* recommendations for House courses.
Few of the Harvard Houses have instituted such a committee.
In support of expanding the curricular role of Houses, Dean Epps has stated that he would like to see a freeing up of classroom space in the Houses, greater House accessibility to technical aids such as closed-circuit television and computer teletypes, and more "rigorously intimate" contact between undergraduates and Faculty, a contact he finds particularly lacking in the situation of non-honors students. Changes in students' life styles in the Houses may have discouraged Faculty contact since the late 1950's, according to Epps. He sees a strong need to reemphasize the "intellectual and academic character of the Houses."
THE GREATEST opponents of the Committees on Instruction recommendation are reportedly department chairmen. Morton W. Bloomfield, Chairman of the English Department, believes some courses are "ideally suited" for Houses and that tutorials, if possible, and sections for large courses should also be held in students' Houses. However, he regards the proposed committees as unnecessary, since departments are now handling the responsibility of House courses. Unless this check exists, Bloomfield believes, House courses may conflict with or take time from department courses.
Furthermore, Bloomfield suggests that only 15-20 per cent of the students would be represented on such committees. "This machinery is not going to help," Bloomfield stated. "It would be a big to-do with relatively small benefits."
Kyle, however, emphasized that in courses and tutorials, the needs of people in the Houses should be the main consideration.
On the other hand, it would be impossible, in Kyle's view, to hold all tutorials in the Houses without massive new tutor assignments. As it is, she says, some departments do not even cooperate in matching tutors and tutees in the Houses. It is most important for juniors and seniors to have personalized tutoring, and until budgets for tutors and House education go up, she warns, nothing should be done which would leave students "boxed in" to their Houses for tutorial.
THE ATTITUDE of Harvard House Masters toward House courses is cautious. Zeph Stewart, Master of Lowell House, said in an interview that House courses work fine "insofar as people want to give them." Lowell House, he stated, has had a committee like that proposed by CHUL since the beginning of special concentrations. He would like to encourage House courses as an option, but believes a departmental effort to concentrate sophomore tutorial in the Houses would be far more valuable.
William Liller '48, Master of Adams House, would like to see more House courses, which he finds to have been "enormously popular." Adams House, he said, has several proposals for a committee under consideration, but he is not certain yet how all groups, including non-resident senior faculty members, can be most effectively represented.
Freshman Dean F. Skiddy von Stade Jr. '38, Master of Mather House, has not instituted the CHUL proposal which he regards as an "imposition" on the departments and a duplication of effort with regard to Special Studies which have been "competently handled" up to now by the Senior Tutors. He describes his attitude as "wait and see", and believes more House courses will not be pulled together unless more money is found. Von Stade cited year-to-year changes in resident staff and the lack of compensation in money or time for senior faculty members as factors discouraging the expansion of House courses.
Kenneth Andrews, Master of Leverett House, says he is interested in House courses as long as the experience they provide does not compete with departments'. Leverett House does have a committee of senior professors to generate and screen ideas for House courses and independent work. The committee, according to Andrews, is also considering ways of meeting departmental objections as to the quality of House coursework.
SIMILARLY, Arthur Smithies, Master of Kirkland House, thinks House courses are a good idea as long as there is "some advantage gained by the courses being in the House." Smithies finds it conceivable that a course which begins as a tutor's experimental field can evolve into a departmental course.
Bruce Chalmers, Master of Winthrop House, believes House courses have channeled previously untapped talent and enthusiasm, expecially in interdisciplinary courses difficult to find outside the Houses. According to Chalmers, the concept of general education has become "amorphous." "Remnants of the assumption that undergraduates should master the methodology of several disciplines," he said, "are based on the assumption that all history majors will be historians." Chalmers stated in an interview that House courses could be "a very important component of a problem-solving approach to general education."
A discouraging aspect of the consideration being given to House courses is the small amount of student input to the discussion. None of several House committee chairmen interviewed had heard of the CHUL proposal. Even Winthrop House, which has had a faculty committee considering instruction in the House since before the CHUL proposal, involves no student advisory group at the moment.
Masters and department chairmen will reportedly be meeting in the next few weeks to determine the specific objections to House courses, whether they be objections to their structure or reservations on control of the courses.
Hopefully, consideration will also be given to the courses as they relate to a philosophy of the Houses. Would certain instructional arrangements increase the diversity among Houses? Are Houses devoted to particular academic areas advisable, or can flexibility be assured in allowing students to take courses at Houses other than their own in order to maintain a random distribution of students by concentration? What are the advantages of academic experiences in the Houses? How might House courses contribute to a more personalized education if, in fact, the Houses are striving for such an ideal?
Any arrangement on House courses adopted for next year will prove as arbitrary as the proposal on rent for tutors, unless House education is examined more as a philosophical than as an economic issue