This task force evidently also felt that many majors--particularly the large ones in the social sciences like Government or History--have no hierarchy or order to the learning they expect from concentrators. As Rosovsky said in his "yellow letter," there is no "self-evident pattern of sequence" in these areas.
This situation should be remedied, according to Martin, because the function of a major is to allow "students to reach to level of proficiency at which it is possible for them to put together and apply information in their department." Essentially, sources say, Martin's task force is concluding that things aren't in bad shape; there are trouble points, most of which, it would seem, the task force doesn't deal with too heavily, but the philosophy behind the idea of a Harvard concentration is valid.
It's unlikely the task force on core curriculum--undoubtedly the most controversial subject--will produce much more definitive results. It is in this area that Rosovsky's hand, exerted through the leadership of James Q. Wilson, Shattuck Professor of Government, will most likely be seen. Core curriculum--based, like the early Gen Ed, on the philosophy that there are certain basic courses everyone should take--inspires the most vehement Faculty reactions. Although Rosovsky now says he has not yet settled how he feels about a core curriculum, all the statements he has made to date about structuring curriculum indicate that "yellow letter II"--the report he will release next fall on the work of the task forces--will not outline a system of total electives, but will include some form of core.
Wilson speaks only in generalities about the work of his task force. "The one thing I find impossible to understand is how anyone could justify the status quo. At present we're in the vacuous middle between strict requirements and none at all. The most useful thing to come out of these discussions is a serious debate over requirements," Wilson says, partially echoing Rosovsky. Wilson also believes, along with Rosovsky, that "there are certain areas more deserving than others of study," and that students should be introduced to them. "All courses are important but certain skills, the ability to see things from different perspectives, are more important," he adds.
Wilson's task force favors requirements, sources say--not adding them to the already existing structure but making them tighter. He acknowledges that this issue will be the touchiest in the review, but he believes a strong case--based on the assumption that "people come here because college is taught by people who know what is intellectually important, not just intellectually different"--can be made supporting the task force's recommendations. "We simply want to make the expectations that the Faculty has of students more specific," he says.
In Wilson's mind, students can still make choices, but must remain within specific guidelines. Students, he feels, would seek a pre-professional education when they should be more expansive, more well-rounded. All this sounds, no doubt as it is supposed to, somewhat vague. But what this task force is heading towards is, according to Pipkin, "an elegant statement of some simple thing of where we all are going. But this is a difficult task in this day and age. Perhaps too difficult."
In fact the whole review may be too difficult an undertaking and may leave Harvard in the same quagmire that engulfed Yale and Princeton after their recent reviews of undergraduate education. Some changes no doubt will emerge, since the task force proposals will be put through in piecemeal Faculty legislation--the least likely route to success--along with administrative fiats and subtle persuasion. But then again, it all may end up being no more than a collection of elegant statements--like Dean Rosovsky's discussion of "re-establishing civilized discourse among educated men"--lost somewhere in the gray area between black and white.