It shouldn't be surprising, then, that so many of the students brought to Harvard by a farsighted Admissions Office should be sorely disappointed after arriving in Cambridge. They soon find that the flowery rhetoric of General Education and the General Catalogue may be more advertising and wishful thinking than anything else. The College claims to look "first of all to [the student's] life as a responsible human being and citizen," but the glances seem at best sidelong. The "delicate balance" between the University, "dedicated to the advancement of knowledge," and the College, "whose purpose is the development of the individual," is not-so-delicately weighted in favor of the University; perhaps because no one really knows what the College should be doing.
Unethereal
It is wrong and simplistic to think that, simply because these "modern students" are not the same kind of dedicated academics their predecessors were, they are antagonistically anti-intellectual. To be sure, they resent the emphasis on professional training, on medieval scholasticism, and on ethereal abstractions. But this does not mean they are anti-intellectual, any more than it means that the medieval scholastic is a true intellectual. Often, just the opposite is the case: we've all had times when we've felt that we've learned far more from a good bull-session than we have from a lecture.
The intellectuality of these students is one of personal and social relevance. They see around them a society which, for all its potential and promise, seems bent on destruction and the thwarting of human fulfillment. As the presumed repository of society's knowledge and wisdom, it seems proper and fitting to them that the University ought to be concerned with salvaging what worthwhile remnants of society are left. They recognize that the distinction between a socially responsible university--which Harvard admits it should be--and a politically responsible one--which Harvard maintains it is not--is frequently not a fruitful one. They are sophisticated enough to know that the actions of a billion dollar corporation are not unfelt by society, and they argue that it's naive to think that this power can be exercised neutrally.
Instead, they find a Harvard College which appears to have in no way significantly departed from the Ivory Tower of the past. Only instead of an Ivory Tower, the university's protective wall is called "value-freedom." "Technology," Harvard's President explains, "cannot be used to support an opinion." Hence television is not used to broadcast a recent Vietnam teach-in. (How the dissemination of opinions differs from the dissemination of information is left unexplained, unless one assumes that the teach-in was totally devoid of any information whatsoever.) The renunciation of social obligation is the same; the harm wreaked is infinitely worse. Value freedom allows one to wallow in the mud without feeling soiled.
What values Harvard does espouse are drawn from the past--this is in fact the premise to the General Education program. Men are made whole by an appreciation of history; presumbaly an inculcation of the classic virtues leads one to contemporary herismo.
Only recently have some members of the Harvard community, notably Winthrop House Master Bruce Chalmers, suggested that what is even more important than knowledge of the past is an understanding of the present; the former does not inevitably lead to the latter. Appealing as the idea of "learning from the past" is, there is a tendency for this kind of scholarship to indulge in obscure irrelancies. If students today are less academic than previously, it is only in the sense that they have no tolerance for the preoccupation with minutiae which frequently typifies the academic.
II
It would be foolish not to recognize that many students--perhaps the majority at Harvard--are fairly content with the system as it operates. A large number not only intend to go on to graduate school, but see the College as a prep school for the University. This sort of student is almost ideally suited to the education Harvard is able to give him.
The other kind of student, the one who was told by the Admissions Office that he's just the material Harvard wants, and then discovers to his dismay that he's not after all; this sort of student really has no alternative here short of dropping out.
For all the courses in the General Catalogue, for all the extra-curricular activities, there is a surprising lack of genuine diversity in the education Harvard has to offer its students. Many disciplines are represented in the Faculty, and there's a shopping market glut of courses to choose from each term. But essentially, the courses and the Faculty are frighteningly alike; there is an assumption common to both that Harvard students come to their courses already excited and motivated. The role of the professor is simply to present the pertinent body of information--rarely is there an attempt to stimulate or inspire.
The only real variety lies in the student body; this is Harvard's strength. It is also its weakness.
Given such a heterogeneous student body, one would expect a reasonable amount of flexibility, freedom, and opportunity for independence at Harvard. Administrators are quick to point out that there is a minimum of rules, and that almost any regulation can be broken for the right person. If a person is willing to scream and kick enough, he can get almost anything.
This is partly true. The liberal tradition has reached its heights in Harvard's structure. There are restraints and guidelines--some justifiable, some not--but the men who administrate the structure are wise enough to keep the pressure valves sufficiently open so that the pot never quite boils over. If one learns how to operate successfully, one can get by doing just about all he wants.
Unfortunately for many students, there are even stronger forces which discourage making use of Harvard's curious freedom. The prospect of manipulating a system overgrown with 300 years of ivy can be over-whelming. It takes a certain amount of security and self-confidence to buck a school with Harvard's reputation. Few students are able to do this without some advice or prodding.
Read more in News
O'Neill Redefines His Role