THE LIST OF CORE COURSES came out last week with the expected fanfare. After all, it is the first Faculty review of undergraduate instruction in ten years. Sadly, only Dean Rosovsky's showmanship seems able to provoke consideration of the educational experience of the undergraduate. This should be an issue of more constant concern.

The Crimson originally opposed the Core and maintains that stand. The complicated five-part construction of the Core adds unnecessary restrictions to the already limited right of students to design their own plan of study.

Nevertheless, the Core forced the Faculty to review individual courses to be offered in the basic curriculum over the next several years. The Standing Committee on the Core has frequently rejected proposed courses, or asked the sponsoring professors to revise their proposals to fit the Core guidelines. Whether or not the courses fit the letter of the guidelines, students may benefit from the meticulous course-by-course review by the Core committee.

It is pointless to speculate on the merits of an untried list of courses; titles are unreliable indicators. However, if the Core prompts faculty members to consider the content and value of the courses they offer, it will be some improvement over the sham of the general Education program.