In the past two editorials we have scored the Doty Committee's failure to define the goals of Gen Ed with the necessary precision, to differentiate a Gen Ed course from an introductory departmental offering. Because of this vagueness, we argued, the Committee has endorsed specific requests that are contradictory--the need for both breadth and depth in Gen Ed--and through its reformulation of Gen Ed rules actually put greater emphasis on depth. We believe that the confusion should be clarified and emphasis placed on the proper alternative, on breadth before depth.

Our position stems from the basic assumption that it is possible to combine disciplines, historical periods, and national styles in a lower level Gen Ed course to give the student a basic, highly useful vocabulary in four broad areas of knowledge; Natural Sciences, Behavioral Sciences, Historical Studies, (History and Government), and Humanities. The content of such courses is not superficial but selective, gives students not a survey but tools which serve either as an introduction to the area of knowledge of which the student's own field is a part or as the basis for structuring his future reading in the three other broad fields of knowledge. In our opinion, the best and first goal of Gen Ed is to give the student this type of education in breadth, and therefore we suggest alternative requirements to the Doty Committee's rules for reformulating General Education.

I

The first step would be to divide the field of knowledge into the four broad areas of study already mentioned: Natural Science, Behavioral Science, Historical Studies, and Humanities. As the Doty Committee emphasized when it set up the Science-Humanities division, this is not by any means an irrevocable epistemological partition. Although we view the above division as a basic one that should be made to structure the program, we of course realize there are large areas of over-lap--especially between Behavioral Science and Historical Studies and between Historical Studies and Humanities--which in our opinion may best be dealt with in upper level Gen Ed courses.

Given the four-part division we therefore suggest a basic rule for General Education.

* Four full courses will be required in General Education. Students should take one each in Natural Science, Behavioral Science, Historical Studies, and Humanities.

Although this will increase the lower level requirement by one course, from three to four, we believe this is a needed change in a college program designed to counter increasing specialization. Because we think the generally educated man is distinguished not by what he knows, but by the ability to comprehend and assimilate a broad range of material, this rule should be the keystone of the new program.

Besides providing a substantial bulwark against specialization, this rule would help attain a related goal of the Doty Committee's with which we strongly agree; namely undergraduates need one hard, lab science. In the baldest terms, because of the explosion of scientific knowledge and its immeasurable effect on contemporary life, makes sense for the student to have, at the very least an acquaintance with the methods of laboratory sciences.

Some will argue that four out of sixteen courses in Gen Ed is too many. And others will contend that four lower level requirements make the program too rigid. But a second rule will in effect reduce the lower level requirements for many and give flexibility to the program.

II

One of the factors weakening the present system of General Education is that students are entering Harvard with varying levels of preparedness and many are finding Gen Ed courses unchallenging. Part of the problem is that too many Gen Ed courses are simply listless additions to the catalogue. But another difficulty is that students can only place out of Gen Ed on very rigid terms: only those students with sophomore standing may be exempted from Gen Ed courses.

Rather than accomodating these well-prepared students by creating an elaborate system of multi-difficulty lower level Gen Ed courses, as suggested by the Doty Committee, we recommend a second rule for the Gen Ed program.

* Students with demonstrated preparedness in one (or more) of the four broad fields of knowledge will be exempted from the lower level requirements in that area. But they will be required to take an upper level Gen Ed course (or two half courses) in its place.

Preparedness in an area would be demonstrated by advanced placement or determined in conference with a representative from the Committee on General Education.

Although it is the first task of General Education to give a student tools to structure his thought in the four basic divisions, there are two main reasons which justify requiring a student to take an upper level course in lieu of a lower level offering. First, although a well-prepared student may already have covered some of the content of a lower level course which would thus bore him, he has probably not been exposed to the selective Gen Ed approach of relating disciplines within that field of knowledge. This experience would be stimulating in an upper level Gen Ed course.

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.