FRESHMEN...

Optional introductory group tutorial in some department for one term or in January; might take a second tutorial in another department; where possible, tied to a student's House.

JUNIORS...

Group tutorials for those in departments who are eligible on the basis of work in freshman tutorial; individual or, where feasible, group tutorials for special concentrators electing them and deemed eligible by the Committee on Special Studies.

SENIORS...

Individual tutorials for students working on senior essays or projects; others might try to gain admittance to a junior group tutorial or to an introductory tutorial outside their field. Students staying for part of a fourth year should ordinarily have fulfilled tutorial requirements and might enroll in group tutorials if admitted; individual tutorials for fourth-year students would not be possible except when senior essays had to be completed.

As a final word on concentrations, we recommend that each department establish a student-faculty Committee on Undergraduate Instruction to regularly review departmental teaching and requirements. Student members should be selected by lot from a pool of volunteer upperclassmen.

GENERAL EDUCATION: includes all studies outside the core program of concentration.

EVALUATION IN THE GENERAL EDUCATION PORTION OF THE STUDENT'S PLAN OF STUDY WILL ORDINARILY BE ON A NON-GRADED BASIS, that is, all work outside the student's concentration may be done for ungraded credit or for a pass. Grades are optional, however, and a student may have to take some courses for graded credit to fulfill pre-professional requirements.

Two guiding principles govern the ideal design of this part of a student's plan of study: DISTRIBUTION and EXPERIMENTATION. Increasing options for non-graded work outside a student's field of concentration will encourage him to pursue studies in areas which are unfamiliar to him and in which academic success is not initially assured. The notion of experimentation in general education applies to all portions of the educational process, including forms of instruction and evaluation. We would expect that most Intensive Studies undertaken in January (see next section) will be General-Education oriented, even though concentration credit might be requested and approved for them. In addition, we envision a proliferation of experimental House seminars, as well as House projects designed ad hoc by students, graduate teaching fellows, and professors.

Responsibility for designing and administering General Education offerings would be split between the Committee on General Education and House Committees on Educational Policy. On a University-wide level, the Gen. Ed. Committee would be responsible for establishing General Education courses that are listed in the catalogue of Courses of Instruction. The large Gen. Ed. course are among the best in the University, and the end of the General Education requirement would not mean the end of the program or of the Committee's work.

We are gravely concerned that the budgetary axe is threatening the Gen. Ed. program at this time and in the immediate future. We believe that one of the primary and urgent responsibilities of Harvard's next president should be to secure an endowment expressly for the General Education program at about $10 million. This sum would ensure close to an additional $800,000 yearly for the Committee's operating budget, bringing its total resources to about $1.7 million annually. Approximately $1 million could fund the large courses that are interdisciplinary in nature or taught by professors outside Arts and Sciences.

We would like to see each professional school represented in the Gen. Ed. program by at least one course similar to Soc. Sci. 137, Soc. Sci 150, and Hum. 11 and 14. Through this commitment by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the increased opportunities for cross-registration recommended above, Harvard would acknowledge that a "liberal education" need not preclude an exposure to the traditionally "professional" disciplines.

The remainder of the General Education Committee's funds should be used to support House affiliated seminars ($500,000) and to subsidize Independent Studies ($200,000).

We consider the Harvard-Radcliffe House system a singular educational asset with great potential for complementing departmental education and for institutionalizing curricular innovation. House General Education courses and projects should be expanded to foster study of contemporary social issues and problems. These House seminars would complement the traditional conception of General Education derived from the Redbook, the idea of a historical smorgasbord of Western civilization, which is still valuable. Members of all faculties in the University and fellows from the research institutes should be enlisted and compensated to lead House courses. Some of the successful informal courses now being offered through various institutes could be affiliated with different Houses and granted degree credit.