Yesterday we criticized the Doty Committee's definition of the goals of General Education for being too vague and failing to explain fully the role of a Gen Ed course. Today we will examine the Doty Report's specific revisions of Gen Ed to show that ill-defined goals have led to ill-defined, at times contradictory, proposals for a new program of General Education at Harvard.

I

THE REPORT'S REASONING--Before the Doty Committee put forward its new rules for reformulating General Education, it examined three basic problems in the present Gen Ed program. One of these problems, "the inadequacy of the present administrative structure to provide a major, required program," bears only indirectly upon the new rules. But the Committee's analysis of the other two problems illustrates the assumptions upon which the new rules were based.

According to the Committee, one crucial difficulty is that "Gen Ed requirements have been too inflexible to take into account the various levels of student preparation, and the courses offered have been too limited in number." Specifically the Committee detected three failings in the present system of requirements. First, elementary Gen Ed courses are all given at approximately the same level of difficulty. Second, elementary Gen Ed courses do not lead directly to opportunities for further study. And last, students have too little choice of courses at the elementary level.

The report also complained that "the content of the present program is so organized that it either underemphasizes or omits some of the most vigorous areas of modern thought." In the Humanities, the Committee felt there was a lack of instruction in the non-verbal arts and that, "even more significantly," practical (as opposed to historical and critical) instruction in the arts was slighted. In the Social Sciences the Committee noted that the present program neglects non-western cultures and does not give enough attention to the behavioral sciences. Finally, the Committee deplored a general underemphasis of the Natural Sciences--roughly half of Harvard and Radcliffe students take only one science course and that is often a soft, non-lab offering.

Building on this analysis of deficiencies in content and requreiments, the Doty Committee submitted three basic goals for a reorganized Gen Ed program. The new program should 1) include areas of knowledge not adequately represented in the current program, 2) introduce a greater variety of course offerings accommodating various levels of preparation, and 3) provide course sequences so that students can pursue special interests in greater depth than is now possible.

To meet these goals, the Committee proposed that the tripartite division of knowledge into Natural Sciences, Social Science, and Humanities be replaced with just two categories, Sciences and Humanities (see box at left). In addition, the Committee formulated the following rules for the new Gen Ed program:

1. Students must take two courses each in Sciences, Humanities, and a division consisting of electives.

2. At least ONE of the courses in the Sciences must be in the Natural Sciences category; the other may also be in either the Natural Sciences or the Behavioral Sciences.

3. In both the Humanities and Sciences divisions, two full courses, one of which is above the elementary level, may be substituted for one General Education course. However, at least one General Education course that cannot count for concentration must be taken in each of the two divisions.

4. Two full courses required in the electives division may be selected either from among the General Education Electives or from among the General Education courses in Humanities and Sciences (to the limit of four for the entire program), or from among departmental courses that cannot count for concentration.

II

THE BASIC CONTRADICTION--The basic contradiction in the Doty Report arises from the Committee's assessment of the two broad, non-administrative shortcomings in the Gen Ed program. On the one hand, the Committee cites the high level of preparation among freshmen and uses this as an argument for Gen Ed sequences in depth. On the other hand, the Committee feels that the present program should rectify its omission of important segments of modern thought, suggesting the need for greater breadth in the program. Thus, even in the Committee's most fundamental recommendations, a contradiction between breadth and depth is evident.

Moreover, if one examines the first specific goal for reorganizing Gen Ed rules--including new areas of knowledge--and also remembers that a cardinal aim of Gen Ed is to encourage students to take a broader view of their own specialty through work in other fields, one realizes that the Doty Committee is emphasizing the need for breadth in Gen Ed, is asking that students delve into three or four broad areas of knowledge.

However, upon examining the third goal for reorganizing the rules of General Education--providing course sequences--as well as the rules themselves, one must conclude that the report is encouraging students to "concentrate" in certain areas of Gen Ed. Under the new rules it would be possible to satisfy Gen Ed requirements in a relatively cavalier fashion. For example, a premed English major could take one Humanities course, two departmental courses in fine arts, one sciences course, two courses in physics or chemistry and two upper level Latin courses, thus fulfilling his Gen Ed requirement without taking a course in the behavioral sciences or in history or government.

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.)