Harvard students say that a plan that would restructure Nat Sci 36, "Biological Determinism," will emasculate the popular course. The plan would make Nat Sci 36 ineligible to fill General Education requirements.

A telephone survey of 60 randomly selected students taken yesterday by The Crimson shows that, although Nat Sci 36 bordered on being what Thomas McGinn '78 called "a free lunch," most students still feel that it is a worthwhile choice in its present form for non-science concentrators who need to take a Natural Science course.

The proposal, drafted by the Faculty Council on Wednesday, recommends to the full Faculty that, for the first time in Harvard's history, an entire Gen Ed course be changed from a letter-grade basis to an ungraded system of "satisfactory-unsatisfactory."

An ungraded system would not meet Gen Ed credit requirements as they now stand. Students polled said they feared removing a Gen Ed course as popular as Nat Sci 36 from credit eligibility might signify a future crackdown on other "guts" in the Gen Ed program.

Nearly all non-science concentrators surveyed who had taken Nat Sci 36, or were planning to do so before last week's meeting, said they would not enroll in the course under the proposed system. As a freshman who took Nat Sci 36 last semester said, "If I'm going to take a gut, I'm going to take it for Gen Ed credit."

Science concentrators tended to be less disturbed by the proposed system since their Nat Sci requirements are filled by courses taken in their concentration.

Neil Yanofsky '79 said Nat Sci 36 had a "lot of problems." "A very large percentage were taking it as a gut; 300 people were enrolled and no more than 100 would ever show up at the lectures," he said.

He said removing Gen Ed eligibility would "take away a lot of the incentive" for enrolling in the course.

Busting a Gut

Some of the Nat Sci 36 alumni said they were genuinely interested in the material and attended all the lectures and section meetings, but most said they were looking for an easy course when they enrolled and were not disappointed.

"When people signed up for the course and got in and never went, it was unfair to those who were really interested," Steven Adelsheim '79 said.

Students attribute poor attendance at lectures and section meetings to Nat Sci 36's single requirement of a research paper at the end of the term.

Personal interest in biological determinism was not enough to sustain active participation in Nat Sci 36, students said. Joanne Kenen '79 said her section thought bi-weekly papers could help the attendance problem.

A junior History concentrator said, "I do not agree with the present system which will give anyone who can write 20 pages of bullshit an 'A'."