Second, upper level courses will help to fill in the gap between the base divisions. As mentioned, the study of history can profitably be related to psychology or sociology, the study of literature to history. For example, a person who has taken a course like Hum 6 in high school would still do well to take a more sophisticated course combining the textual with the historical approach. In short, the basic four course requirement aims toward attainment of what is in our opinion the primary goal of Gen Ed; the substitution of upper level Gen Ed courses helps to fill in this first goal and aims toward an important secondary one.

In addition, upper level courses will give a needed degree of flexibility to the required program. Because many upper level Gen Ed offerings are (and will be) half courses, a student who passes out of lower level requirements will be able to have greater freedom of choice (and scheduling).

As for the upper level requirement beyond the required four courses, it should remain much the same as the one outlined by the Doty Report.

* Two full courses required in the electives division may be selected either from among upper level. Gen Ed courses or from departmental courses that cannot count for concentration.

III

In the next to last chapter of its report, the Doty Committee confronts the need for administrative rearmament and suggests three specific changes in the present structure: 1) the Gen Ed Committee should be chaired by a prestigious member of the Administration, the Dean of the Faculty, 2) the departments should contribute a larger share of their teachers to the Gen Ed program, and 3) a system of incentives should be established to lure top Faculty members into the program.

The gist of these proposals is the Committee's recognition that the only thing which insures an excellent Gen Ed program is excellent Gen Ed courses and the only thing which insures excellent courses is excellent teachers. When all is said, there is really no doubt that in the enthusiasm of men like George Wald and Sam Beer is all that is good with Gen Ed today.

As the Doty Committee said in conclusion, "If this report has done anything to stimulate . . . individual commitments to the shaping and giving of Gen Ed courses, it will have more than served' its purpose." But we wonder if a report which defines Gen Ed vaguely, almost negatively, which suggests contradictory goals, which formulates rules that requires students to take only two Gen Ed courses will draw the needed support from the Faculty.

Because we think Gen Ed does have a vital role at Harvard, we have offered our criticisms about definition and purpose in the hope that answers and commitment will be forthcoming. We have offered our proposals in the hope that they will at least sharpen the issues of debate, at best provide partial solutions. But this is not enough. It remains for the Faculty to view the Doty Report as stimulus--not a barrier--to debate.