To the Editors of The Crimson:

Before anything more is said about the Core Curriculum, I think it is time to take into consideration just who among the student body is going to be affected, and how. It is my contention that more people would be adversely affected than would benefit from adoption of the plan, and further, that the loss would be more dearly felt than the gain.

Harvard students can each be placed on a continuum of academic orientation. At one end of this spectrum are those who are only interested in pursuing one region of study at this point in their academic career. At the other end are those who would prefer to dabble in a larger number of subjects, who are not really ready to commit themselves to any one area of study.

The stated aim of the Core Curriculum is to provide each Harvard undergraduate with a broad basis of knowledge upon which to build later in life. That is, to guarantee that we receive a "liberal arts education." It is argued that the present system of general education and distribution requirements can be abused, that it really does not provide the aforementioned guarantee. For example, a Biology major can fulfill his social sciences requirement by taking neurophysiology courses offered by the Psychology Department without really broadening his horizons beyond the landscape of biology at all.

In my estimation this is a viable criticism. But the question I ask is: how many Biology majors are doing this? How many people leave Harvard with the liberal, well-rounded education that the educators of this institution desire us to have? I believe that one of the reasons a large majority of us came here was to get a broad educational background. For this reason I believe that this same majority, under the present system, leaves Harvard with just that broad educational base it desires.

It is a certainty that the Core Curriculum would root out those people who abuse the present system. However, I am convinced that the loss in freedom under the Core Curriculum to the majority of students who use the present system properly would far outweigh the gain made for a few other students who would only begrudgingly accept it.

It should be added that Professor Bossert's alternate proposal of majors and minors would not only be more restrictive than the present system without balancing advantages, but is really an attack on the fundamental premises upon which is based the concept of liberal arts education. Professor Bossert's comments about the knowledge of the Harvard faculty is evidence enough of his desire for more concentration and less broadening of a student's educational experience. The faculty and CHUL should take this into consideration before accepting Bossert's alternative and thereby changing the focus of a Harvard education. --Mark Wells Woodruff '79