No one in University Hall seems to know what undergraduate education means any more. The tense polarization of the 60s left the University in a state of paralysis with faculty-student relations chilly, if not completely frozen, and somehow the purpose of undergraduate education got lost in the confusion and turbulence of the times, administrators say.

Perhaps hoping to turn the College's attention away from the harsh memories of the 60s and toward the future, Dean Rosovsky launched a reevaluation of undergraduate education in the spring of 1974, the first major review of undergraduate education at Harvard since the Redbook report of 1945.

At that time a 12-member committee detailed the failure of the College to provide a general education and offered a solution in the form of General Education courses whose structure remains basically unchanged today.

The so-called Yellow Book, Rosovsky's 22-page letter to the Faculty of October 1974, outlined his understanding of the issues peculiar to undergraduate education at Harvard.

Rosovsky described several undergraduate trouble areas: Just what the goal of undergraduate education is, what are to be the roles of General Education, counseling and advising, and whether there is a need to redirect all available resources. He suggested an investigation of the possibilities for a "wholly free elective system" and an evaluation of how Faculty resources freed by the shrinking size of the graduate school can be exploited for undergraduates.

Instead of delegating the responsibility for these investigations to a faculty committee, (as Yale and Princeton had done unsuccessfully several years earlier), Rosovsky chose a more informal approach. Seven task forces ranging in concern from "Pedagogical Improvement" to "Advising and Counseling," were selected last spring. Each is composed of half a dozen faculty members, two students and an administration staff assistant.

In choosing the members of the task forces, John B. Fox Jr. '59 says, an effort was made to assure that the "sum of each force" be "reasonably representative" of the different points of view of the Harvard community. University Hall may have to pay for such diversity: many of the groups may not reach unanimous conclusions.

One potentially disastrous outcome of the studies is that the seven forces could arrive at seven incongruent recommendations. Rosovsky has planned around such a failure, by coordinating checks and balances to make sure, as Fox says, that "we don't climb up the wrong trees together." Or, as Fox says, "The right hand has to know what the left hand is doing."

The task forces hope to report by the end of the academic year, although Rosovsky has set no deadline. The groups have all met at least once, but plan to begin periodical meetings this fall.

Only by considering the topics each task force will discuss can one appreciate the extent of the self-analysis the College will undergo.

Concentrations

"I see it as a thorough reevaluation--accepting no premises without thought," Ralph Gants '76, a student member of the concentrations task force, says. To date the group has considered three topics of discussion: a reevaluation of the restricted majors, to see if their elitist rationale can be defended; discussion of whether non-honors concentrations should be offered at all; and an analysis of the tutorial system. Paul C. Martin, professor of Physics and chairman of this task force, stresses that the group must first "grope with the logic of the existence of concentrations." One member can only remark--"Whether it's just fine-tuning the system or if radical change is coming remains to be seen."

Core Curriculum

Either great compromise or exceptional creativity will be necessary if this group is to arrive at a unanimous conclusion on the central issue: the need for a core curriculum, otherwise known as General Education and distribution requirements.

James Q. Wilson, Shattuck Professor of Government and chairman of the force, freely admits he has no idea if his group can "even come out on that." But he contents himself with the prospect of more specific recommendations--perhaps concerning the language requirement or the question of expository writing.