May's Review Has Shaky Future, But Presents Necessary Questions

Neither Dean May, nor, in fact, anyone in Harvard College claims the ability to foresee the outcome of the new curriculum re-examination proposed yesterday. But, even at the outset, the forces operating against its success are imposing.

Coming from the dean of the College's office and not from a Faculty directive, the study is a one-sided proposal and carries no official weight, as does, for instance, the Fainsod report. Thus, after it is completed, Dean May must lobby for it within the Faculty, solely on the merits of the recommendations and the arguments in favor of them.

But combining the recommendations of several House committees must be considered a major problem in itself, since the impetus for reform has come from several groups holding very different views of education.

Any attempt to unify these views may easily degenerate into a hodge-podge of compromising half-steps-manifested in a general report that comments on Harvard education but makes no recommendations, or a set of specific, yet conflicting proposals that follow no cohesive pattern.

Still, even if the curriculum discussions break down in confusion, the areas of concern which May has outlined are comprehensive and define the problems that Harvard education will eventually encounter in the next decade.

NEWS ANALYSIS

These areas include:

What is the role of General Education? Given the increase in General Education in secondary schools, should Harvard insist on Gen Ed courses or simply return to distribution requirements?.

Are non honors concentrations worthwhile or should students be allowed to "concentrate" in General Education?

Should Harvard change from a basically liberal arts college to include specialized and vocational education?

Should Harvard be a four-year experience or can the residency requirement be more flexible?

What is the relationship of academics to political problems?

What place should "artistic," action-oriented, or vocational programs have in the curriculum, should "extracurricular" activities like Institute of Politics seminars be accredited?

What is the Faculty status of persons who teach special "vocational" courses as opposed to those who teach "academic" courses? Should students teach undergraduate courses?

What is the role of research in the University?

Given the financial limitations of the University, how should priorities be determined? SWJ