary function of the total Gen Ed program is to give students exposure to all four broad areas.
That is to say, we feel a General Education course, through its special ability to combine disciplines, selected historical periods, and various national styles, can give a student the tools to begin to structure his thought on a broad range of topics, can give a student the vocabulary which will encourage him to delve into further topics in each broad area of knowledge.
In short, the generally educated man, first and foremost, should be given the seeds of learning in each of the four broad areas of knowledge (through courses like Hum 6, Nat Sci 5, and Soc Sci 2), and it is for this reason that we stress the need for breadth before depth in General Education. No matter how hard he studies, a man cannot leave the college with proficiency in a variety of departments. But he can leave with some sophistication in his own department and the ability to appreciate other works outside the broad field of knowledge of which his field of concentration is a part. The role of Gen Ed is to produce this broadly appreciative man. And a system of requirements which does not aim towards this goal is, in our opinion, lacking.
To put the case for breadth negatively, although we agree that the possibility of course sequences and provisions for accommodating well-prepared students are important considerations, we think the Doty Committee has over-emphasized these concerns. Setting up course sequences must be only a secondary goal in a program of General not departmental education.
We also feel that provisions should be made for "better-prepared" students. But we seriously question whether such provisions should take the form of "multi-difficulty" lower level Gen Ed courses as the Report suggests. Instead of trying to accommodate all types of students on the lower level, wouldn't it be much simpler to exempt students with demonstrated preparedness from basic Gen Ed courses in the areas of their greatest strength and allow them to take more sophisticated upper level courses instead?
* * *
Criticizing the Doty Report both for the implicit contradiction of breadth versus depth in its conception of the new program and for the explicit preference for depth if it had to make a choice, we find ourselves in partial disagreement with two of the three "organizing ideas" of the new program for General Education.
* First, we do not think it necessary to accommodate well-prepared students in the lower level Gen Ed courses.
* Second, we would de-emphasize the role of course sequences in Gen Ed's lower level since they would allow people to avoid what we consider the most important goal in Gen Ed, acquiring a basic vocabulary in four broad areas of knowledge, Natural Science, Behavioral Science, Historical Studies, and Humanities.
Given these basic criticisms, which stem from our redefinition of the role of Gen Ed, we think there should be fundamental modifications of the Doty Report's plan for General Education at Harvard.
(Tomorrow the last in a series of three editorials will consider an alternative proposal.)