THE lecture system at Harvard gives Professors a chance to develop their ideas on some chosen topic at length and regularly over a period of time. It is far superior to the British, system, say, in which lectures are sporadic events to be made use of or not as the mood strikes one. Nevertheless, the course system at Harvard does not work very well largely because all the reading is assigned--as if it will be done simultaneously with the lectures. Another drawback is that the educational process is rounded off, in good European fashion, by a massive examination.

One way of countering these problems which would squeeze the greatest educational benefit possible from Harvard's lecture system would be to start each semester with three weeks of reading period followed by an exam, and then embark on the lectures. Obviously this pattern would apply only to most(though not all) Humanities and Social Science courses and not to Natural Science courses, since these latter depend, peculiarily, on a gradual, step by step, accumulation of skills and knowledge.

The defects of the present system are twofold: in the way it actually works and in its theoretical basis.

The argument for relocating reading period starts from the assumption that an overwhelming number of Harvard students do not, in fact, adequately keep up with their assigned reading. This results in the frantic last-minute burst of catching-up that recurs every reading-period--an orgy that leaves little time for reflection on the real meaning of the reading.

IN any case, not having done the reading during the year the student has already lost the value of the lectures. Going to these unprepared, he is able only to retain the most striking fragments and insights of each particular lecture, with no real understanding of the unity of the lecturer's thought or any conception of the significance of these insights.

NOT DOING the reading till the end also means that the course paper is done with a very sketchy understanding of what the course is all about. This forces most courses to allow almost complete freedom in the choice of paper topic--and often people write papers that they might have written without having taken the course at all. In short, anybody who does not read throughout the year loses much of the educational benefit of the lecture system.

Undoubtedly many people at Harvard do keep up with their reading, but even these people suffer from inherent defects of the present system.

It is not at all clear, for instance, that in the Humanities and Social Sciences absorbing snatches of information on a steadily growing number of topics can ultimately add up, as if arithmetically, to a meaningful synthesis. The process of linear learning--involving gradual increments in received knowledge over a period of time--works reasonably well in math and science courses but that is no guarantee that the study of human affairs ought to be conducted in the same way.

Rather, it would seem that human affairs should be approached in a circular manner, beginning with the incorporation of a total viewpoint. Once one has a conception, however vague it may be, of the whole field of play one can then proceed to ferret out the truths that it contains--much as a quarterback might spend some time sizing up the opposing team before he starts mapping his own strategies, instead of launching into all his tricks straightaway in the hope that he will learn by trial and error.

Certainly the Professor delivering the lectures speaks with the perspective of one who knows the whole of the story. He knows what is to come later and what bearing each bit of information has on the entire message. The professor is, in effect, creating a jigsaw puzzle with the completed picture before him. The student who has not been granted a preliminary look at the completed jigsaw puzzle becomes a passive observer who fails to appreciate the significance, intellectual as well as aesthetic, of each piece as it clunks into place.

THE second theoretical defect in the present system is that a person who does do the reading diligently throughout the year usually ends up not paritcipating in any outside activities--for sheer lack of time if for nothing else. People who point with pride to Harvard's flourishing extra-curricular life may fail to realize that it exists only because most people do not do the reading till the end of the year.

It is said that you don't suffer because Harvard's system is so set up--with a reading period at the end--that you can get away with it. And in a sense you can. It is not very difficult to get good grades around here, but as has been argued above much of the true educational value of the lectures has been inevitably lost.

In addition there is the psychic strain that flows from neglecting one's assigned work. The feeling of guilt that plagues one for going to see a movie in mid-week is real--but, perversely, not real enough to force one back to one's books. In short you get the worst of both worlds.

THE proposed reform is designed to assure that the reading be somehow done before the lectures unfold.

The first week of school, a disorganized time at best, would be given over to lectures from professors suggesting an approach to the reading. Reading lists, and perhaps written synopses outlining the aims and methodology of the course, would also be given out.